Respondent in Safata 2 petition challenges admissibility of hearsay evidence

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, SAMOA – 12 August 2026: Muriel Lui, counsel for Safata 2 Member of Parliament, Tuia Paepae Pua Letoa is challenging the evidence provided by the Petitioner Leleua Suataga Aso as hearsay evidence.

Leleua has filed an election petition against Tuia alleging the distribution of compensation money for the Manawanui sinking was bribery as it was disbursed close to last month’s by-election where Tuia was elected.

In the outset of her submission, Lui confirmed that there is no counter petition and was not looking at striking out the whole petition, but only part of the affidavit of some of the witnesses’ counsel pointed out as hearsay and opinions.

Justice Leutele Mata Tuatagaloa said that if she was not asking to strike out the whole petition, she agrees that there is a cause of action disclosed by the Petitioner.

“Yes,” said Lui.

She cited four affidavits as hearsay which included part of Tologata Sioeli and Lima Vaepule of the Office of the Electoral Commission (OEC) affidavits that should be struck out.

She also identified an editorial in the Samoa Observer based on media articles and conversations relating to the disbursement of the compensation from the New Zealand Manawanui sinking.

She believes the Petitioner seems to rely on the editorial indicating the disbursement of the money was to entice voters.

The Petitioner, Leleua Suataga Aso and Respondent Tuia Paepae Pua Letoa.

Justice Tuatagaloa asked whether it would still be an opinion when after the by-election, and declared the money was disbursed.

Lui responded that the opinion was done before the money was disbursed.

“So it is not a statement of fact but an opinion and the whole editorial was an opinion,” she said.

Justice Tuatagaloa then noted that the disbursement of the funds were done after the announcement was made to which Lui said yes.

Lui also pointed out that the person or people who wrote the editorial are not identified and is not certain who they are.

She then cited several provisions from the Electoral Act where it states that opinion evidence cannot be admissible unless it is an expert opinion.

She also referred to evidence by Lima who is noted in the Petitioners submission as “sooupu o le ofisa” as not an expert opinion.

She said the court should consider the value of Lima’s evidence as he is not an expert that the court should rely on.

Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke pointed out whether Lima’s statement has value if he was speaking for the office.

Lui countered that, that remains to be proven especially when there is no opportunity to question Lima in court.

She referred to Lima’s interview on a TV1 program as him expressing his opinion that the money should not have been disbursed.

Justice Tutagaloa asked if Lima should be called and Lui agreed.

Justice Tuatagaloa asked whether the Respondent is asking for a strike out of Lima’s evidence because it is not from a record and does not carry much weight to the case.

“That’s not what I’m saying…. it just meant to be prejudicial,” said Lui.

(Note: Prejudicial means to cause harm or damage)

Justice Tuatagaloa suggested that such matter can be remedied by calling the witness.

Petitioner counsel responds
Counsel for the Petitioner, Magele Leone Su’a pointed out that that the Respondent is not disputing the whole petition hence the reason why she provides all affidavits presented.

She pointed out that the Respondent relies on matters of admissibility, and she said the court should exercise fairness and do the same for the Respondents evidence provided by Tuia and the chairman of the Safata 2 district council.

She also pointed out that the Respondent is not questioning the authenticity of the actual evidence in the Samoa Observer and TV1 and that the strike out action is only because there is a cause of action.

She also pointed out that the admissibility of evidence is for the trial and it would be premature for the Court to hear evidence.

Justice Clarke asked about the bribery allegation caused by the compensation money for the Manawanui sinking and asked counsel to assist the court on how to determine money given to 6 individuals as bribery.

Magele said it is relevant in terms of factual background because Tuia and the chairman “plays a dominant and influential position for advancing this.”

She also clarified that the affidavits evidence were not presented as expert opinion but context and background.

The matter is adjourned to next week.