PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Supreme Court of Samoa
You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Samoa >> 2025 >> [2025] WSSC 107

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Meredith v Asafo [2025] WSSC 107 (21 November 2025)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Meredith v Asafo [2025] WSSC 107 (21 November 2025)


Case name:
Meredith v Asafo


Citation:


Decision date:
21 November 2025


Parties:
FUIMAONO MARIA TUATAGALOA MEREDITH (Petitioner) v FUIMAONO MAIAVA TITO ASAFO (Respondent)


Hearing date(s):
28th, 29th & 30th October 2025


File number(s):
2025-01237 SC/CV/UP
2025-01248 SC/CV/UP


Jurisdiction:
Supreme Court


Place of delivery:
Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu


Judge(s):
Senior Justice Vui Clarence Nelson
Justice Fepuleai Ameperosa Roma


On appeal from:


Order:


Representation:
L. Sio-Ofoia for the petitioner
F. Lagaaia and P. Chang for the respondent


Catchwords:
Election petition


Words and phrases:


Legislation cited:


Cases cited:


Summary of decision:

2025-01237 SC/CV/UP
2025-01248 SC/CV/UP


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU


IN THE MATTER:


of Election Petitions as per Part 14 of the Electoral Act 2019


BETWEEN:


FUIMAONO MARIA TUATAGALOA MEREDITH, candidate for the Constituency of Falealili 2


Petitioner


A N D:


FUIMAONO MAIAVA TITO ASAFO, elected Candidate for the Constituency of
Falealili 2


Respondent


Coram: Senior Justice Vui Clarence Nelson
Justice Fepuleai Ameperosa Roma


Counsel: L. Sio-Ofoia for the petitioner
F. Lagaaia and P. Chang for the respondent


Hearing: 28, 29 & 30 October 2025
Submissions: 03 November 2025
Decision: 21 November 2025


DECISION OF THE COURT
(Petition and Counter-petition)

The Petition

  1. The Petitioner and Respondent were candidates in the 2025 General Election held on 29 August 2025. The Respondent received 299 votes and the Petitioner 276 out of the 890 valid votes cast. The Respondent was duly declared elected. Quite clearly, the Petitioner polled more than 50% of the votes making her eligible to bring an election petition.
  2. The Petitioner has brought an Election Petition pursuant to Part 14 of the Electoral Act 2019 (“EA”) section 107 which relevantly provides:
  3. She alleges the Respondent engaged in corrupt practices in the week preceding the Election and pursuant to section 116 of the EA his election must be declared void. Section 116 says:
  4. The corrupt practices in question are two allegations of bribery, viz that:
  5. In support of the allegations, the Petitioner called three (3) witnesses: Tuputaafale Tautuli (“Tupu”) whom she says received the $30 bribe on Saturday 23 August 2025 at Sogi in Apia from the Respondents agent Fuimaono Faoliu; Tupu’s current partner Moana Falesui whom she argues corroborates Tupu’s evidence; and Soloau Uaita of Sapo’e, Falealili who received the $100 bribe direct from the Respondent at her home at Falealili on Wednesday 27 August 2025, two days before election day.
  6. We deal with each count in turn.

(a) Saturday 23 August 2025 - $30 bribe at Sogi in Apia.

