IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
Fiaui v Samau [2025] WSSC 106 (21 November 2025)

Case name: 	Fiaui v Samau 	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 106	
		
Decision date: 	21 November 2025	
		
Parties: 	MAGELE SEKATI FIAUI, Candidate for the Constituency of Faasalelega 2 (Petitioner) v VAAELUA SENETENARI SAMAU, Candidate for the Constituency of Faasaleleaga 2 (Respondent)	
		
Hearing date(s): 	27th October, 4th & 7th November 2025	
		
File number(s): 	2025-01235 SC/CV/UP	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Supreme Court – CIVIL	
		
Place of delivery: 	Supreme Court of Samoa, Mulinuu	
		
Judge(s): 	Justice Leutele Mata K. Tuatagaloa
Justice Loau Donald A. Kerslake	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:		
		
Representation: 	T. Toailoa for the Petitioner
L. Sua-Mailo, V. Faasii & M. Volentras for the Respondent

Catchwords: 	Election petition 	
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:		
		
Cases cited:		
		
Summary of decision:		

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SAMOA
HELD AT MULINUU

IN THE MATTER:

of Part 14 (Election Petitions) of the Electoral Act 2019

BETWEEN:

MAGELE SEKATI FIAUI, Candidate for the Constituency of Faasalelega 2.

Petitioner

AND:

VAAELUA SENETENARI SAMAU, Candidate for the Constituency of Faasaleleaga 2.

Respondent

Coram:		Justice Leutele Mata K. Tuatagaloa
Justice Loau Donald A. Kerslake
		
Counsels:	T. Toailoa for the Petitioner
		L. Sua-Mailo, V. Faasii & M. Volentras for the Respondent

