The Trial Division of the High Court has denied a motion for reconsideration and a new trial sought by 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 Manu’a District No. 1.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs — Lefiti Atiulagi Pese, Maui Aloali’i and Tauese Va’aomala K. Sunia, for themselves and on behalf of the Ta’u County Council — disputed the manner in which Nuanuaolefeagaiga was selected. Plaintiffs had argued the defendant’s selection did not comply with requirements of the law.

However, the court issued a decision on Mar. 31, 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.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision and a new trial, arguing among other things that they have standing. They also argued that as private citizens and matai, plaintiffs represent the interest of their families and villages.

In his motion to deny plaintiffs request, Nuanuaolefeagaiga argued that the court didn’t error in its Mar. 31 decision. Furthermore, the plaintiffs’ motion as well as memorandum in support of the request cites “no newly discovered evidence, no clear error or manifest injustice in the [court’s] decision, and no intervening change in controlling law.” See Samoa News edition May 11 and May 12 for details on arguments from both plaintiffs and defendant.

On June 1 the court issued a nine-page order denying plaintiffs motion for reconsideration and new trial. The court first explained that reconsideration is appropriate if the trial court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or if there is an intervening change in controlling law.

The order was signed by Acting Associate Justice Elvis Pila Patea, and associate judges Satele Lili’o Ali’itai and Muasau T. Tofili.

According to the judges, plaintiffs presented “no evidence” to support reconsideration, “much less new evidence that would require a change” to the court’s Mar. 31 ruling. Furthermore, they “conceded there has been no intervening change in controlling law.”

Thus, plaintiffs’ motion is based on the premise that the court committed clear error in finding they suffered no injury and thus lack standing, the judges points out.

The court then addressed the “injury to plaintiffs” issue, saying that the majority of plaintiffs’ written and oral arguments for reconsideration focus on how the process for election of senators in Manu’a District is different from the majority of the territory.

 The judges note that the court recognizes that the Ta’u County Council is one of the three county councils charged with electing the senators in question, but “plaintiffs still do not address the reason for which the court found that plaintiffs lacked standing - namely that they suffered no injury.”

“Plaintiffs did not articulate how they were harmed during the distinct election process” as they described in court documents and “offered no evidence of such harm” during the hearing on these motions, the judge points out.

Furthermore, the court is convinced that it did not err in finding that plaintiffs have shown no injury and thus lack standing. “Plaintiffs have shown no injury and thus lack standing,” the judges said. 

The plaintiffs’ complaint claimed that the election was void because it did not follow Ta’u County and Tri County - the County Councils of Ta’u, Faleasa’o and Fitiuta - customs and thus didn’t comply with constitutional requirements.

However, the judges say the territory’s Revised Constitution “does not require that a senatorial election follow county customs, but that if follow Samoan custom as it existed when the Constitution was adopted.”

In the context of the Constitution, the judges explained that “Samoan custom” means “deliberation, persuasion and consensus”.

The plaintiffs had argued that they have standing as individuals because as matai and members of the Ta’u County Council, they represent the families and individuals of that county. This, they argue, it elevates them above the standing of a normal voter, according to the judges.

“Simply put, plaintiffs claim standing based on their status as citizens of Ta’u County,” the judges observed; however, not only did not plaintiffs provide any support for such argument, “but the argument does not address the standing issue because plaintiffs did not articulate any injury that the families and individual members of Ta’u County suffered.”

Although the court need not go any further after finding that plaintiffs failed to show that they suffered injury as individuals, and therefore have not shown that the court erred, “we are concerned with plaintiffs’ attempt in this case to inject the statutorily-recognized status of voters in Western-styled popular elections into an election process that the framers of our Constitution mandated ‘shall be...in accordance with Samoan custom’,” the judges said.

“In the context of the Senate elections, our Constitution does not contemplate individuals or families to elect a senator,” the judges wrote, adding that the Revised Constitution “specifically requires the ‘county councils of the counties’ to elect their senators.”

“We therefore reject any notion that our Constitution allows individuals or families of a county to be electors in the election of a senator,” the judges said.

TA’U COUNTY COUNCIL

According to the judges, plaintiffs’ had argued that “their fraction of” the Ta’u County Council was excluded from the November 2016 meetings at which Nuanuaolefeagaiga was elected to the Senate.

However, the judges disagreed saying that evidence previously presented at a hearing and trial “leaves us with no doubt that Ta’u County Council was not excluded from any meetings.”

For example, plaintiffs themselves testified that they were notified of the November meetings but Lefiti and two others chose not to attend because they were already made aware of the December meetings.

They also testify that other members of the Ta’u County Council did attend and participate in the November meetings. Therefore, the judges said, the Ta’u County Council was represented in all meetings to elect the senators for Manu’a District No. 1.

The judges also say that a Council member cannot be allowed to hinder the election process by voluntarily absenting himself from the election meetings and then claim to have been excluded.

“The Ta’u County Council was not excluded from the election process and therefore has no claim to have been injured,” according to the judges, who also said in a footnote that the court did not find the Ta’u County Council would never have standing to challenge an election process

“To be clear, our finding is specific to the facts presented in this case - that the Ta’u County Council had suffered no injury and therefore lack standing,” according to the footnote.

“Accordingly, plaintiffs have failed to show they have suffered harm in the challenged election process,” said the judges, who ordered that the motion for new reconsideration and new trial is denied.

Local attorney Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde represented Nuanuaolefeagaiga, while attorney M. Talaimalo Uiagalelei represented plaintiffs.