  1. Tuputaafale Tautuli is a born and bred male of Siuniu, Falealili but since February this year, has been living with his partners family at Tafaigata. Previously, when travelling from Falealili to Apia he would use the Respondents bus driven by Fuimaono Faoliu (“Faoliu”) a man of their village. Sometimes when he did not have a ‘pasese’, he would IOU it from Faoliu. The money he owed Faoliu would be subsequently deducted from money paid by Faoliu to purchase fish from his brother Iakopo who is a fisherman and good friend of Faoliu. He denied Faoliu’s evidence that sometimes, villagers including Tupu would borrow money directly from him.
  2. On the Saturday in question, Tupu says he travelled in the early morning to Apia to check on a job application with a Chinese contractor constructing a seawall at Matautu. At the bus terminal, he spotted Faoliu’s bus. After the passengers disembarked, he went on board to kill time with Faoliu. He said during their conversation, Faoliu referred to the election and gave him $30 saying “tautuana le palota, tautuana Fuimaono Tito lea e alu i le palota”. He said he clearly understood it was a bribe: “e matuai manino ai lava le faatosina atu, o lau palota” (paragraph 20 of his affidavit dated 19 September 2025 produced as Exhibit “P-1” for the Petitioner). He denied Faoliu’s evidence that he told him he was feeling ill and needed to borrow money “e pasese ai i le falemai”. According to Tupu (page 14 of the transcript) – “Lau afioga na ou sau a i le taimi lena lae ou te malosi aua na ou moe lelei lava i le po”.
  3. The Petitioner also called Tupu’s current partner Moana Falesui of Tafaigata to support Tupu’s evidence. However instead of bolstering Tupu’s testimony, she contradicts many of the things he says. Thus for example in cross-examination (pages 50 and 51 of the transcript) she said that on the Saturday 23 August when he was allegedly bribed by Faoliu:
  4. A clear conflict with Tupu’s evidence but it accords with the evidence given by Faoliu who said in his affidavit dated 30 September 2025 (Exhibit “R-1” for Respondent) that on the day of the alleged bribe, which according to him was Friday 15 August 2025:
  5. Another example is Moana’s testimony about their initial visit to the lawyer’s office to prepare affidavits for the Petition. On this Tupu’s evidence in chief and on cross-examination was quite clear: on a day post-election, probably the 19 September 2025 the date of his original affidavit, the Petitioner came and picked up him and Moana from their house, proceeded to her house and then to the lawyer’s office – from the transcript page 20:
  6. In comparison Moana’s evidence in cross-examination was (transcript pages 43 and 44):
  7. Another clear conflict. When questioned on it, Moana modified her evidence slightly to align it better with Tupu’s testimony:

Analysis

  1. This is not very satisfactory evidence. The couple also differed on other details. The court must further take into consideration the following:
  2. It is settled law and accepted by both parties that the onus of proving allegations of ‘corrupt practice’ rests on the Petitioner. And that the standard required is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning that in respect of this allegation it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt:
  3. It is trite law that the burden of proof does not at any time shift to the Respondent. Indeed the Respondent is not obliged or required to call evidence. It remains on the Petitioner to make and prove every allegation and element of his/her case.
  4. The burden and standard of proof was explained thus in Posala v Su’a [2006] WSSC 29:
  5. The first element (i) above is not seriously contested by the Respondent. But Faoliu says the matter occurred on Friday 15 August 2025 as he normally does not work on Saturdays. He recalls this matter in particular because it occurred after his normal Friday routine of delivering school children to Poutasi before coming to Apia to deliver those travelling to the capital. Whatever the correct date, the critical factor is this occurred in the period immediately preceeding the General Election.
  6. Element (ii) is disputed but only to the extent of the amount: Tupu says it was $30, Faoliu says it was $20. But both agree money changed hands and that Tupu is a registered elector in Falealili 2.
  7. What is hotly contested are the remaining two elements: intention and agency. In respect of (iii) intent, the evidence of Tupu and Faoliu are vastly different. Tupu maintains it was an electoral bribe, Faoliu on the other hand says it was one of Tupu’s usual IOU’s, this being for a “pasese” to the Hospital as he was feeling ill.
  8. In this respect, the testimony of Tupu’s current partner Moana is of critical importance. She was the only other witness called by the Petitioner concerning this allegation. Her evidence contradicts that of Tupu in many areas as noted above and supports the version given by Faoliu the Respondents witness. We therefore much prefer the evidence of Faoliu to the conflicted couple. His testimony was clear, cogent and believable.
  9. From this perspective and considering the other factors referred to above, we are not persuaded the allegation of bribery of Tupu by Faoliu has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. We are also concerned about the quality and certainty beyond reasonable doubt of the evidence regarding agency on the part of Faoliu. But given our conclusion above, it is not necessary to take that inquiry further; although we thank counsels for their submissions in that regard.
  10. Allegation (a) of the Petition is dismissed.

(b) Wednesday 27 August 2025 - $100 bribe at Sapo’e, Falealili.

