Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

Lameko v Onesemo [2025] WSSC 115 (5 December 2025)

IN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SAMOA
Lameko v Onesemo & Ors [2025] WSSC 115 (5 December 2025)

THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

IN THE MATTER:

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

BETWEEN:

TUILOMA TUSA LANISELOTA LAMEKO

Petitioner

AND:

TOELUPE POUMULINUKU ONESEMO

Respondent

AND:

HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION PARTY (HRPP)

Intervener

AND:

TUILOMA FAAOLATAGA SOOLEFAI, TALOOLEMAAGAO TAFAOIMALO MISIPATI FAATUUALA, PEILUA SAMASONI, NAI TULIPE, TALOMAFUALAU TAEMANU TAVA’E KERISIPI TUISAMOA, LUPEOMANU MOTOOTUA, MAUMOLIPO TAFITI and ALAIMOANA ESAU

Intended Second Intervener

Counsel: A. Su’a for the Petitioner
M. Lui & P. Chang for the Counter-Petitioner
M. Lemisio & F. Ainuu for the Intervener
A. Lesa & Q. Sauaga & P. Fesili for Namulauulu Leota
S. Ponifasio for Intended Second Intervener

Date: 5 December 2025

REASONS FOR RULINGS
(Intervener Applications by the Human Rights Protection Party and Senior Matai of Alii and Faipule of Falealili 1 Constituency)

A. Background

1. By Motion dated 27 October 2025, the petitioner and respondent applied for leave to withdraw the petition and counter-petition. The grounds for their joint application were that the withdrawal reflects the wishes of the Constituency, is intended to promote peace and harmony, and they no longer wish to pursue the proceedings.
2. Supporting the Motion for Leave to Withdraw were affidavits from the petitioner and the respondent. Both certify that the withdrawal of the petition and counter-petition are not the result of a “corrupt arrangement”^[1] and that “o le ma maliega lenei e le o se faiga tauvalea”,^[2] in accordance with clause 7(b)(iii) of the Practice Direction dated 4 September 2025.
3. On 5 November 2025, the Human Rights Protection Party (“HRPP”) applied to join, as an intervener, the petitioner and respondent’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw. After hearing from the parties, leave was granted but on the limited term that HRPP would only be joined in relation to the application for withdrawal, and no more. The parties were advised that our reasons would follow, this determination sets out those reasons.
4. On 2 December 2025, senior matai purporting to be representatives of the Alii and Faipule of the villages of Falealili 1 (referred to collectively for the purposes of this ruling as “the Alii and Faipule”) also applied to be joined as interveners in relation to the petitioner and respondent’s Motion for Leave to Withdraw. After hearing from counsel, this application was dismissed on 2 December 2025, with reasons to follow. We now provide our reasons for both rulings.

B. Intervener - HRPP

5. The HRPP’s application, dated 5 November 2025 and called for mention on 7 November 2025, sought an order that:
   • (a) HRPP be joined as an intervener in the joint application by the Petitioner and the Respondent to withdraw their respective petition and counter petition.
   • (b) Costs
   • (c) Such further orders as are just.
6. The grounds advanced were that:
   • (a) joinder would promote the ends of justice;
   • (b) pursuant to section 131 of the Electoral Act 2019 (“the Act”), leave is required to withdraw an electoral petition;
   • (c) in accordance with the Practice Direction issued by the Chief Justice dated 4 September 2025, a withdrawal application must be accompanied by affidavits from the parties verifying that the withdrawal is not a result of a corrupt arrangement namely the payment of money by the respondent to the petitioner or was done in exchange of a withdrawal of another electoral petition; and
   • (d) the HRPP intended to adduce evidence at the leave to withdraw hearing that the application to withdraw was the result of a corrupt arrangement.
7. Supporting the HRPP’s Motion for joinder were affidavits from Lauofo Fonotoe Nuafesili Pierre Lauofo and Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi. These affidavits alleged that the agreement to withdraw the petition and counter-petition involved a payment of $100,000.00 by the respondent to the petitioner. A third affidavit in support was withdrawn (by consent) with the leave of the Court.
8. HRPP also filed a motion seeking an order summoning Namulauulu Papalii Leota Sami Leota (“Namulauulu”) to give evidence and produce an audio recording of the alleged corrupt arrangement. The HRPP relied on ss. 118 and 126 of the Electoral Act 2019. A subpoena was served on Namulauulu requiring him to appear at the hearing of the Motion for joinder, then scheduled for 13 November 2025. However, on 11 November 2025, Namulauulu elected to file an affidavit in which he discusses his dealings with the petitioner, and exhibits an audio recording he made of a conversation he claims to have had with the petitioner. The alleged payment by the respondent to the petitioner was not disclosed by either party in the Deed of Settlement recording the parties alleged agreement, nor in their application for leave to withdraw these proceedings or the affidavits filed by the petitioner and respondent in support of the application for leave.
9. On application by the HRPP, and with the consent of the petitioner and respondent, we granted joinder of the HRPP on 13 November 2025. The withdrawal of the petition and counter-petition requires leave of the court. We were satisfied that the HRPP’s joinder as an intervener would be “likely to improve the quality of information before the court on issues wider than those that the parties may wish to address”,^[3] in this case, the alleged corrupt arrangement. We were also satisfied that the HRPP’s joinder as an intervener would promote the ends of justice in determining the application for leave to withdraw the petition and counter-petition.^[4]