Hearing:	27 October – 4 November & 7 November 2025
Judgment:	21 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Introduction
1. 	A general election for the country was held on Friday, 29 August 2025.  The Petitioner and Respondent were two of five candidates for the Electoral Constituency of Faasaleleaga 2.
2. 	After the official count by the Electoral Commissioner of the votes cast at the election the results of the poll for the electoral constituency of Faasaleleaga 2 were publicly notified on 5 September 2025 as follows:
	Candidates				Votes Received
	Magele Sekati Fiaui				610
	Magele Tusigaigoa Simaika			196
	Malu Saletolo Sulusi Vaaelua		66
	Talouli Iosefa Talouli			319
	Vaaelua Senetenari Samau			678
3. 	The results showed that the Respondent polled the highest number of votes at 678 and the Petitioner with 610. The Respondent was officially declared the Member of Parliament for the electoral constituency of Fa’asaleleaga 2.
4. 	The Petitioner pursuant to section 108(2) of the Electoral Act 2019 (‘the Act’), polled sufficient votes (reached 50% of the winning votes) to qualify to petition.
5. 	By an election petition dated 18 September 2025 and filed on 19 September 2025, Magele Sekati Fiaui seeks a declaration that the election of Vaaelua Senetenari Samau, the Respondent in these proceedings, be declared void on the grounds of bribery and treating, pursuant to sections 96 and 97 of the Electoral Act 2019.
6. 	In response, the Respondent filed a Response to Election Petition and Counter Petition, dated and filed on 29 September 2025. The Respondent denies all allegations of corrupt practices. The Counter Petition sets out allegations of corrupt practices said to have been committed by the Petitioner. We will refer to the response and counter-allegations as the counter petition.
7. 	The petition alleges bribery and treating while the counter-petition alleges only bribery. We address this in our judgment as follows:
•	Part 1 – The Law
•	Part 2 – The Evidence
•	Part 3 - The Petition & Response to Petition
•	Part 4 – The Counter Petition & Response to Counter Petition 
PART 1 – THE LAW
(a) Bribery
8. 	The relevant parts of section 96 of the Electoral Act 2019 (“EA 2019”) for present purposes are as follows:
	"Bribery – (1) In this section the term "voter" includes any person who has or claims to have a right to vote.
	(2) A person commits the offence of bribery who, directly or indirectly in person or by any other person on his or her behalf either before, during or after voting:
	(a) Gives any money or obtains an office to or for –
	(i) a voter; or
	(ii) any other person on behalf of a voter; or
	(iii)any other person, in order to induce any a voter to vote or refrain from voting; or
	(b) does any act as a result of a voter having voted or refrained from voting; or
	(c) offers a gift to a person in order to induce that person to obtain, or endeavour to obtain, the return of a person at an election or the vote of a voter; or
	(d) in receipt of a gift whether tangible or not, obtains, engages, promises, or attempts to obtain, the return of a person at an election or the vote of a voter; or
	(e) advances or pays or causes to be paid any money to or for the use of any other person with the intent that that money is to be expended in bribery at an election; or
	(f) knowingly pays or causes to be paid any money to a person in discharge or repayment of any money wholly or in part spent on bribery at an election. 
9. 	As to what amounts to corrupt intention, we refer to Olaf v Chan Chui to mean:
	“A corrupt intention is an intention on the part of the person treating to influence the vote of the person treated. The question of intention is an inference of fact which the court has to draw. If in any case, looking at all the circumstances, the reasonable and probable effect of the alleged treating would be to influence the result of the election, or to influence the votes of the individual voters, it might well be inferred that it was the intention of the persons treating that this effect should follow.”
10. 	Also relevant is section 96 (5) insofar as the elector who receives the bribe is concerned:
	"A voter commits the offence of bribery if before or during an election he or she directly or indirectly, by himself or herself or by any other person on his or her behalf, receives, or agrees or contracts for, any money, gift, loan, or valuable consideration, office, place, or employment for himself or herself or for any other person for voting or agreeing to vote or for refraining or agreeing to refrain from voting."
(b) Treating
11. 	The relevant parts of section 97 of EA 2019 for present purposes are as follows:
(1)	A person commits the offence of treating who in person or by any otherperson on that person’s behalf, either before, during, or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part: 
	(a) the expense of giving or providing any food, drink, entertainment, or provision to or for a person - 
	(i) for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting; or 
	(ii) for the purpose of corruptly procuring himself or herself to be elected; or 
	(iii) on account of that person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting, 	or being about to vote or refrain from voting; or 
	(b) transportation to and from - 
	(i) the office of the Electoral Commission or any other place, of voters for the purpose of carrying out registration for such voters; or 
	(ii) a polling booth of a voter for the purpose of that voter casting his or her vote. 
	(2) 	A voter who corruptly accepts or takes any such food, drink, entertainment, or provision also commits the offence of treating.
12. 	Since the allegations allege bribery and treating through and by the campaign committee members, it is necessary therefore to refer to the law of agency in election matters. 
(c) Agency
13. 	What constitutes agency has been considered in several decisions of this court. In Netzler v Chan Chui, it was said: 
	"It is settled law that entrusting to an agent by a candidate of the acts to be done to promote the election of the candidate may neither be in express terms nor arise by implication. It is not necessary in order to prove agency to show that the person was actually appointed. Recognition and acceptance of service is also sufficient to prove agency.”
14. 	The Court in Sio v Patea referred to Hosking J in Re Bay of Islands Election Petition: 
	“The principles of the law of agency are as stated by Hosking J in Re Bay of Islands Election Petition (1915) NZLR 578, which is that a candidate, however innocent, would be liable and responsible for any illegal acts done by or under the authority of his agent in the sense that the election will be avoided. It makes no difference whether the candidate did not authorise, did not know, or had not consented to the doing of the illegal act. In fact, even if the agent acted illegally in defiance of express instructions to the contrary from the candidate, the election of the candidate will be avoided.” (emphasis ours)
15. 	This approach is consistent with the spirit of the legislation that elections should be conducted by honest and proper means and untainted by underhand influences.
16. 	Of relevance also is section 116 which provides:
	"Void of election of candidate guilty of corrupt practice – The election of a candidate proven at the trial of an election petition to have been guilty of a corrupt practice at the election is void."
17. 	The onus of proving the allegations made in the election petition lies with the Petitioner. The required standard of proof is the criminal standard which is proof beyond reasonable doubt. 
PART 2 – THE EVIDENCE 
18. 	The Court has jurisdiction to inquire into and adjudicate a matter relating to the petition in any manner it thinks fit. Pursuant to section 118 of the EA 2019, the Court is guided by the substantial merits and justice of the case. It may admit evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, where such evidence will effectively assist the court in the just determination of the proceedings. 
19. 	Evidence supporting both the petition and the counter petition has been by way of affidavits and oral testimony and are irreconcilably contradictory. The narratives are mutually exclusive and only one can be true, and the veracity of one necessarily invalidates the other.
20. 	In evaluating the case, careful consideration has been given to the entirety of the evidence. The probative value of each item has been weighed, appropriate inferences drawn, and the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses assessed. The submissions of counsels are acknowledged with appreciation.
21. 	Of relevance also is the following electoral timeline:
•	Closing of the electoral roll: 4 July 2025.
•	Candidate nomination period: 7 July - 12 July 2025.
•	Campaign period: 14 July – 24 August.
22. 	Bribery and treating are prohibited under the Electoral Act 2019 whenever they occur in relation to an election – before, during, or after the campaign period. The Act does not define an “election period”, so for the purpose of assessing allegations of bribery and treating, the Court adopts a purposive approach. The issuance of the writ of election marks the formal commencement of the electoral process but acts before the writ can still breach sections 96 and 97 if they are sufficiently connected to the election and intended to influence the election. The key question is whether the conduct occurred “in relation to an election.” If so, it is unlawful regardless of when it happened. 
23. 	The Court now turns to a detailed analysis and assessment of the oral and affidavit evidence in relation to each allegation and counter-allegation and sets out its findings accordingly. 