  1. In support of this allegation, the Petitioner called only one witness, Soloau Uaita the recipient of the alleged bribe. Soloau is a 61 year old resident of Sapo’e, Falealili. She has seven (7) mostly grown-up children including 30 year old Velonika and 29 year old Fanolua. Both were present when the alleged bribe was given but neither was called to corroborate Soloau’s evidence.
  2. Soloau’s testimony was that on pre-polling day Wednesday 27 August 2025, the Respondent and a group of three matais only one of whom she knew visited her at her home in Sapo’e. She initially said this occurred “o se taimi la ua tagi alisi i le afiafi pe o se mea o le 6:00pm” and that they came in a “piki-apu lanu mumu”: affidavit dated 19 September 2025 produced as Exhibit “P-5” for Petitioner. But subsequently changed this in her oral evidence to 4:00pm before her usual Methodist Church “lotu afiafi” at 5:30pm on Wednesdays. She explained this change was because of a reminder from her children. From page 68 of the transcript:
  3. When giving evidence, she also changed the “red pick-up” to a white van in cross-examination explaining on page 78 of the transcript:
  4. Soloau testified in evidence in chief that the Respondent explained this first time visit to her house was because “e toatele tagata palota o le matou fale, o la e nate iloaina e toatele lau fanau”. He told her “tautuana ia te au ma lou aiga le palota” and gave her $100 “e faatau ai se matou meaai o le afiafi”. But she believed this to be a “faatosina”: refer Exhibit “P-5” for the Petitioner. She did not say if she shared any of this money with her children.
  5. In cross-examination, another reason emerged for the visit by the Respondent to Soloau’s house. Soloau accepted that prior to the visit, she had asked Fesuiai Nato Letoga (“Nato”) the Sapo’e village representative on the District Fono Faavae and a relative of the Respondent, as to why the Respondent Member of Parliament never visited her house. From page 70 of the transcript:
  6. She also referred to a subsequent encounter with Gako/Nato where he informed her “aua ke popole e o’o aku lava le faipule”: page 70 of the transcript. Significantly, there was no mention of this in her evidence in chief which attempted to paint the picture that the visit to her house was unexpected and unsolicited. We also do not accept her explanation when questioned why she wanted the Respondent to visit that it was because “e fia mafuka i le alii faipule” whatever that means.
  7. In response, the Respondent called as witnesses:

Analysis

  1. The evidence adduced in support of this allegation is poor, weak and unsubstantiated. The primary and only witness for the Petitioner admitted to making major mistakes in her affidavit. We cannot possibly rely on the word of someone who does not know the difference between 4:00pm and the time “e kagi ai alisi”. Or makes a mistake as to the day of a weekly church event that she says she religiously attends. We were also not impressed by her candour and demeanour when testifying or by the failure to call her children who could have confirmed some of her evidence.
  2. On the other hand we have no reason to doubt the consistent testimony of the three matais who accompanied the Respondent to Soloau’s house. We are mindful that by her own admission, it was Soloau who requested the Respondent pay her a visit. Requests to repair access roads are commonly made by constituents in this country to their Member of Parliament.
  3. The charge is not proven to any degree, allegation (b) of the Petition must be dismissed.

Counter-petition

  1. Of the nine (9) counts in the Counter-petition, the Respondent proceeded with seven (7). These were:
  2. We will deal with them chronologically and according to the place where they occurred

09 June 2025 - $3,000 presentation to Salani village

  1. A number of witnesses were called to testify about a presentation on behalf of the Petitioner made on Monday 09 June 2025 at the normal “Aso Gafua” monthly meeting of the village of Salani in the Falealili 2 electoral constituency. The evidence was the Petitioner has never attended the monthly village meetings or made a presentation of this nature before. There was also other village business dealt with at the meeting including a presentation of money and foodstuffs by another prospective candidate in the pending General Election. The Petitioners wish to be a candidate was announced by the village resident matai of her family Fuimaono Kalama.
  2. The evidence establishes that despite the Petitioners expressed misgivings, her family collected and presented $3,000 on her behalf as a “mealofa” to the village when her candidacy was announced. This money was put together with the presentation by the other candidate and the total amount was then divided by the senior orator in accordance with normal village protocols (“tu ma aga masani o le afioaga”). In that regard the Petitioner as holder of the high ranking title ‘Fuimaono’ received $100 as did all the other alii of the village, the tulafales receiving $50 due to the large number present. The foodstuffs were likewise divided.

