Chief Election officer Tuaolo Manaia Fruean has denied the challenge launched by Tualauta candidate Lucia Bartley against Representative Vui Florence Saulo. Bartley and local resident Esther Fiatoa are challenging the authenticity of “Vui Florence Tuaumu Saulo’s birth certificate”, however Tuaolo has concluded that Vui satisfies the US national requirement, in accordance with Article II Section 3, and denied the challenge.

“If an appeal of my decision is not filed with the High Court in accordance with ASCA 6.0303, Vui’s name shall appear on the ballot as a candidate for the office of representative in the upcoming 2014 general election.

Bartley told Samoa News yesterday morning that they will appeal Tuaolo’s decision concerning their challenge of the authenticity of Vui’s birth certificate with the High Court.

PETITION

Last Friday, Lucia Bartley and Esther Fiatoa filed a petition with the Election office pointing out that the Appellate court did not rule on their challenge filed in December 2012, citing it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the petition.

(Samoa News should point out that the copy of the petition which Bartley provided to Samoa News shows an unsigned document, and efforts to get a signed copy were unsuccessful.)

The unsigned copy indicates that the two women asked the Chief Election Officer for his honest and thorough review of the required documents from candidates. “During the vetting process as you scrutinize birth certificates, please pay close attention, ensuring you are looking at either an ‘original copy’ or one that is stamped ‘certified to be true copy’."

“Any other copy including an affidavit — presumably not authorized by statute — ought to be rejected,” said Bartley and Fiatoa, pointing out to the Chief Election Officer that he can use various methods in his investigation to get to the bottom of this and find out the indisputable truth on the validity of the birth certificate of Saulo.

They state that “government Archives Office and Public Health Department keep extensive, accurate records and provide a wealth of information to assist in verifying birthdays. Vital Statistics copy is questionable (because it can be altered) whereas micro-film copy from Archive Office is permanent.”

“Those places (among others) have been instrumental in our research on this matter, and sources of great value and relevant information,” they told Tuaolo. 

The women allege that they have information “from a most credible of sources (MCOS) on established rules and procedures that are used by the Office of Public Health in the case of a baby born NOT in the hospital (such as it was with Saulo).

They also note that they would gladly sit down with Tuaolo at his office to go over their findings.

VUI’S RESPONSE STATEMENT

In response to the petition, and its denial by Tualolo, Vui issued a statement on Monday late afternoon, pointing out that over the past two years, she’s had the honor and opportunity of being one of Tualauta’s two representatives in the Legislature of American Samoa, House of Representatives. “And for the past two years I have worked diligently to represent your interests, no matter what the circumstance.”

She notes that this year’s election season has brought with it new challenges, and it has also brought more of the same. 

Vui in her statement says that “two years ago, my campaign for this seat became the target of false accusations and outright lies perpetrated by two individuals who were fellow contestants in the Tualauta race.

“Their tactics at trying to win this seat was a smear campaign aimed at me personally, specifically challenging my eligibility based on my nationality. Rather than running a clean campaign by concentrating on their virtues and qualifications that would entitle them to the job, they focused on my citizenship, claiming that I was not an American Samoan. Without proof or evidence of any kind to support their allegations, they set out to do damage.”

In addition, she says that two years ago, their (Bartley and Fiatoa’s) challenge was denied by the Chief Election Officer. Their attempt at a legal suit in court died a sudden death when it was summarily dismissed by the Appellate Division. “While their accusations managed to launch an investigation by the Speaker of the House, it eventually turned up nothing as I was able to serve out my first full term in office.

“Yet two years later, they persist and are at it again,” Vui stated. “If I did not know then, I certainly know now that this attack carries with it a personal grudge. This attack not only aims to disqualify me, it also goes to ridicule and mock my heritage and my family.”

The Tualauta faipule said in her statement, “It is one thing to challenge something based on sound grounds and good reason. It is quite another to recklessly fling accusations time and time again, despite those accusations having been rejected and unproven the first time they were made.

“This so-called ‘challenge’ is nothing more than harassment,” she categorically stated.

Vui urged patience to her constituents and said, “Do not let the ramblings of two disgruntled candidates sway your attention from the fact that I am here to serve you. I have served you with all that I have for the past two years, and I will continue to serve you for the next two, if you let me…”

As for Esther and Lucia’s challenge, Vui says she will respond accordingly.

“The Chief Election Officer has again denied their challenge as of September 5, 2014, but I am sure they will continue to harass and accuse me as they did two years ago. The law provides a remedy to those who have been injured by such malicious acts so I will seek my relief in the High Court. I had thought in the past that they would learn from their mistakes and all of this would be just water under the bridge. Now I must do what I need to do.”

BACKGROUND

The statute referenced by the Chief Election Officer is as follows: ASCA 6.0303 Appeal to the High Court. (a) The challenger or the challenged may, not later 4:30 p.m. on the 5th day after the decision of the Chief Election Officer, appeal directly to the Appellate Division of the High Court in the manner provided by law for civil appeals to the High Court. (b) When the appeal is perfected, the High Court shall hear the matter as soon thereafter as may be reasonable. The determination by the court is final.

Samoa News also notes that the US national requirement pointed to by Tuaolo, Article II, Section 3 of the Revised Constitution of American Samoa, states that “A Representative shall;

▪       be a United States National;

▪        

▪       be at least 25 years of age at the time of his election; and

▪        

▪       have lived in American Samoa for a total of at least 5 years and have been a bona fide resident of the representative district from which he is elected for at least 1 year next pre­ceding his election.

▪        

A delegate from Swains Island shall have the qualifications of a Representative except that in lieu of residence in a representative district, he shall have been a bona fide resident of Swains Island for at least one year next preceding his election.

Samoa News should point out that what constitutes proof of US National status is not identified in the statute.