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

Case name: 	Meredith v Asafo 	
		
Citation: 	[2025] WSSC 107	
		
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:
	“107. Method of questioning election: 
	(1) No election and no declaration of result or report to the Head of State is to be questioned except by petition complaining of an unlawful election or unlawful declaration or report (in this Act referred to as an election petition) presented in accordance with this Part.”
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:
	“116. 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.”
4. 	The corrupt practices in question are two allegations of bribery, viz that:
(a) 	At Sogi, on or about Saturday 23rd August 2025, the Respondent by his agent, namely Fuimaono Faoliu, did give cash of $30 tala to Tuputaafale Tautuli a voter for Falealili No.2, to induce the said voter to vote for the Respondent.
(b) 	At Sapo’e Falealili on or about Wednesday 27th August 2025, the Respondent did give cash of $100 tala to Soloau Uaita, a voter for Falealili No.2, to induce the said voter to vote for the Respondent.
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.
7. 	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.
8. 	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”. 
9. 	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:
	“Fesili:	O lea na molimau si ou aiga, lou to’alua o le aso lea na sau ai tai fetaui ma Faoliu e te manatua le –
	Tali: 	Na sau e avaku se ma fertilizer 
	Fesili:	I le aso 23 lea e ta faapea na talanoa ai ma Faoliu o lea na faapea mai le mau a lou toalua na sau e alu e siaki lana tusi apalai, o e manatua, o iai sou malamalamaaga i le vaega lea?
	Tali: 	Ou te le malamalama la a’u ia i ga kusi
	Fesili:	E iai sou malamalama’aga i le tusi apalai?
	Tali: 	Ou te le malamalama ai
	Fesili:	E iai sou malamalama’aga ise galuega faakonekarate a Saiga na apalai iai lou toalua
	Tali: 	Ou te le o malamalama … E faailoa aku i lau afioga –
	Fesili:	Ia
	Tali: 	O lo’u koalua sa faigaluega i le kogekalake a le au Saiga, sa faigaluega lo’u koalua. A’o le aso lega ga gofo ai e faamaimai, fai aku iai e sau i kai e faakau se ma fekalaisa ga alai ona oo mai tai. 
	Fesili:	Le aso la lea na sau ai i tai fetaui ai ma Faoliu?
	Tali: 	Ia
	Fesili:	Lea sa faama’ima’i ai?
	Tali: 	Ia
	Fesili:	E te faamaonia le tala lea, le aso 23 lea o Aokuso lea na faama’ima’i sau ai i tai
	Tali: 	O lea lava.”
10. 	 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: 
	“Uma loa ona tu le pasi, ae oso atu loa Tuputaafale i luga o le pasi. Sa ou fesili iai poo fea e alu iai, ae tali mai o ia na alu e faigaluega ae alu atu ua faama’ima’i, o lea e sau o le a alu i le fale ae sau loa afe atu i le pasi ina ua vaai mai i lau pasi. Sa ma talanoa, ae muamua lava oso mai laga tala e faaleaga mai ai Fuimaono Maria Tuatgaloa ma Fuimaono Te’o, faapea sa alu atu Fuimaono Te’o ia ma lona toalua e taumafai e palota mo Fuimaono Maria ae ua malosi le fautuaga a matua a lona toalua e o e palota mo le FAST. Ua ou iloa lelei lava, o lea foi e iai le mea lea e alu atu ai Tuputaafale. Uma loa fai ana tala ma fai mai o ia laa alu i le falemai ae pe maua se tupe se’i pasese ai. Ou tago loa tuu iai le $20, ae le o le $30 e pei na ia tā’ua. Pei ona ou fai atu muamua, o se mea e masani ai le aitalafu, ma la na te iloa lelei e faapaleni mai e lona uso o Iakopo.”