PART 3 – THE PETITION & RESPONSE TO PETITION
24. 	We address the allegations as follows: 
•	7 June 2025:  Laurence Tanumoa (voter no.1882) - Allegations 6.8 (Bribery) and 6.12(Treating)
•	4 August & 14 August 2025: Faatafa Gauta (voter no. 1327)- Allegation 6.1 (Bribery) and 6.2 (Bribery)
25. 	Both Laurence and Faatafa allege that the Respondent held committee meetings or rally on these days:
	[25.1]	Lawrence Tauese Tanumoa alleges that on 7 June 2025, sometime after 7:00 p.m, he was picked up by a matai, Logologo Lene, together with two other men, and transported to a meeting or rally purportedly organised by the Respondent at the Savaiian Hotel. He claims that the Respondent and three of his committee members, including Talalafai Toma, were present. 
	[25.1.2]	According to his testimony, the venue was crowded, and the meeting concluded shortly after his arrival. He further states that Talalafai retrieved an envelope from the table and, with the assistance of another committee member, distributed $150 to all attendees. Lawrence asserts that he received $150 from Talalafai Toma and a plate of food.
	[25.2]	Faatafa Gauta Matautia alleges that on 4 August 2025, she received $100 tala from Talalafai Toma during a programme, rally or promotional event purportedly hosted by the Respondent at the Savaiian Hotel. In her testimony, Faatafa stated that she and her cousin Moana arrived at the hotel after the programme had concluded. She described the venue as crowded, with food being distributed, and claimed to have seen the Respondent seated inside. Despite asserting that many people were present, no additional witnesses were called to support her account, not even Moana she went with.
	[25.2.1] Faatafa Gauta Matautia also alleges that on 14 August 2025, at approximately 5:30 p.m., she attended a gathering at the Savaiian Hotel with her cousin. She claims the event was hosted by the Respondent, and that money was being distributed by the Respondent’s children. Faatafa states she received $100 tala from the Respondent’s son, whom she identified as older than Doreen, the Respondent’s daughter, who had previously been her classmate. ￼
26. 	In response, the Respondent called eleven witnesses who were all committee members who consistently testified as follows:
•	No committee meetings or rallies, or promotional events were held with members of the constituency in the lead-up to the General Elections on 29 August 2025. 
•	The only meetings held at the Savaiian Hotel were committee meetings which did not include the 7 June 2025, 4 August and/or 14 August 2025. 
•	No committee meetings were held on a Saturday as the committee chairperson, who is member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, would not have been able to participate.
27. 	Tu’ualesa Kavana, secretary of the Respondent’s committee, kept a diary recording the dates of committee meetings. Entries in the diary confirm that meetings were held on 3 April 2005, 12 May 2025, 12 June 2025, 10 July 2025, 7 August 2025, and 21 August 2025. Notably, there are no entries for 7 June 2025, 4 August and/or 14 August 2025. The reasonable inference is that no committee meetings or related events occurred on those dates. 
28. 	Talalafai Toma, a committee member alleged to have given money out on these dates not only confirmed that no meeting, promotion or rally occurred on those dates but also denied distributing money on behalf of the Respondent.
29. 	Counsel for the Petitioner in her submissions said that none of the witnesses for the Respondent could place the Respondent somewhere other than the Savaiian Hotel on the dates alleged by Laurence and Faatafa of committee meetings. As such, this is uncontested evidence. We disagree. 
30. 	The issue was whether there were committee meetings on the dates alleged by Laurence and Faatafa whereby money and food were distributed by an agent or representative of the Respondent and not whether the Respondent was present. The Respondent does not have to be present for bribery to be proven if indeed money and food were distributed on his behalf.
31. 	Counsel also raised with the Court that all eleven witnesses gave ‘alibi’ evidence. As we understand, an alibi is a defense where an accused person asserts that they were elsewhere at the time an alleged offence occurred and therefore could not have committed it. In R v McGregor a simple denial of being at the scene or evidence that does not establish the Respondent's presence at another specific location does not constitute alibi evidence.  So, evidence which merely establishes the absence of a meeting without indicating the specific location of the Respondent is not alibi evidence. In any event, the Respondent is not facing a criminal charge but an election petition, and the issue is not whether the Respondent was physically present at the alleged events. The Court itself noted that the question was whether bribery or treating occurred through agents, not whether the Respondent was present.
32. 	The eleven witnesses testified to rebut the allegations by stating that:
•	No rallies or promotional events occurred on the dates alleged.
•	Meetings were limited to committee sessions, supported by diary entries and video evidence.
•	No money or food was distributed at any meeting.
This is rebuttal evidence, not alibi evidence, because it addresses the substance of the allegations rather than proving the Respondent’s physical absence. The Court even expressed confusion at the counsel’s suggestion that this was “alibi” evidence, noting that such characterization was misplaced.
33. 	In any event, we find Lawrence’s account not sufficiently credible or reliable to sustain a finding of bribery for the following reasons: 
(i) 	The alleged meeting time - after 7pm - is improbable for a rally intended to attract a large audience when the ideal time for such an occasion to maximize, the audience would be during the day not at night; 
(ii) 	The allegation is wholly uncorroborated. No other complainant alleged a meeting on 7 June 2025, nor was there independent evidence placing the Respondent or his committee at the Savaiian Hotel on that date. Not even the three men he mentioned in his affidavit were called to corroborate his account; and
(iii) 	The consistent rebuttal evidence of eleven committee members, supported by contemporaneous diary entries, significantly diminishes the probative value of Laurence’s testimony. 
34. 	We are not impressed with the witness Faatafa and find her to be neither reliable nor a credible witness. Her evidence is uncorroborated and contradicted by the testimony of the Respondent’s eleven committee members, who consistently deny that any rally, promotional event or meeting or distribution of money or food occurred on 4 August or 14 August 2025. The absence of independent witnesses or contemporaneous documentation further diminishes the probative value of her testimony.
35. 	We accept evidence from the Respondent’s eleven witnesses. Their evidence is consistent and supported by documentary records, including a diary maintained by the committee secretary, Tualesa Kavana, which confirms that no such meetings or gatherings took place on 7 June 2025, 4 August and 14 August 2025. Consequently, we conclude that no money or food was distributed by the Respondent or his committee members. 
36. 	Applying the criminal standard of proof and weighing the credibility of the evidence, the Court concludes that the allegations have not been established beyond reasonable doubt and must therefore be dismissed.
21 August 2025 - Allegations 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6, 6.9, 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12
37. 	Four separate complainants allege that acts of bribery and treating were committed by the Respondent on the same day. Each claimed to have received either $100 or $50 from a person acting on behalf of the Respondent during an event held at the Savaiian Hotel, purportedly to induce them to vote for the Respondent.  In addition, all except Faatafa allege they were provided with a plate of food at the event, with the intent to influence their vote.
(i) Faleatuse Logoa (voter no.1327) - Allegations 6.5 (Bribery) and 6.11 (Treating) 
	[37.1]	Faleatuse was not called by the Petitioner to give evidence and accordingly did not testify.  In the absence of any supporting evidence, allegations 6.5 and 6.11 are dismissed.
(ii) Etuale Efalata (voter no.1713) - Allegations 6.3 (Bribery) and 6.10- (Treating)
(iii) Fetu Magele (voter no. 282)- Allegations 6.4 (Bribery) and 6.9(Treating)
(iv) Faatafa Gauta (voter no. 1327)- Allegation 6.6 (Bribery)
	[37.2]	The allegations by these three witnesses are substantially similar as follows:
•	Each witness upon learning (from others) that a gathering (or meeting) with the district allegedly hosted by the Respondent was taking place at the Savaiian Hotel.
•	Each witness arrived independently - Fetu arrived at approximately 4:00 p.m. and remained until 7:30 p.m.; Faatafa arrived around 5:00 p.m.; and Etuale arrived sometime after 5:30p.m. 
•	All three described the venue as crowded, with members of the district present both inside the house and seated outside on the field.
•	The Respondent was observed sitting at a table inside the house alongside members of his committee.
•	According to Etuale and Fetu, the Respondent thanked those in attendance and announced a gift of $20,000 to be distributed among the people present. Faatafa never mentioned a gift of $20,000.
•	All three received money. Fetu and Faatafa each received $50 tala. Fetu received her money from Talalafai and Faatafa received her money from an individual she identified as Doreen, whom she claimed was the Respondent’s daughter and her former classmate. Etuale received two $50 notes, having gone through two separate lines where money was being distributed.
