Three traditional leaders of Ta’u County in Manu’a, who challenged the selection of Nuanuaolefeagaiga Saoluaga T. Nua to hold one of the two senatorial seats for the Manu’a District No. 1, have asked the court to reconsider its decision in dismissing the complaint.

Plaintiffs — Lefiti Atiulagi Pese, Maui Aloali’i and Tauese Va’aomala K. Sunia, for themselves and on behalf of the Ta’u County Council — also requested a new trial.

Manu’a District No. 1 comprises Ta’u, Fitiuta and Faleasao counties with 2 senatorial seats, while Manu’a District No. 2 comprises Ofu and Olosega counties and has one senatorial seat.

In their complaint, plaintiffs dispute the manner in which Nuanuaolefeagaiga was selected. Plaintiffs had argued the defendant’s selection did not comply with requirement of the law.

The Trial Division of the High Court issued a decision on Mar. 31st, which the plaintiffs say did not reach the facts of the case, but granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring this cause of action. (See Samoa News edition Apr. 6th on court’s decision dismissing plaintiffs’ challenge.)

In its decision, the court found that plaintiffs lacked standing both as private citizens and as representatives of the Ta’u County Council. And as private citizens, the court said that plaintiffs failed to state any harm or particularized injury to them, according to the plaintiffs.

And as representatives of the Ta’u Village Council, the court determined that Ta’u County alone could not assert standing because the senatorial elections were something particular to all three counties — Ta’u, Faleasao and Fitiuta. 

However, plaintiffs disagree with the court, and say that as private citizens and matai, plaintiffs represent the interest of their families and villages.

“Unlike a voter for the positions of governor or a member of the [local] House, who vote based on their independent and individual interest,” the motion states, “plaintiffs as senator electors represent the individual members of their Samoan communal families when casting their votes.”

Plaintiffs believe that “this elevates the position of the matai to a higher standing than that of the average voter.”

Plaintiffs also argue that the injury to them as matai and the injury to them as members of the Ta’u County Council are actually tied together.

Plaintiffs said the court has already denied the defendant’s contention that the court lacks jurisdiction because the subject matter is within the authority of the Senate. “In doing so, the court has acknowledge that the question for its consideration is one of process, not qualification,” the plaintiffs argue.

The plaintiffs explain that the five counties (Ta’u, Fitiuta, Faleasao, Ofu and Olosega) of Manu’a are relegated to sharing their senatorial seats. For example, the counties of Ofu and Olosega “must deliberate on who will occupy their single seat.”

Additionally, the three counties of Fitiuta, Faleasao and Ta’u select their two members to the Senate. However, the Constitution does not require the three counties to be one united body.

“The facts support that when the three counties come together, each of them is given the chance to speak and maker their nominations,” the motion states, adding that the circumstances on Manu’a are different from Tutuila because when chiefs on Tutuila meet to select their senators, they are a collection of villages which are aligned together as one county with one head and one traditional order.

(For example, Tualatai County, a collection of four villages, recognizes Paramount Chief Satele as their “fa’asuaga” or titular head, according to a footnote in the motion.)

“However, when the chiefs of Manu’a meet for the same purpose, they are a collection of counties, each with their own traditional structure and allegiances,” the plaintiffs argue. “To simply expect one county to follow or join the other is unreasonable and un-Samoan.”

According to the plaintiffs, the evidence clearly shows that Fitiuta, Faleasao and Ta’u are independent and distinct counties. And each county has its own appointed orators and leading matai.

“The acceptance of defendant as one of the senators means that the Ta’u council was not part of the election process,” the plaintiffs say, and noted that the defendant was selected during a November 2016 meeting and this demonstrated that plaintiffs were excluded from that meeting.

“Plaintiffs have demonstrated at trial that there is an injury in fact that they have suffered,” the motion states. And as plaintiffs have alleged and have proven during trial, that injury resulted from the process that was utilized for election, and the court, as it has done in the past, can grant the relief that plaintiffs pray for.

Attorney M. Talaimalo Uiagalelei represents plaintiffs, while attorney Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde represents defendant. A hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion is set for later this month.