11. 	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:
	“Fesili:	….Na faapea atu e leiloa tonu le mafuaaga na oo atu ai Malia ma aumai oe mai le fale, ma o i le fale o Fuimaono Teo i Fagalii, ae mulimuli ane e iloa ai, mulimuli ane ai loa aumai oe ile ofisa o le loia e fai lana faamatalaga?
	Tali:	Lau afioga, pei o lau fesili, e lei alatu Malia aumai ma’ua ave i le fale o Fuimaono Teo. Na aumai ma’ua e Malia matou aga’i tai lona fale, uma matou omai ii le ofisa le loia.
	Fesili:	Na alu atu la Malia aumai oe i lou fale?
	Tali:	Ia.
	Fesili:	Toute lei o i Fagalii i le fale o Fuimaono Teo?
	Tali:	Mau te lei o i le fale o Fuimaono Teo.
	Fesili:	Ao lau tala lena na fai i lou tama, o oe lea e te te’i i le alatu o Malia aumai oe aga’i i le fale o Fuimaono Teo i Fagalii, tou omai mulimuli ai loa ile ofisa ole loia?
	Tali:	Lau afioga mate lei toe aga’i i Fagalii ise fale o Fuimaono Teo, o le fale o Malia na matou aga’i gai iai. Uma le fale o Malia, matou aga’i mai le ofisa ole loia.”
12. 	In comparison Moana’s evidence in cross-examination was (transcript pages 43 and 44):
	“Fesili:	Lea la na tou omai I le ofisa o le loia, o le sa’oga foi o le mau na alu atu Malia piki mai oulua 
	Tali: 	Ia, o lea lava
	Fesili:	I le aso lava lea na fai ai lau molimau?
	Tali: 	Ia, o lea lava
	Fesili:	E lei iloa la e lou toalua le mea lea e agai ai?
	Tali: 	Ga ke’i lo’u ko’alua I le ku aku o Malia e piki mai maua.
	Fesili:	E iai le molimau lea e faapea mai na tou omai tou agai I le fale o Fuimaono Te’o tou omai ai loa ii i le fale o Malia
	Tali: 	E leai se mea faapena
	Fesili:	A’o le saoga o le mea na tou omai –
	Tali: 	Na matou omai sa’o i le ofisa o loia
	Fesili:	Na fai atu se tala a Malia o lea toute omai i le ofisa o le loia?
	Tali: 	Ia ga fai mai mauke omai i le ofisa o loia, matou omai loa. Ae faakoa malamalama I kokogu o le ofisa le mea ua alai oga ma omai.
	Fesili:	O lea la ua e iloaina le mea lea e aumai ai lou to’alua ae le’o iloa e lou to’alua, o le sa’oga lea o lau mau?
	Tali: 	Ia, o lea lava”
13. 	Another clear conflict. When questioned on it, Moana modified her evidence slightly to align it better with Tupu’s testimony:
	“Fesili:	O le sa’oga la o le mea na omai outou mai le tou fale o i le ofisa o loia. Toute lei o i le fale o Fuimaono Malia?
	Tali: 	Ga makou omai ma Fuimaogo makou omai sa’o i le ofisa loia.
	Fesili:	Toute lei o i le fale o Fuimaono Malia?
	Tali: 	Leai
	Fesili:	E sa’o lau mau?
	Tali: 	Ia
	Fesili:	A’o lea ua uma ona tuuina mai le molimau a lou toalua, na tou omai mai le tou fale, o i le fale o Fuimaono Malia fai ai le tou tala faatoa omai ai loa I le ofisa o loia. O ai la o oulua lea e sa’o le fa'amatalaga?
	Tali: 	Ia ga makou omai ai makou o I le mea lea e ia i le fale falaoa makou koe omai loa I le loia.
	Fesili:	E sa’o la lou toalua?
	Tali: 	Ia e sa’o lo’u koalua
	Fesili:	E sese la lau fa'amatalaga lea na fai mai muamua?
	Tali: 	Ia”.