C. Intervener – Alii and Faipule of Villages of Falealili 1

10. On 2 December 2025, senior matai from villages within the Constituency of Falealili 1 filed a late application to be joined as intervener, in the motion for leave to withdraw these proceedings. This application was advanced on grounds that, in summary are:
    • (a) The election for Falealili 1 has concluded and the Constituency has duly elected its member of Parliament, the respondent;
    • (b) The petitioner and respondent have agreed to withdraw all proceedings, in accordance with the desires and interests of the Alii and Faipule of all villages within Falealili 1 and in the paramount interest of the stability and unity of the Consituency; and
    • (c) The involvement of the HRPP is without merit.
11. Despite the Alii and Faipule supporting the withdrawal of both the petition and counter-petition, we do not accept their view that the election has concluded and a member has been duly elected, yet. A member whose election is challenged by an electoral petition can only be regarded as duly elected if the candidate’s election is not voided on the grounds of a corrupt practice under the Electoral Act 2019.
12. Turning to the evidence they seek to adduce, which relates generaly to: (a) village meetings within in the constituency where it was agreed that, for the sake of harmony (fealofani) among the villages and within the constituency, the proceedings should be withdrawn; (b) discussions held with the petitioner regarding withdrawal of his petition; and (c) that the respondent has been elected as the representative of the Consituency and to a senior postion in the government and they stand together is support of his election.
13. In our respectful view, the proposed evidence is unlikely “to improve the quality of information before the court” nor does it expand upon issues wider than those that the parties may wish to address.^[5] The information is already before the Court through the evidence of the petitioner and respondent and are already addressed by the petitioner and repondent. Further, the proposed evidence by the Alii and Faipule does not address the serious allegation that the arrangement between the petitioner and respondent involved the payment of $100,000.00 to the petitioner. Indeed, the affidavit evidence filed does not disclose any awareness by the Alii and Faipule of that allegation. Accordingly, the joinder of the Alii and Faipule would not promote the ends of justice. The application was accordingly dismissed.
14. Finally, we reserved the question of costs arising from the application for joinder by the Alii and Faipule. Having reviewed the costs claim of $2,400.00, we consider it reasonable. We will award costs against the Alii and Faipule on a party / party basis in the sum of $1,600.00.

D. Orders

15. The intended second intervener are ordered to pay $1,600.00 costs to the intervener.

CHIEF JUSTICE PERESE
JUSTICE CLARKE

^[1] Affidavit of the Petitioner dated 27^th October 2025, paragraph [5].
^[2] Affidavit of the Counter-Petitioner dated 27^th October 2025, paragraph [10].
^[3] Taylor v Key [2014] NZHC 3306 at para [9]; see also McClintock v Attorney General [2015] NZHC 1280 at [44].
^[4] Speaker of the Legislative Assembly v Anasii [2023] WSSC 39 at paragraph [31].
^[5] Taylor v Key [2014] NZHC 3306 at para [9]; see also McClintock v Attorney General [2015] NZHC 1280 at [44].