Analysis

  1. There is little dispute as to the facts and the circumstances surrounding the presentation of the $3,000. What is at issue is whether the money was given with the corrupt intent that it induce the electors of Salani to vote for the Petitioner.
  2. The Petitioner argues the village meeting was not specifically to discuss the Petitioner’s candidacy and that the presentation was not a bribe but in accordance with the tu and aga of Salani village. This is why the money and foodstuffs were distributed to all present, including the Petitioner. She says there was no corrupt intent behind the presentation, only a desire to comply with custom and tradition.
  3. The law in this area was recently restated in Tafili v Peto [2021] WSSC 30:
  4. We consider the following factors to be significant when assessing the issue of intent:

The two matters were inextricably and in our opinion quite deliberately linked together.

(e) We reject the suggestion that Samoan custom and tradition requires a presentation of money to the village or the itumalo when an electoral candidacy is announced. There is an obvious risk that if money accompanies the announcement of a candidacy, it can as is the case here be construed as an attempt to corruptly influence voters. Particularly so when an election is imminent. Candidates and their policies can be presented to a village absent any financial presentation and we know of no Samoan custom or tradition to the contrary. There may be an unjustifiable expectation of money or gifts on the part of the village. But this does not elevate it to the level of ‘tu ma aga fa’a-Samoa’; especially considering that Parliamentary elections are an introduced concept.
(f) The FAST Roadshow Cases following the 2021 General Election show how presentation of a candidate and their platform/manifesto can be a legitimate part of the electoral process and that monetary presentations at such events can only be customarily excused if it is in response to a “faaaloalo” from the village or itumalo. There is no evidence here that the $3,000 was in response to any such gesture on the part of the village.
  1. The Petitioner’s instincts were correct. A large monetary presentation should not have been made when she declared her candidacy to the village and to the electors of Falealili 2. However innocent her intent, as so eloquently stated by Bucknill, J above:
  2. We are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the $3,000 was given with an intention to induce voters to vote for her and further from their evidence, that Aigamaulupe Vine and Fuimaono Vo’a of Salani being registered electors of Falealili 2 were two recipients of $100 each from these monies. We find the first two counts of bribery in the Counter-petition proven beyond reasonable doubt.

06 August 2025 - $100 bribe at Utulaelae

  1. Despite there being many people at the gathering at Utulaelae when the $100 bribe was allegedly paid, the Respondent called only one witness, viz Utu Lemafa a registered voter of Falealili 2 who is said was given the bribe. But others were also according to Utu given bribes by members of the Petitioner’s Committee.
  2. Utu’s evidence is this meeting occurred the evening of Wednesday 06 August 2025 at the house of Fuimaono Uale also a member of the Petitioner’s Committee. The gathering had been organised by Fuimaono Te’o (“Te’o”) the Chairman of the Petitioners Election Committee and it was attended by more than ten (10) matais of the village.
  3. The relevant events are referred to in paragraphs 6 to 8 of Utu’s affidavit dated 22 September 2025 (Exhibit “R-9” for the Respondent):
  4. Those facts were not challenged by the Petitioner who called no witnesses in response. Her defence was this is the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice and therefore should not be relied upon by the court. We have no idea as to the relevance of the witnesses Lesina Talifeau and Paepaealofa Pulaa of Utulaelae referred to by Petitioner’s counsel in cross-examination as there is no evidence they were at this meeting. They are witnesses for a different allegation below.

Analysis

  1. We accept this is uncorroborated accomplice evidence. However as conceded by counsel in her written submissions, the court can act on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. As stated in Faitua v Vaelupe [2011] WSSC 50:
  2. Regard can also be had to section 118 of the EA which in giving the court a wide discretion provides:
  3. The only rider is that the evidence like all evidence must be sound and reliable. Given the absence of any contradictory evidence, and having seen and heard the witness testify, we have no reason to doubt the truthfulness or accuracy of his evidence.
  4. This count is proven to the required standard.