Analysis
14. 	This is not very satisfactory evidence. The couple also differed on other details. The court must further take into consideration the following:
(i) 	Tupu’s credibility is not enhanced by the observations of his partner at page 52 of the transcript:
	“Fesili:	O leisi vaega I lau molimau faamolemole Moana, o le aso lea na sau ai lou toalua I tai, o lea foi e te faamaonia e sau o lae faama’ima’i na sau e alu I le falemai o le sa’oga lena? Ga sau e faakau aku le fekilaisa pe ga sau e alu I le falemai?
	Tali: 	Ga sau e alu i le – ga sau e faakau aku le fekilaisa e fai ai kapisi.
	Fesili:	A’o lea e faapea mai ga sau e faama’ima’i. 
	Tali: 	O le mea lega ga alai oga gofo, faama’ima’i, ga gofo a laia o’u fai aku iai e sau I kai e avaku se ma fekalaisa. 
	Fesili:	O lea sa fesiligia ai lou toalua i le vaega lena, sa ou tuua iai le fesili lena ae fai mai leai o ia na malosi a, o le aso lena na sau o lae malosi e lei ma’i. Na sau o malosi
	HH:	So whats your question?
	Fesili:	O la’u fesili poo fea la le sa’o, o ai o oulua lea e  - aua o lea e te faapea mai na faama’ima’i i le aso lea e lei faigaluega ai. A’o lea e fai mai lou toalua o ia na sau e –
	Tali: 	Se faamolemole lau susuga laga o si o’u koalua pei e vaivai a
	Fesili:	Vaivai
	Tali: 	Galo ia ia 
	Fesili:	Fea le sa’o vaivai pe galo aua e lua mea na?
	Tali: 	E vaivai
	Fesili:	E vaivai poo mea uma na e lua – ia o leisi vaega lea e te faapea mai – tā’ua pea le mea lea laga lea ua e faapea mai e vaivai. O le fa'amatalaga a le tamā o Tupu o se tagata foi e vaivai e lei malosi le aoga e te faasa’oina le mau lena a le toeaina?
	Tali: 	O lea lava.”
(ii) 	It is apparent from Moana’s own evidence (transcript pages 40 and 41) that she is a long time former employee of the Petitioner and that they have a close relationship:
	“Fesili:	Moana o a au mea o fai i le taimi nei?
	Tali: 	Lae fai la’u kogalaau aiga.
	Fesili:	Sa e faigaluega muamua?
	Tali: 	Ga ou faigaluega ia Malia ma Graig, fale falaoa
	Fesili:	Malia lea e Fuimaono Maria Tuatagaloa Meredith a?
	Tali: 	Ia 
	Fesili:	E sa’o e umi ona e galue ai ii?
	Tali: 	Ia, ua umi ua leva ua akoa le 4 kausaga
	Fesili:	Atoa le 4 tausaga?
	Tali: 	Ia
	Fesili:	O le a le taimi na amata ai ona e faigaluega ia Maria ma Graig?
	Tali: 	Lau afioga ouke le’o magakua
	Fesili:	A’o le a se umi
	Tali: 	4 kausaga
	Fesili:	Taimi la nei e leo toe faigaluega ai?
	Tali: 	Ia, o lea lava
	Fesili:	O anafea na nofo ai?
	Tali: 	Ga ou gofo ia Fepuari ouke le’o magakua foi
	Fesili:	Fepuari o –
	Tali: 	Kausaga gei …
	Fesili:	O oe la e iai le fesookaiga po o le malamalama ia Malia e sa’o?
	Tali: 	Ia, o lea lava lau afioga
	Fesili:	E sa’o pe a ou faapea atu e mafana lelei le lua mafutaga ma Malia?
	Tali: 	Ia, o lea lava
	Fesili:	O a mea uma e manao ai pe moomia ai se fesoasoani –
	Tali: 	E vili mai a a’u.
	Fesili:	E vili atu lava ia te oe. E le fou ia Maria le mea e iai le tou fale?