•	Fetu says that a member of the district thanked the Respondent on behalf of those present.  Etuale’s oral testimony was that six representatives from the villages in the constituency each took turns to thank the Respondent. 
38. 	In rebuttal, eleven members of the Respondent’s committee testified that:
•	The meeting held at the Savaiian Hotel on 21 August was exclusively for committee members and scrutineers. This was the final pre-election gathering, following a series of prior committee meetings held in preparation for the general elections.
•	The venue was deliberately chosen for their committee meetings due to its prior use as a hotel, offering a fully fenced compound with a lockable gate to ensure privacy and security. Its location, set back from the main road, was said to further support these objectives.
•	Meetings were customarily scheduled on Thursdays, as the committee chairperson was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which precluded meetings on Fridays and Saturdays. The only exception was a meeting held on Monday, 12 May 2025 (Mother’s Day public holiday).
•	Consistent with previous meetings, the session on 21 August commenced at 4:00 p.m. and concluded around 5:00 p.m. or shortly thereafter. 
•	No food or money was distributed at any committee meeting.
•	Apart from committee members and scrutineers present at the last meeting on 21 August, the only other individual present was the owner of the premises, Gatoloai Ama.
•	No promotional events or rallies were held by the Respondent.  He did not erect signage or posters during the campaign.  
39. 	In support of this account, the Respondent relies on the following contemporaneous evidence:
•	Exhibit R.10 comprises diary entries maintained by Tu’ualesa Kavana Fiapule, secretary of the Respondent’s committee, and annexed to his affidavit. The diary entry for 21 August 2025 records the meeting as commencing at 4:00 p.m.
•	Exhibit R.5 and R.6 are the two video recordings taken by Crystal Toevania Hikurani.  Exhibit R.5 is dated and timestamped 21 August, 4:43pm.  Exhibit R.6 is dated and timestamped 21 August 2025, 5:07pm.  The recordings, taken 24 minutes apart depict the Respondent’s committee members sitting around a table in the hotel.  None of the complainants are seen in the videos and there is no visible crowd either inside the house or outside on the field, as alleged by the complainants. 
•	Ioane Tomasi Sanele attested that he was among the last to leave the Savaiian hotel after 5.30pm, having stayed to talk with his friend Vaaelua Poi, the owner of the premises. He confirmed that the committee meeting was the only meeting held at the hotel on that day.  His evidence was corroborated by Tuepi Rapi. The inference being there was no crowd of people or a meeting with the district.
•	Exhibit R.16 is the evidence of Nuulua Faleafa, tendered by consent and therefore uncontested.  She stated that she is the Respondent’s daughter and the only one of his children who accompany him to committee meetings.  She attested that the Respondent does not have a daughter named Doreen.  When this was put to Faatafa, she conceded and accepted that the Respondent does not have a daughter by the name of Doreen. 
40. 	Talalafai gave evidence that he did not do any demonstration to show where to vote on a ballot paper, nor did he distribute money at any meeting or at any time whether for or on behalf of the Respondent. 
41. 	There are material inconsistencies and weaknesses in the Petitioner’s evidence:
	(i) Internal inconsistencies: Etuale and Fetu testified that Talalafai, a representative of the Respondent, was inside the house explaining the ballot paper and indicating which number to select. However, Fetu’s affidavit referred to the number indicated on the ballot paper was “5,” while her oral testimony referred to “4”, undermining the reliability of her account. Fetu also said that a member of the district thanked the Respondent whereas Etuale said that six representatives from the villages in the constituency each took turns to do so. 
	(ii) Identification issues: Faatafa, meanwhile, alleged she received money from “Doreen,” whom she identified as the Respondent’s daughter and her former classmate, but later conceded under cross-examination that the Respondent has no daughter by that name. This raises serious doubts on the accuracy and reliability of her evidence. 
	(iii) Lack of corroboration: While Faatafa mentioned an ava ceremony, this detail was not corroborated by the other two witnesses. Similarly, the descriptions of the crowd and the sequence of events varied in detail and emphasis.
42. 	Although the evidence of Etuale, Fetu, and Faatafa, are facially consistent in structure, they are undermined by internal contradictions, identification errors, and a lack of corroboration. These deficiencies are compounded by the absence of contemporaneous documentation or neutral witnesses to support their claims. Taken together, these deficiencies render their testimony unreliable. 
43. 	The Petitioner’s case is further weakened by independent video footage tendered by the Respondent. This footage corroborates both the affidavits and oral testimony of the Respondent’s witnesses, confirming that only committee members and scrutineers were present at the Savaiian Hotel at 4.43pm and 5.07pm on 21 August 2025. The video directly contradicts the Petitioner’s version of events, particularly the claims by Fetu and Faatafa regarding the presence of a large crowd and the alleged distribution of money and food. As contemporaneous visual evidence, the footage carries inherent reliability and probative weight that surpasses uncorroborated oral testimony. 
44. 	Furthermore, the claim that Talalafai demonstrated how to vote on a ballot paper is implausible. The law clearly provides that ballot papers are issued at polling booths on the official day of voting.  It follows that such materials would not have been accessible to the public on 21 August 2025, further undermining the credibility of this aspect of the Petitioner’s case. 
45. 	In contrast, the Respondent’s rebuttal evidence is detailed and internally consistent:
•	The diary entries in Exhibit R.10, maintained contemporaneously by the committee secretary, corroborate the evidence of the eleven committee members on the scheduling and nature of committee meetings. The absence of entries for certain dates further supports the Respondent’s claim that no other meetings occurred on those days.
•	The video recordings in Exhibits R.5 and R.6 provide visual confirmation of the meeting’s composition and setting. The footage aligns with the Respondent’s account: a small, private gathering of committee members seated indoors, with no visible crowd or distribution of food or money. The absence of the complainants from the recordings, and the lack of any observable treating or bribery, materially undermines the Petitioner’s version of events.
•	All eleven witnesses consistently attested that only one meeting was held on this day, attended solely by committee members and scrutineers with the sole exception of Gatoloai Amataga (owner of Savaiian).  The testimony of Ioane Tomasi Sanele, corroborated by Tueipi Rapi, confirmed that they were the last to depart and that all including the Respondent had already left. This evidence reinforces the narrative that only one meeting took place on the day in question, confined to committee members. Their evidence was clear and unshaken under cross-examination.
•	The Respondent’s witnesses consistently denied any promotional activities, rallies, or distribution of money or food. Talalafai specifically denied conducting any ballot demonstrations or distributing money, directly rebutting the allegations made by Etuale and Fetu.
•	The evidence of Nuulua Faleafa, tendered by consent and uncontested, is particularly significant. Her confirmation that the Respondent does not have a daughter named Doreen, and Faatafa’s subsequent concession on this point, casts doubt on the reliability of Faatafa’s identification and undermines her credibility.
46. 	Having weighed the credibility of the evidence and applied the criminal standard of proof, the Court finds that the allegations relating to 21 August 2025 have not been established beyond reasonable doubt. 
47. 	Greater weight is given to the account provided by the Respondent’s witnesses. It is accepted that no meeting was convened by the Respondent for the constituency of Faasaleleaga 2 at which money or food was distributed with the intent to induce votes in his favour. 
48. 	Accordingly, we dismiss allegations 6.3, 6.4, 6.6, 6.9, 6.10, and 6.12.
25 August to 27 August 2025 - Allegation 6.7
49. 	The allegation is that a representative or agent of the Respondent gave $50 to Gauta Sa, in the presence of Faatafa Gauta Matautia, with the intent of inducing him to vote for the Respondent.
50. 	The sole evidence in support of this allegation is the affidavit of Faatafa Gauta. In it, she states that three men came to their house claiming to be from the Respondent’s Committee and gave her father, Gauta, $50 tala while urging him to vote for the Respondent.
51. 	Under cross-examination, however, Faatafa admitted that she was not present in the same house when her father spoke with the men. She did not hear the conversation nor witness any money being handed over. She further conceded that her knowledge of the alleged exchange came solely from her father. Notably, her father was not called a witness by the Petitioner. As a result, Faatafa’s oral testimony contradicts her affidavit and constitutes hearsay. 
