[ad_1]
Author: Raj Keresoma
APIA, APIA – 24 June 2024 – Today, during cross-examination of former Attorney General Savalenoa Mareva Betham-Annandale, Presiding Judge Rhys Harrison pointed to the Supreme Court’s judgment of March 23, 2022 in the case of FAST v Tuilaepa and others.
He noted that the Supreme Court’s contempt judgement referred to “some seriously scandalous behaviour” by former Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi.
“Do you agree with the verdict?” asked Judge Harrison.
Savalenoa said she would accept the verdict.
Justice Harrison mentioned that Tuilaepa’s comments against the judiciary were “disgraceful” according to the judgment and he was found in contempt of court.
He also referred to Savalenoa’s testimony, saying she did not issue press releases or speak out against Tuilaepa or the public about the judiciary.
Savalenoa acknowledged that her duty as attorney general is to protect the judiciary. But she remained silent on the comments.
Judge Harrison asked: “If you don’t speak out publicly to protect the judiciary, who will?”
“The Bar Association decided to do this given the situation I was in,” she said.
The situation she referred to was that the legal challenge filed against her by the FAST government was already in court, hence her silence and inaction on certain issues.
The difference between distortion and inaccuracy
This was the first of two days of hearings at the Supreme Court in a $650,000 lawsuit filed by Savalenoa against Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Matafa for firing her in September 2022.
Lawyers Taulapapa Brenda Heather-Latu and Rodney Keith represented Fiame at the trial.
Taulapapa harshly criticised some of the reasons given for Savalenoa’s dismissal, such as disrespect for the judiciary.
First, the accusation in her letter to Fiame was “Judicial corruption”. When asked to translate “Pio Pio she says:”“Pio Pio” It means “not correct”.
However, Taulapapa points out that the word is translated differently Piopio It means “unjust”, and Savalenoa actually means “the court’s decision is unjust”.
Taulapapa also pointed out another allegation that “Let’s see where the court goes.”
Savalenoa said her comments were general and not directed at anyone.
Why didn’t she respond to the Prime Minister’s instructions?
Savaleanoa was asked why she never responded to the Prime Minister’s directives regarding issues raised by Fiame.
At the time, HRPP leaders and others openly criticized and accused the judiciary of bias and collusion with the newly formed FAST government.
“I wrote to her (the prime minister) asking for a meeting to discuss the issues she raised,” said Savalenoa.
“She didn’t ask for a meeting, she asked for a response from you,” Taurapapa said.
Some of the issues raised by Fiame in the letter included three statements by the head of state, the possibility of revoking the results of the general election and the open attacks on the judiciary by members of the Human Rights and Progressive Party.
Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Matafa leaves the courtroom after giving evidence.
Fiame testified in court
Fiame took the stand to explain that as the head of government and the minister in charge of the Attorney General’s Office, she wanted to know what steps the Attorney General had taken or would take in response to the current issues.
She also wondered whether Savalenoa could work with the new government or be trusted. However, her silence and inaction on issues of concern led to her suspension and subsequent dismissal in September 2021.
Savalenoa’s lawyer, the King’s Legal Counsel Dr Rodney Harrison, suggested it would be too late for the head of state and Tuilaepa, who was then the caretaker prime minister, to seek advice from the Attorney General if they decided to annul the election results.
Fiame responded that the Attorney General had been particularly silent on the issue.
Taurapapa asked Savalenoa why it was necessary to check what Fiam instructed her to do since Fiam was her minister.
Savalenoa said the process was for inspection purposes.
Dr Harrison identified three assumptions in Fiam’s letter which, if incorrect, could not be used against her.
“Who decides these things? The court?” asked Fiame.
The Attorney General is the Legal Adviser
Another matter that lawyers spent their time on was several statements by the Head of State, including the announcement that Parliament would not meet on May 24, 2021.
The statement was the focus of a chamber hearing on Sunday, May 23, at 9 a.m.
The court noted today that Savalenoa “walked out” of the hearing, an act that was “disrespectful” to the court.
Savalenoa, however, said she was unaware of the court proceedings that morning but attended the court session so she could understand what was happening.
She also clarified that she was not “walking out” but leaving after “asking for permission from the court.”
Fiame testified that Savalenoa should have acted appropriately as attorney general, rather than doing what she was told, and that even the government did not know whether Savalenoa had advised on the statements or if she was aware of them.
Fiame said that in any case, as attorney general, her job is to provide advice, not to do what she is told, especially at such a critical and uncertain time.
“I do question the legality of these actions and of course we will go to court,” Fiame said.
Undoing the election results won’t be easy
Dr. Harrison went on to explain to Fiame about the announcement regarding the convening of Parliament and the court’s decision of May 23, 2021.
He pointed out that Fiam’s assumptions about whether advice was given were baseless.
“Agreeing to annul the national election results and preventing parliament from sitting following the court ruling is no small matter,” Fiame said.
Fiame thought Savalenoa would respond, but he never did, claiming her “advice was confidential.”
6 reasons for emergency dismissal
In her dismissal letter to Savalenoa, Fiame listed six grounds on which her decision was based, including disrespect for the judiciary and the recusation of judges, lack of trust and inaction on statements and comments made by the HOS, and the initiation of Article 44 (1a) regarding the 10% representation of women in Parliament.
Dr. Harrison asked Fiame in detail why Savalenoa was urgently dismissed, and Fiame explained the reasons for the dismissal to his lawyer in a letter.
“Yes, but why the urgency of sending her away?” Dr. Harrison asked.
Savalenoa was immediately fired after being suspended in September 2021.
Fiame said one of the reasons was that Savalenoa represented the election commissioner in court.
Earlier, when Taulapapa cross-examined Savalenoa, she claimed that the power to trigger Section 44(1A) lay with the Electoral Commissioner and that she only learned about it after it was triggered.
She did not give any advice on activating the function as the power lies with the election commissioner.
The point Fiame wanted to highlight was that the country was in the midst of an unresolved government crisis but the electoral commissioner had changed his stance on the number of women under the 10% quota.
Dr Harrison said the Attorney General’s Office represented the government as a client and therefore it was appropriate that the Electoral Commissioner, a government entity, was represented by the Attorney General.
He then asked Fiamé if she had written to the acting attorney general regarding the issues she had raised with Savalenoa, to which Fiamé replied “no”.
She believes the attorney general is aware of the issues.
When asked why she had not raised the matter with the newly appointed Attorney General, Fiame said the matter was before the courts.
The case is ongoing.
[ad_2]
Source link
