Ads by Google Ads by Google

Udate: Manu’a’s District No. 1 senator challenged in court

Seen here in a Samoa News file photo taken Manu'a Cession Day in 2015 are, Governor Lolo Matalasi Moliga accompanied by First Lady, Cynthia Malala Moliga, Polynesian Airlines CEO, Seiuli Alvin Tuala, Manu'a Senator Nuanuaolefeagaiga Saoluaga Nua and Deputy Secretary of Samoan Affairs, Tuiagamoa Tavai. [photo: JL]
Ta’u County Council claims they selected Vaitautolu not Nuanuaolefeagaiga
fili@samoanews.com

Three traditional leaders of Ta’u County in Manu’a have challenged the selection of Nuanuaolefeagaiga Saoluaga T. Nua to hold one of the two senatorial seats for Manu’a District No. 1, comprising Faleasao, Ta’u and Fitiuta counties.

The complaint by Ta’u chiefs Lefiti Atiulagi Pese, Maui Aloali’i and Tauese Va’aomala K. Sunia is for themselves and on behalf of the Ta’u County Council.

It was filed Dec. 30, 2016 in the Trial Division of the High Court. Also listed in the complaint, as “Party of Interest” in this case is Faleasao County chief Vaitautolu Liugalua. 

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney M. Talaimalo Uiagalelei, while the defendant, Nuanuaolefeagaiga’s legal counsel is Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde, who last week filed a response to the complaint. See tomorrow’s edition for details on the response.

COMPLAINT

Ta’u is composed of the two sub-villages of Luma and Si’ufaga, and each sub-village is left to manage and control its own affairs through its own established village council made up of chiefs, according to cultural history provided in the complaint, which also says that in matters affecting the whole of Ta’u, the two councils meet and discuss “whatever issues there may be as they have done since (time) immemorial.”

The two village councils comprise the Ta’u county council, for which Maui is the current county chief, according to court documents, which points out that Lefiti is a registered matai title from the Si’ufaga village council, which is also where the Nuanuaolefeagaiga’s chiefly title is from; while Tauese is the registered matai title from Luma village council.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Lefiti received a phone call from the defendant on Nov. 23 claiming that he (defendant) would like to convene a meeting of Si’ufaga chiefs. It claims the defendant didn’t tell Lefiti what issues were to be discussed at the meeting, and Lefiti agreed to attend and it was held at the defendant’s guesthouse at Si’ufaga.

At the meeting, the complaint alleges that the defendant announced he wanted to continue serving in the Senate for another four more years, but Lefiti countered that the senate term is four years not eight. And according “to tradition, Si’ufaga’s turn was done” and that Maui had called a meeting for Dec. 9 and 10 to select a senator, the complaint further alleges.

It alleges that the defendant disagreed with Lefiti’s position and before the meeting was over, the defendant’s phone rang and he announced that a chief from Luma had called saying that the Luma council was waiting for the Si’ufaga council to come over to select the next senator for Ta’u county.

It also says that the defendant asked Lefiti and other chiefs who were present to go with him to Luma, but “Lefiti refused, citing that the meeting is not in accordance with the law and Ta’u County protocol.”

Plaintiffs claim that the defendant and five chiefs of Luma met in Luma that same day and decided that Nuanuaolefeagaiga would be Ta’u County’s selection. Additionally, the Ta’u County Chief did not attend the Luma meeting, on Nov. 23, nor he certify it.

The following day, Thanksgiving Day, another meeting was held in Ta’u village, which was attended by “some chiefs” from Fitiuta, Ta’u and Faleasao counties. However, the plaintiffs allege that the meeting “was not noticed and many chiefs of Ta’u did not attend due to some being unaware [of the meeting], but mostly because they were attending Thanksgiving Day church service” during the same time as the meeting.

Plaintiffs further claim that the Thanksgiving Day meeting “was not and has not been certified by any of the county chiefs of the three counties”. The meeting was also not presided over by any of the county chiefs of the three counties.

According to the complaint, Maui and Tauese notified chiefs of the three counties residing on Tutuila as well as those living in Manu’a about the Senate selection process to be held Dec. 9 and 10.

The plaintiffs claim that on Dec. 9, the Si’ufaga Council unanimously agreed that since the defendant’s term was coming to an end, they would not nominate anyone for the seat. On the same day, the Luma Council selected “Chief Letalu as their nomination” to be presented at the meeting of Ta’u County.

The next day, Dec. 10, Luma and Si’ufaga, or “Le Faletolu”, met to formalize their selection for one of the two senatorial seats. Maui and most of the chiefs of Le Faletolu who resided in Manu’a and also from Tutuila attended the meeting.

The meeting concluded with Ta’u County selecting Letalu as Ta’u’s candidate, whose name was presented on Dec. 27 when chiefs of all three counties gathered at the Office of Samoan Affairs to formally select their two senators.

Faleasao County nominated Vaitautolu, Fitiuta nominated Galeai M. Tu’ufuli and Ta’u nominated Letalu.

According to the plaintiffs, the meeting concluded with the selection of Galeai and Vaitautolu and the results were certified by Maui, who presided over the meeting. Maui is the only serving county chief for all three counties.

Plaintiffs said the defendant had filed with Samoan Affairs a document believed to be a certification of his selection for one of the senatorial seats but they said the document was not signed or certified by any of the county chiefs of the three counties.

The complaint also included exhibit of the document the defendant filed with Samoan Affairs and the document is believed to have been signed by Misaalefua J. Hudson, the Manu’a District Governor at the time. (Misaalefua is currently a senator, representing Manu’a District No. 2 — comprising Ofu and Olosega counties.)

SELECTION PROCEDURE

According to the plaintiffs, there was no county council meeting properly called in which the defendant was selected as senator because the meeting in which the defendant claims to have been selected was not presided over by a county chief and was not certified by a county chief.

Additionally, the defendant’s claimed selection as senator “did not confirm to Constitutional and statutory requirements and therefore should be declared invalid.”

CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs argue that the defendant’s certification for senator was not done by a county chief, as required by the constitution. Instead the Manu’a District Governor, who has no authority to make such certification, signed the certification.

According to the complaint, the process by which Vaitautolu was selected conforms to Constitutional and statutory requirements; therefore Vaitautolu’s selection as senator “should be declared valid.”

Plaintiffs have asked the court to declare as “null and void and without authority of law” the selection of Nuanuaolefeagaiga as well as the certification of the defendant as senator signed by Misaalefua.

Plaintiffs also ask the court to declare that the procedure by which Vaitautolu was selected as senator and his certification “was in conformance with the Constitutional requirements.”

Mentioned briefly in the court documents is that Galea’i’s selection by Fitiuta county, District No. 1, was in accordance with protocol.

Samoa News understands that no hearing date have been set by the court on the plaintiffs’ complaint.