08 August 2025 – two $100 bribes at Lotofaga

  1. The evidence of Seine Leatigaga a registered voter of Lotofaga village is that she together with her husband were present at a gathering organised by telephone by the Petitioners agent Fuimaono Te’o in Lotofaga at the house of their neighbour Vaisola Luapua the evening of Friday 08 August 2025. The Petitioner was also present and this was the first time she has met her. From her affidavit dated 29 September 2025 (Exhibit “R-13” for the Respondent):
  2. Seine’s husband Galo Aliimalemanu also a registered voter of Falealili 2 gave supporting evidence in his affidavit dated 29 September 2025 (Exhibit “R-14” for the Respondent) as follows:

Analysis

  1. The Petitioner called no witnesses in reply but this evidence was challenged on the basis of –
  2. In relation to (a), there can be many explanations why Te’o would have their number. The couple also testified they knew Te’o from his candidacy in the 2021 General Election, they had supported and voted for him. As for (b), we would not expect an ordinary Samoan husband to have intimate knowledge of the whereabouts of his wife’s diary at any particular time. Gali’s testimony was no doubt based on what he knew. As to (c), considering all the circumstances and what was said, this was clearly not the real purpose of the money. Again refer the quote above from Bucknill, J.
  3. We are more than satisfied the allegation has been proved to the required standard. The evidence of this couple fares much better than that of the pair referred to at the beginning of this judgment.

15 August 2025 – $50 bribe at Salani

  1. To prove this allegation, the Respondent called only the recipient of the alleged bribe, Leatigaga Agatupu. He is a registered voter of Falealili 2 and said he was one of a crew of carpenters enjoying after work Taula beers behind the house of his brother-in-law at Salani on Friday 15 August 2025 when Fuimaono Te’o visited around 9:00pm, sat down beside him and surreptitiously put $50 into his hand. He says in his affidavit dated 29 September 2025 (Exhibit “R-15” for the Respondent):
  2. We find the evidence of this witness a little puzzling. His testimony was he was one of a group of eight Salani workers sitting around socialising over beer. There is no reason apparent from the evidence why Te’o would single him out to bribe. Especially if he supports another candidate, a fact probably known to Te’o the veteran politician. We also do not think Te’o would “bribe” one witness in the company of other “unbribed” voters.
  3. We were also not impressed by his demeanour when giving evidence. Several times he had to be told to articulate clearly his answers and to speak up. He gave the impression of being a reluctant witness.
  4. We are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the veracity of the witnesses evidence, this allegation is not proven and should be dismissed.

28 August 2025 – $100 bribe at Siuniu

  1. The happy evidence of 74-year-old Lesina Talifeau a registered elector of Utulaelae village was that on Thursday 28 August 2025, members of the Petitioner’s Committee uplifted her from her house and took her to the house of Fuimaono Te’o at Siuniu. Where the following transpired (affidavit dated 22 September 2025 produced as Exhibit “R-11” for the Respondent):
  2. She said she knows Te’o from the village meeting where he introduced the Petitioner to the village as a candidate. She knew the money was a bribe but “ua ou faafetai i le Atua ua maua lau tupe i lea aso” (transcript page 192).
  3. Lesina’s evidence was confirmed by her daughter Paepaealofa Pulaa who says in her affidavit dated 22 September 2025 (Exhibit “R-10” for the Respondent):
  4. Again no evidence in response was adduced by the Petitioner other than cross-examination of the witnesses. That provided no reason for us to doubt the truth of the evidence, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt about the allegation of bribery of Lesina a registered elector via the Petitioner’s agent.
  5. We note that in this respect as well as in regard to all the other Counter-petition allegations, there was no real challenge that Fuimaono Te’o had acted at all material times for and on behalf of the Petitioner. Undoubtedly being the Chairman of the Petitioner’s election Committee easily satisfies the legal requirements of agency. There was also substantial evidence of his active role in electioneering for the Petitioner. As noted by my brother Vaai, J in Olaf & Others v. Chan Chui [2001 WSSC 18:
  6. This was further clarified in Kasimani v Seuala [2011] WSSC 87:

Result

For the reasons herein given:

  1. The two allegations of bribery by the Respondent in the Petition have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the Petition is dismissed. The Respondent therefore remains the duly elected representative of the Falealili 2 electoral constituency.
  2. As for the nine (9) allegations of bribery by the Petitioner in the Counter-petition:
  3. The Petition having failed, the Petitioner’s deposit to be forfeited as court costs. As costs normally follow the event, the Respondents deposit for the Counter-petition to be refunded and Petitioner to pay a further $3,000 contribution towards the Respondents costs in this matter.

SENIOR JUSTICE VUI CLARENCE NELSON
JUSTICE FEPULEAI AMEPEROSA ROMA


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ws/cases/WSSC/2025/107.html