52. 	In rebuttal, Sua Tofilau Pati, a witness for the Respondent, submitted an audio recording of a conversation between himself and Gauta, Faatafa’s father.  In the recording, Gauta states that the only committee members who visited him and gave him $50 tala were affiliated with Magele Simaika, a different candidate. There is no mention of the Respondent or any of his committee members.  This account clearly contradicts the evidence provided by Faatafa in her affidavit.
53. 	We again find Faatafa not a credible witness. We found her evidence to be inadmissible and unreliable. The contradictions, lack of firsthand knowledge, absence of corroboration, and rebuttal evidence collectively justify the dismissal of the allegation for failure to meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Result of the Petition
54. 	We find that none of the allegations by the Petitioner against the Respondent have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.  We therefore dismiss the Petition in its entirety.
PART 3 - THE COUNTER PETITION & RESPONSE TO COUNTER PETITION
55. 	We first deal with the allegations which involve allegations of cash payment by the Petitioner or his representative before addressing the allegations involving the issuing of cheques from the Fono Faavae Office.
12 July 2025: Iva Hall
56. 	Three separate complainants who allege bribery by the Petitioner on this day. 
•	Motu Papalii (voter no. 1424) -Allegation (ii) of the Counter Petition - Bribery;
•	Usufono Tino (voter no. 1578) – Allegation (iii) of the Counter Petition - Bribery; and
•	Paulo Su’a Tino (voter no. 1520) - Allegation (iv) of the Counter Petition - Bribery.
57. 	It is alleged that at Iva Hall, each complainant received $50 from the Petitioner, through his agent or committee member Tumua Olive, with the intent of inducing them to vote in his favor. Such conduct, if proven, constitutes the corrupt practice of bribery.
58. 	The following facts are not in dispute:
•	A FAST roadshow rally was held at the Apita o Pisaga Hall, Salelologa, at 9:00am, attended by Motu, Usufono, Tumua and Polisi Lavatai.
•	A call was made later that day to assist with cleaning the Iva Primary School Hall (“the Iva Hall”) in preparation for the FAST Roadshow scheduled for Monday, 14 July 2025.
•	Motu, Usufono, Tumua and Polisi were present at the Iva Hall from 6:00pm onwards.
•	The Petitioner and his wife were also present. The Petitioner’s wife summoned attendees into the hall, where chairs were arranged in a circle. 
•	The Petitioner led a prayer, welcomed those present, announced that cleaning would not proceed as the school committee had undertaken that responsibility, and expressed gratitude for their attendance at the earlier roadshow. He reminded those present of the prohibition against giving money to induce voters, then declared he would distribute money to assist with food for the following day, Sunday.
•	Tumua is a committee member of the Petitioner.
•	An envelope was handed to Tumua, who distributed $50 to each attendee. 
•	Motu and Usufono received $50 each. Shortly after, the gathering dispersed.
•	No cleaning materials were brought to the hall.
59. 	The following evidence remains contested:
•	Presence of Paulo Su’a Tino. Tumua and Polisi Lavatai deny Paulo’s attendance. Paulo asserts that Motu contacted him to assist with cleaning, and that he anticipated some form of payment. He arrived around 6:30pm, sat near the door, observed Tumua distributing money, was informed that cleaning would not occur, and received $50 before departing. Motu confirms contacting Paulo, and both he and Usufono corroborate Paulo’s presence.
•	Source of the cleaning request. Motu and Usufono claim the Petitioner personally asked them to assist following the FAST rally. Tumua and Polisi contend that they conveyed the request. Their accounts also differ regarding transportation arrangements.
•	Number of attendees. Motu and Paulo estimate 50 to 60 individuals, including adults of varying ages from across the constituency; Usufono places the number at approximately 50. Conversely, Tumua, Polisi, and Leaana Taifau assert only 20 people were present, all committee members except for Motu and Usufono. They claim the money distributed was an ‘allowance’ for prior campaign work, such as erecting billboards. 
•	Presence of Leauanae Liona and Latu Tofia. Tumua and Polisi say they arrived after the prayer, informed the Petitioner they would clean the hall, and left. Motu and Usufono insist they were present throughout. Leauanae testified that he and Latu sat near the door at the outset, later informing the Petitioner of their intention to clean. Latu contradicted this, stating he remained in the vehicle.
60. 	The central issue is whether the Petitioner acted with corrupt intent when directing Tumua to distribute $50 to each attendee.
61. 	Upon careful assessment of the evidence, the Court finds that the gathering at Iva Hall was not a committee meeting, but an open invitation extended by the Petitioner. This finding is supported by:
•	Polisi’s testimony that this was the first open meeting or gathering convened by the Petitioner, suggesting the committee was not yet formalised, and that attendance was unrestricted.  
•	The absence of cleaning materials and the announcement that cleaning would not proceed, casts doubt on the stated purpose and true intention of the meeting.
•	Admission by the Petitioner’s witnesses of unfamiliarity with certain attendees, undermining their reliability regarding attendance and the number present.
•	Leaana’s testimony that the Petitioner said he could not provide allowances for past or future work, and that the $50 was for food, is consistent with Motu and Usufono’s testimony and contrary to Tumua, Polisi and Mauga Mafoe’s testimonies that it was an allowance.
•	Leaana’s confirmation that the Petitioner briefly discussed the upcoming FAST roadshow and the need to erect billboards, contradicting Tumua and Polisi’s claim that such work had already been done. 
•	The credibility of Tumua and Polisi is further weakened by the fact that the official campaign period—during which billboards (and posters) could lawfully be erected—had not yet commenced when the gathering took place, undermining the claim that the payments were for campaign-related services.
•	No other committee matters were discussed, and the meeting finished early.  
•	The presence of non- committee members, including Motu, Usufono and Paulo.
•	Motu and Usufono’s testimony that the Petitioner personally invited them to assist with cleaning.
•	Paulo’s testimony was clear, consistent, and corroborated by Motu and Usufono, and which the Court accepts as credible, particularly given his candid admission that he anticipated payment and was not a committee member. 
•	The Petitioner’s reminder of the prohibition against inducements, followed immediately by the distribution of money, is inherently contradictory.
62. 	The explanations advanced by the Petitioner’s witnesses - that the gathering was a committee meeting, and the money given were allowances, are undermined by material inconsistencies and contradictions. Conversely, the testimony of Motu, Usufono, and Paulo is internally coherent and corroborated by independent circumstances. The Petitioner’s witnesses differ on key facts, including the number of attendees, the purpose of the gathering, and whether the payments were allowances or contributions for food.
63. 	The testimony of Motu, Usufono, and Paulo aligns with observable facts: no cleaning materials were brought; no cleaning took place; and the Petitioner acknowledged the prohibition against inducements immediately before distributing money. The claim that payments were allowances for billboard work is contradicted by Leaana’s testimony and by the timing of the campaign period, which had not yet commenced. Taken together, these facts and contradictions reinforce the inference that the payments were not innocent for allowances, but inducements intended to influence votes. 
64. 	The comparative weight of the evidence favours the Respondent’s witnesses. The inconsistencies in the Petitioner’s case suggest a post factum rationalisation designed to legitimise the payments. By contrast, the Respondent’s witnesses provided straightforward, credible accounts that withstand scrutiny.  Their attendance was at the Petitioner’s request, and Paulo joined at Motu’s invitation. 
65. 	Even if the Petitioner’s account is accepted—that the gathering was a committee meeting and the payments were allowances for services rendered—this explanation fails to account for the presence of Motu and Usufono, who were not committee members. Tumua’s claim that they were FAST supporters who assisted him with committee work, is expressly denied by both individuals. There is no evidence before the Court that either performed any duties on behalf of the committee, As Motu aptly observed, the funds in question were not Tumua’s to distribute at will; they were given to him to distribute. The inclusion of non-committee members in the distribution of money—absent any demonstrated contribution to committee activities—was improper and unjustified. 
66. 	In any event, the law is unequivocal. Section 96(1) defines a “voter” as a person who has or claims to have the right to vote. This includes all individuals who registered to vote, irrespective of their role in a committee. Accordingly, Tumua Olive (voter no. 1410), Polisi Lavatai (voter no. 1301), and Leaana Taifau (voter no. 1304) are all voters within the meaning of the Act. The legislation does not provide any exemption for payments to committee members. 
