Election Court Clears Safata 2 MP of Bribery Allegations

By Lagi Keresoma/

Apia, SAMOA – 9 October 2026 – The bribery allegations against Safata 2 Member of Parliament, Tuia Paepae Pua Letoa have been dismissed by the Electoral Court.

Delivered by one of the two presiding judges, Justice Leitaualalesa Daryl Clarke the petition filed by Leleua Suataga Aso is dismissed and ordered the Petitioner to pay $2000 to the Respondent.

The bribery allegations
Tuia was accused of enticing voters for the Safata 2 by-election by distributing part of the $10 million compensation funds from New Zealand for the HMNZS Manawanui that sank off the Safata coast.

The Petitioner Leleua Suataga Aso claimed that the timing of the disbursement of the funds was illegal as it was close to the by-election and outside the election campaign period.

According to court records, $6m from the $10m compensation was distributed to Safata district with Safata 2 receiving $2,553,100.

Of that amount, everyone of the Safata 2 district including eligible voters, received $1100.

Was the money intended to influence voters
The Court says that although the Government did promote Tuia’s candidacy at a roadshow, “it does not determine whether the compensation payments were made on Tuia’s behalf, nor does their political support establish the purpose for which payments were made.”

The Chairman of the Marine Pollution Advisory Committee, that implemented Cabinets decision, testified that by June, several Government agencies were already working on the process to disburse the fund.

By then, Tuia had resigned from the Opposition Party, HRPP in May 2026.

In her final submission, counsel for Tuia, Muriel Lui accepted that the “decision to proceed with the distribution at that time demonstrated a reckless disregard for the fact that a by-election was underway.”

According to the court, the compensation process started before the by-election and the Treasury Department requirement contributed to the process.

“The MPACs response provides a reasonable explanation for the administrative processes that proceeded payments.”

The Court ruled that the evidence did not permit them to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the payments were made “for a prohibited electoral purpose or on behalf of the respondent.”

The court hence ruled that “the Petitioner has therefore failed to prove the allegation of bribery and the petition is dismissed.”