67. 	The prohibition against bribery and treating applies whenever such acts occur in connection with an election. If the provision of money or food is intended to influence the outcome of an election, it is unlawful—regardless of timing or the status of the recipient. 
68. 	In this case, the distribution of money immediately following the Petitioner’s reminder about the prohibition against inducements, coupled with the timing of the meeting, the absence of any legitimate committee business and the presence of non-committee members, gives rise to a strong inference of corrupt intent.
69. 	Accordingly, the Court finds that the Petitioner, through his agent Tumua Olive, committed the corrupt practice of bribery on 12 July 2025 at Iva Hall. The distribution of $50 to Motu Papalii, Usufono Tino, and Paulo Su’a Tino was made with the intent to induce their votes in favour of the Petitioner. 
70. 	The Court is therefore satisfied that the Respondent has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, the allegations of corrupt practice against the Petitioner outlined in allegations (ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Counter Petition.
22 August 2025:  Usufono Tino (voter no. 1578): Allegation (v) – Bribery
71. 	The allegation is that, on the date in question, the Petitioner, with the intent to corruptly induce Usufono Tino, a registered voter, to vote in his favour, provided him with $30 tala. 
72. 	It is not disputed that a committee meeting of the Petitioner was held at his residence in the evening; Tumua, his brother, and Usufono were present and remained behind to discuss matters with the Petitioner and the Petitioner gave Usufono $30 tala.
73. 	The issue is whether the Petitioner by giving $30 to Usufono, intended to influence his vote in the general elections. In determining the propriety of the payment, the Court must assess its timing, context and circumstances. 
74. 	Tumua states that Usufono solicited money from the Petitioner for the purpose of providing food for his family. Usufono, in contrast, contends that the Petitioner voluntarily gave him the money, provided him transport home, and instructed him in the car not to disclose the payment. Tumua further disputed this aspect of Usufono’s evidence, maintaining that the Petitioner never made the statements attributed to him.
75. 	If Usufono’s evidence is accepted, then the Petitioner’s actions and words clearly amount to an inducement to vote in his favour, thereby constituting bribery.
76. 	Even if we accept Tumua’s account, the Petitioner remains in difficulty. His own witnesses confirmed that, on this day, 22 August as at the earlier gathering of 12 of July 2025, he expressly cautioned those present against giving money to voters, acknowledging that such conduct could amount to bribery. Notwithstanding this clear awareness of the statutory prohibition, the Petitioner nevertheless gave Usufono $30, a mere seven days before polling day.
77. 	Any monetary gift by a candidate, particularly in the days immediately preceding an election, must be subject to strict scrutiny and this payment cannot reasonably be characterised as an allowance or remuneration for services rendered as none had been performed.  Acts of purported charity in such circumstances are especially problematic and, in principle, should be avoided altogether.
78. 	In Kasimani v Seuala [2011] WSSC 87 (8 August 2011) the Court said:
	“The respondent said it is his habit to give money to his relatives when he meets any of them. Whether that is true or not, for a candidate to practice "charity" when an election is near, he runs the risk of being found guilty of bribery. In our view, for the respondent to give $40 to Mafutaga on 2 March 2011 without being asked by Mafutaga when the election was only one day away on 4 March was bribery. We do not believe there is any other reasonable explanation for the respondent's action.”
79. 	The principle articulated in Kasimani applies squarely to the present matter. Just as the Court in Kasimani rejected the explanation of “habitual generosity” where money was given immediately prior to polling, so too here the Petitioner’s act of giving $30 to Usufono whether solicited or not, only seven days before the election, cannot reasonably be regarded as ordinary charity. The timing of the payment, the context in which it was made, and the Petitioner’s own prior acknowledgment of the legal risks associated with giving money to voters all point to the same conclusion: that the payment was intended to influence electoral choice. 
80. 	Under section 96(1) of the EA 2019, a “voter” includes any person who has, or claims to have, the right to vote. Usufono, having registered to vote, falls squarely within this definition. Section 96(2) prohibits any person from giving or agreeing to give money to a voter with the intent to influence that person’s vote. Timing is therefore critical. The Petitioner was fully aware of this prohibition and of the heightened scrutiny attached to monetary gifts made close to polling day. We find that the payment of $30, presented as an act of generosity, was in substance a device intended to secure Usufono’s electoral support, and therefore constitutes bribery.
81. 	Accordingly, we are satisfied that the allegation of bribery has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Remaining Counter -Allegations 
82. 	The remaining six allegations concern the issuing and presentation of cheques from the Fono District Development Councils or Fono Faavae.  These allegations are unique as this is the first time the Court has been required to address allegations of bribery involving funds disbursed through cheques earmarked for projects under the Fono Faavae.  Before addressing the specific allegations, it is necessary to outline the structure, purpose, and processes of the District Development Councils, as they are central to the issues raised in the counter-petition. 
The District Development Councils (Fono Faavae)
83. 	The District Development Councils (DDCs) were officially established in July 2022 under the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development as part of the government’s broader decentralization strategy to empower local communities and strengthen district-level governance. Its mandate includes approving eligible initiatives, overseeing financial management, and ensuring compliance with procurement and accountability standards.  The processes governing project approval and cheque issuance are set out in the District Development Program Operating Manual, prescribe strict requirements for authorisation, documentation, and disbursement. These procedures are central to the allegations before the Court, as they inform whether the Petitioner’s actions in signing and presenting cheques were consistent with administrative duties or amounted to corrupt practices intended to influence electoral outcomes.
84. 	The DDC for Faasaleleaga 2 is staffed by an Executive Officer, Project Officer and Office Assistant. They also have a District Development Council or ‘Komiti’ consisting of fourteen people representing the six villages from within the Constituency of Faasaleleaga 2. This Komiti is chaired by the Member of Parliament for that Constituency. 
85. 	The grant as of the last financial year was $1m a year for each DDC which has been maintained for the 2025-2026 financial calendar - $700k was released on 9 May and $300k released on 1 July.
District Development Program - Program Operating Manual
86. 	The Program Operating Manual was tendered into evidence as Exhibit R.25 (“the Manual”).  It sets out the roles and responsibility of the District Development Councils (“DDC”) as well as the District Development Council Office (“DDCO”).  The relevant role and responsibility of the DDC for the purposes of these proceedings at section 3.3.1 of the Manual include:
	“….
	(d) Select agreed Eligible Development Initiatives (“EDI”) and develop the project proposal including the Annual Work Plan, Budget and Results Framework before submission to the DCSC for approval through the MWCSD PMU; …
	(f) receive all reports from the DDC Office on progress or activities and projects… 
	(l) approve all spending and audit reports; and
	(m) receive all reports from the DDCO on progress of activities and project. Initiatives.”
As for the DDCO, section 3.1.4 of the Manual outlines:
	“…
	(c) Prepare the project proposal(s) including the Annual Work plan, Budget and M&E Results Framework for the DDC in accordance with the Manual and based on the updated District Development Plans (“DDPn”) and agreed EDI endorsed by the DDC.
	(d)  Process payments for the eligible expenditures of DDP initiatives and office operations in accordance with the manual.
87. 	In accordance with the Manual Flow charts at section 4.5, it is the role of the DDCO to review proposals, ensure its completeness and compliance with DDP policy and then submit to the Komiti for screening and approval.  The Komiti reviews, screen and approves the proposals.   
88. 	As to financial management, section 6.3.2 of the Manual requires three authorised signatures for the DDC cheque account with at least two required to sign cheques.  The signatories must be the chairperson, deputy chairperson and secretary/treasurer with the signature of the chairperson being mandatory in all cases.  The chairperson’s signature must be the final and last signature affixed to the cheque and a DDC signatory must not commit to signing a cheque unless first sighting an invoice or voucher.  
89. 	All procurement must comply with the procedures set out in the Manual. These include: 
•	A minimum of three oral quotes for any purchase of goods or services up to $5000.
•	Written quotes for procurement between $5,000 to $50,000, which must be submitted to the DDC (Komiti) for approval. 
•	For procurement above $10,000, an appropriate contract must be executed between the 
•	DDC and the successful service provider, supplier or contractor.  
90. 	Under these requirements, cheques are to be issued directly to the approved service provider, supplier or contractor. In some instances, however, representatives of the approved projects have been permitted to collect the cheques and deliver them to the suppliers.  
91. 	This process aligns with the testimony of Suafoa Sasagi (Deputy Chairman) and Tevaga Leo (Komiti Member), who confirmed that these steps reflect the proper procedure for approving projects and issuing cheques with Faasaleleaga 2 constituency. 
92. 	The Executive Officer, Lavilavi Soloi, acknowledged the same process but added that he exercised authority to reallocate savings from one project to complete another.  However, he conceded that such reallocations cannot be used to finance a project which has not been approved by the DDC.
Discrepancies and Unauthorized payments
93. 	Significant evidence was presented regarding whether the projects funded by these cheques were duly authorized by the DDC and whether their issuance complied with the relevant Manual. Concerns were raised regarding non-compliance with established financial management procedures.
94. 	The testimony of Lavilavi Soloi addressed both projects formally approved by the DDC and those he claimed authority to approve. Specifically:
•	The $50,000 tala cheque for the Vaisaulu project was approved by the DDC at its meeting on 9 April 2025.
•	The $500 cheque was authorized by him as Executive Officer for petty cash.
•	The $200,000 Iva Primary School Hall project had been approved by the DDC. However, the variation to increase costs for toilet construction was not authorized. Lavilavi claimed authority to make this variation by reallocating savings from another output (Education scholarships). Accordingly, he prepared cheques of $5,802 for materials and $2,500 for labour.
•	The $10,000 cheque to the Mafutaga o Tina ma Tamaitai of the Seventh Day Adventist Church was not approved by the DDC. Lavilavi testified that he received the request for assistance and independently decided to grant it.
95. 	We turn now to consider the counter allegations relating to the cheques and Fono Faavae.
20 July 2025:  Allegation (i) of the counter claim - Pentecostal church at Safua – Bribery
96. 	The allegation before the Court is that the Petitioner presented a cheque in the sum of $10,000 tala to Reverend Iosefo Metusela and the Safua Pentecostal Church, whose congregation includes registered voters of Faasaleleaga 2, with the intent of inducing them to vote in his favour. 
97. 	According to Lavilavi, there was only one other instance involving a religious organisation EFKS Safotulafai where the DDC was requested to formally present the cheque to the congregation.  On that occasion, the chairperson, members of the DDC as well as officers of the DDCO travelled to the church to make the presentation.
98. 	The facts not in dispute are:
•	On 3 March the DDCO received a formal request from the First Samoan Full Gospel Pentecostal Church at Safua (“the Pentecostal Church”) submitted on behalf of its youth fellowship, seeking financial assistance to purchase a PA system and related equipment. The request was accompanied by two supporting quotations.  
•	The request was approved by the DDC during their meeting of 9 April 2025.
•	The cheque was made out to the name Rev Iosefo Metusela on 26 July 2025
•	The Petitioner personally presented the cheque to the Pentecostal Church during a Sunday service in July 2025. Notably, no representative of the DDC or DDCO accompanied him on that occasion.
99. 	The evidence in support of the allegation was provided by Malu Vaalepu Toalima Faagutu.  Malu’s evidence as to the Petitioner’s attendance on a Sunday during their church service to personally present the cheque and what was said was not challenged.  In his affidavit (Exhibit R.21), Malu stated that the Petitioner attended their church on the third Sunday of July, was introduced as a guest, and given the opportunity to address the congregation. He expressed gratitude and presented the cheque to Reverend Metusela, declaring that it was intended for improvements to the church. Reverend Metusela accepted the cheque, which was subsequently cashed at Samoa Commercial Bank Ltd on 28 July 2025.
100. 	Malu further testified that the Petitioner’s attendance was highly unusual, his only prior appearance being at a funeral three years earlier. Malu emphasized that the timing of the cheque presentation, so close to the polling date, was inappropriate. In oral testimony, he added that the Petitioner exhorted the congregation with the words “tautuana le palota” (“remember your vote”), which he interpreted as a direct attempt to induce the votes of approximately sixty members of the congregation, the majority of whom were of voting age. 
101. 	Counsel for the Petitioner sought to discredit Malu’s testimony by reference to Mua v Malolo [2021] WSSC 35 (16 July 2021), arguing that the additional evidence amounted to recent fabrication and thereby casting doubt upon the veracity of his entire account.  Although we accept that this is an additional statement, Malu’s version of what was said was not challenged by any other evidence.  In the absence of contradiction, his testimony stands unshaken and must be accorded full evidentiary weight.    
102. 	The allegation concerns the timing and presentation of a cheque valued at $10,000 by the Petitioner to Reverend Iosefo Metusela and the Safua Pentecostal Church congregation. The undisputed facts establish that the cheque originated from a request for financial assistance submitted in March and duly approved by the DDC in April; however, it was not released until 26 July.  The circumstances of its delivery—personally by the Petitioner, during a Sunday service, and without the presence of any DDC or DDCO officials—raise significant concerns as to motive and propriety.
103. 	The disputed date, whether the cheque was presented on 20 July or 27 July 2025, does not materially alter the substance of the allegation.  However, we find it more likely that the Sunday church service which was attended by the Petitioner was on 27 July 2025.  This is consistent with the evidence before the Court that the cheque was released to the Petitioner on Saturday, 26 July.  The presentation however occurred in close proximity to the polling date, thereby heightening the inference of electoral inducement.
104. 	The testimony of Suafoa (Deputy Chairman) further underscores the irregularity of the Petitioner’s conduct. When questioned regarding the appropriateness of the Petitioner appearing alone to present the cheque, he expressed surprise. He emphasized that the established procedure required the DDCO to notify the congregation of the successful application and then request a representative to collect the cheque from the DDC office.
105. 	This deviation from protocol is significant. By bypassing the official channel and personally delivering the cheque during a church service, the Petitioner assumed a role that was neither authorized nor customary. Suafou distinguished this incident with the formal presentation made to EFKS Safotulafai, where proper procedure was observed and representatives of the DDC and DDCO accompanied the delivery. The absence of such oversight in the present matter highlights the exceptional and irregular nature of the Petitioner’s actions.
106. 	The Court further observes that Malu emphasized the unusual nature of the Petitioner’s attendance, his only prior appearance being at a funeral three years earlier. This lends weight to the inference that the Petitioner’s presence was not motivated by spiritual fellowship but by political calculation.
107. 	The timing, context, and language employed by the Petitioner transform what might otherwise appear as a legitimate act of community support into conduct tainted by electoral purpose. The exhortation to “remember your vote,” delivered during the presentation of substantial financial assistance, constitutes a direct appeal to the congregation to reciprocate with electoral support. Such conduct falls squarely within the statutory definition of bribery as a corrupt practice.
108. 	Having considered the totality of the evidence, the Court finds that the Petitioner’s actions were neither innocent nor incidental. The presentation of the cheque, coupled with the exhortation to vote, was calculated to influence the electoral choices of the Safua Pentecostal Church congregation. The Court therefore concludes that the allegation of bribery has been substantiated beyond a reasonable doubt.
109. 	Accordingly, the Petitioner is found to have committed the corrupt practice of bribery.
27 August 2025:  Cheques signed by the Petitioner
110. 	The allegations are, that on this date, five cheques issued by the District Development Council (DDC) were signed by the Petitioner and subsequently disbursed through his agent with the intent to corruptly influenced these people. These five cheques form the foundation of the allegations of bribery raised in the counter-petition:
•	Allegation (vi) of the counter petition - $10,000 tala cheque to the Mafutaga o Tina ma Tamaitai of the Seventh Day Adventist Church
•	Allegation (vii) of the counter petition - $2500 tala cheque to Tofia Vatau Taalo
•	Allegation (viii) of the counter petition -$5,802 tala cheque to the villagers of Iva
•	Allegation (ix) of the counter petition - $500 tala cheque to Savali.
•	Allegation (x) of the counter petition - $50,000 tala cheque to the village of Vaisaulu
111. 	Significant evidence was presented regarding whether the projects funded by these cheques were duly authorized by the DDC and whether their issuance complied with the relevant Manual. Concerns were raised regarding non-compliance with established financial management procedures.
112. 	The testimony of Lavilavi Soloi addressed both projects formally approved by the DDC and those he claimed authority to approve. Specifically:
•	The $50,000 tala cheque for the Vaisaulu project was approved by the DDC at its meeting on 9 April 2025.
•	The $500 cheque was authorized by him as Executive Officer for petty cash.
•	The $200,000 Iva Primary School Hall project had been approved by the DDC. However, the variation to increase costs for toilet construction was not authorized. Lavilavi claimed authority to make this variation by reallocating savings from another output (Education scholarships). Accordingly, he prepared cheques of $5,802 for materials and $2,500 for labour.
•	The $10,000 cheque to the Mafutaga o Tina ma Tamaitai of the Seventh Day Adventist Church was not approved by the DDC. Lavilavi testified that he received the request for assistance and independently decided to grant it.
113. 	The issues to be considered by the Court in relation to these cheques are:
(i) 	Whether Lavilavi Soloi and Savali Mariner, employees of the DDCO, and Latu Tofia, a member of the DDC, were acting as committee members or agents of the Petitioner when the cheques were executed and disbursed; and if so, whether their actions constituted bribery? And
(ii) 	Whether, irrespective of agency, the timing of the cheques—issued immediately prior to polling—amounts to bribery by the Petitioner?
Are members of the DDCO and DDC committee members for the Petitioner?
114. 	Counsel for the Respondent submits that Lavilavi Soloi and Savali Mariner as employees of the DDCO and Latu Tofia, as a member of the DDC, were acting as agents or committee members of the Petitioner. Each of them denied the allegation.
115. 	The argument rests on the Respondent’s belief that the Petitioner, in his capacity as chairman of the DDC, instructed and authorized Lavilavi to approve certain programs and issue cheques which were subsequently delivered by Savali and Latu.
116. 	The difficulty with this argument is the absence of evidence that Lavilavi, Savali, or Latu promoted the Petitioner’s election, whether expressly or implicitly. Tevaga testified that Lavilavi claimed the Petitioner instructed him to sign the cheques, but Lavilavi denied this. His evidence was clear: the preparation of cheques was undertaken in the ordinary course of employment as DDCO officers, and 27 August 2025 was simply the date on which the Petitioner, as chairman, was available to sign them.
117. 	The actions of Lavilavi and Savali in implementing projects and preparing cheques were consistent with their official duties. There is no evidence that they acted on behalf of the Petitioner in his personal capacity as a candidate, nor that their conduct was directed toward securing his electoral advantage. The mere fact that the Petitioner chaired the DDC does not transform DDCO employees into his personal agents for electoral purposes.
118. 	The same reasoning applies to Latu. His membership in the DDC and involvement in the Iva School Hall project, do not render him an agent of the Petitioner.  
119. 	Accordingly, we do not accept the submissions by Counsel for the Respondent that Lavilavi, Savali and Latu were agents of the Petitioner.
Whether timing of cheques amounts to bribery? 
120. 	Despite our earlier conclusions regarding DDCO employees, it remains necessary to examine the Petitioner’s conduct in his dual capacity: as a candidate in the general elections and as chairperson of the DDC, entrusted with the disbursement of government funds. The central question is whether his endorsement and signing of cheques on the eve of polling — specifically, on the day of pre-polling and two days before the election, amounts to the corrupt practice of bribery.
121. 	Two distinct scenarios arise:
•	The signing of cheques for projects already approved by the DDC.
•	The signing of cheques for projects not approved by the DDC but endorsed by the Executive Officer of the DDCO.
122. 	It is undisputed that the projects funded by these cheques fell within the remit of the DDC. The decisive issue, however, is whether the timing of these disbursements — so close to polling day — transformed otherwise legitimate administrative acts into electoral inducements. This concern is heightened in relation to projects not approved by the DDC. Endorsing the Executive Officer’s decisions to release funds for such projects raises questions about the Petitioner’s motives, particularly when the beneficiaries were members of his constituency. As chairperson, he was expected to be well‑versed in the procedures and approval levels set out in the Manual. Circumventing these requirements appears to have been a deliberate choice. It is also notable that the cheques were issued to organizations closely affiliated with personnel in the DDCO or DDC, including Savali (Mafutaga Tina and Tamaitai Aso Fitu) and Latu (Iva Primary School).
123. 	The Court emphasizes that timing is critical in assessing corrupt practice. Approvals made in the ordinary course of governance, well removed from elections, may be routine. By contrast, approvals effected immediately before polling are apt to be perceived as inducements or rewards for electoral support. We question why the Petitioner did not sign the cheques earlier for the approved projects and/or wait until after the elections to consider those not yet approved.  No urgency justified the release of funds at that particular moment.
124. 	The source of funds — whether public, private, or business — is immaterial. What matters is the electoral context. When benefits are conferred upon electors in the days immediately preceding an election, the inference of intent to influence voting is strong. Moreover, the use of public funds in this manner distorts electoral equality. Candidates who control such funds gain an unfair advantage, leveraging community resources to secure votes. This undermines the integrity of the electoral process and contravenes the prohibition against bribery.
125. 	Accordingly, the Court finds that the approval and signing by the Petitioner of cheques on the day of pre polling and two days prior to polling cannot be regarded as mere administrative procedure. Viewed in its electoral context, such conduct constitutes an inducement of voters and falls within the definition of bribery. The timing of the approvals is decisive: it converts otherwise lawful disbursements into corrupt practices, contrary to both the spirit and letter of electoral law. 
126. 	We therefore make the following findings in respect of four of the five cheques:
(i) 	The approval and signing of the $10,000 cheque to the Mafutaga Tina ma Tamaitai Aso Fitu was to induce the vote of Savali and other members of the Mafutaga. 
(ii) 	The approval and signing of the $2,500 cheque to Latu Tofia was to induce his vote and the votes of the workers which include Leauanae. 
(iii) 	The approval and signing of the $5,802 cheque to the Primary School of Iva was to induce the vote of Latu, Leauanae and villagers of Iva. 
(iv) 	The approval and signing of the $50,000 cheque for the Vaisaulu project was to induce the vote of Mauga Mafoe and other villagers of Vaisaulu. 
127. 	In respect of allegation (ix) of the $500 cheque to Savali Mariner - We accept Lavilavi’s evidence that the DDCO’s established practice for petty cash was to issue a cash cheque withdrawn by a DDCO employee. Savali, as an employee, was tasked with withdrawing the funds. Lavilavi confirmed that Savali presented the cash to him, and the money was used for minor disbursements and office expenditures.
128. 	Although discrepancies exist regarding the precise use of the $500, these are more appropriately matters of internal control to be addressed by audit procedures. We do not accept that the cheque was issued to induce Savali to vote for the Petitioner. It was clearly used for office expenditure. Accordingly, we are not satisfied that bribery has been proven to the necessary standard.  
Overall Findings of the Court
129. 	We make the following Orders:
(a) 	The Petition against the Respondent, Vaaelua Senetenari Samau is dismissed in its entirety.
(b) 	The Counter Allegation (ix) of Bribery against the Petitioner is dismissed.
(c) 	Counter-Allegations (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) are proven beyond reasonable doubt against the Petitioner, Magele Sekati Fiaui.
(d) 	The following costs are awarded against the Petitioner:
(i) 	The Petitioner’s security deposit of $2000 is to be forfeited for Court costs; and 
(ii) 	To pay $3000 to the Respondent by 12 noon Monday, 24 November. 
(iii) 	The Respondent’s security deposit of $2000 is to be refunded. 
130. 	We hereby certify these findings and will issue our Report to the Honorable Speaker of the Legislative Assembly pursuant to section 122 of the Electoral Act 2019 in due course.
Recommendation
131. 	We intend to raise with the Honorable Speaker in our Report a number of issues identified in this case concerning the disbursement and issuance of Fono Faavae funds by a candidate under the guise of official duties, we recommend the following measures: 
(i) 	Any member of a Fono Faavae, including the chairperson and/or officers, who intends to contest 	the general elections must resign upon the issuance of the writ of election. 
(ii) 	Section 12 of the Electoral Act be amended to expressly reflect the recommendation.   
JUSTICE LEUTELE M TUATAGALOA
JUSTICE LOAU D KERSLAKE