	Tali: 	Ia e masani 
	Fesili:	E malamalama lelei foi Maria i le mea e tu ai lou fale I Tafaigata e sa’o?
	Tali: 	Ia, o lea lava.”
(iii) 	The evidence shows that it was Moana who informed the Petitioner about the “bribery”. Her evidence was she was told about the $30 payment by Tupu when he returned home from Sogi that Saturday. Tupu confirmed that he told Moana about the $30 and that it was her who suggested it was a “bribe”. To a certain extent she can be regarded as the instigator of this entire allegation. 
(iv) 	Moana clearly has motivation for a bias in favour of the Petitioner, not to mention she has many reasons to support her partner Tupu who is the primary witness for the Petitioner for this allegation. Even though she in fact contradicts what Tupu says in many respects.
(v) 	It is simply not credible as consistently stated by him that Tupu, knowing as he admitted in his evidence that the Petitioner lost the election, was uplifted from his house post-election by the Petitioner but in blissful ignorance as to why he and his partner the Petitioner’s former employer and close friend, were being taken to a lawyer’s office “mo se tamai mataupu”. Particularly after according to him, he had told Moana about the $30 “bribe” from Faoliu. A good reason by itself to treat Tupu’s evidence with caution.
15. 	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:
(i) 	that on or about Saturday 23 August 2025 – i.e. in the time period immediately preceding the election;
(ii) 	that Faoliu did give $30 to Tupu a registered voter in the Falealili 2 electoral constituency;
(iii) 	that such payment was given for the corrupt purpose of inducing Tupu to vote for the Respondent, a candidate in the General Election – i.e. that it was a bribe; and
(iv) 	that it was given by Faoliu on behalf of and as an agent if not in fact then in law for the Respondent.
16. 	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.
17. 	The burden and standard of proof was explained thus in Posala v Su’a [2006] WSSC 29:
	“Although the (EA) does not use the word “criminal” in Part IX headed ‘Corrupt and Illegal Practices’ (now Part 13 of the EA)…. the use of words such as ‘guilty’, ‘offence’ ‘commission of offence’ ‘punishment’ ‘imprisonment’ and ‘fine’ point remorselessly to the identification of each offence as a criminal offence. 
	We consider that the criminal standard of proof i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt of guilt of any alleged offence applies …. Part IX (Part 13). The burden of proof of guilt lies on the party alleging conduct amounting to an offence. In discharging that burden, the party alleging such conduct must prove that offence and every element of it beyond reasonable doubt. We do not intend to explain what reasonable doubt means other than to say that if at the conclusion of its consideration of all relevant evidence relating to a particular charge the tribunal of fact is left in reasonable doubt as to the accused person’s guilt then it will find the accused person not guilty of the charge then being considered but if it is left in no reasonable doubt it will find the accused person guilty of that charge.”
18. 	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.
19. 	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. 
20. 	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.
21. 	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.
22. 	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.
23. 	Allegation (a) of the Petition is dismissed.
(b) Wednesday 27 August 2025 - $100 bribe at Sapo’e, Falealili.
24. 	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.
25. 	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:
	“Tali 	Ia, pei ua galogalo ia ke a’u le kaimi ga o aku ai a’o lea ouke faamauiga a, oga e molimau la’u fagau oga o le kaimi, o le aso muamua lea ga aumai ai a’u ouke lei magakuaiga le kaimi ae ua ou koe sau i le fale ma faamagaku mai e la’u fagau o le kaimi kogu ga o aku ai Kiko o le 4:00 i le afiafi.”
26. 	When giving evidence, she also changed the “red pick-up” to a white van in cross-examination explaining on page 78 of the transcript: 
	“Tali 	O lea ou te manatuaina o lea na aumai le pikiapu mumu I la’u –
	Fesili:	I
	Tali: 	Ae pei ua galogalo ia a’u po o le a le lagu o le kaavale, ia a’o le pikiapu mumu lea ga aumai ae –
	Fesili:	E ke le o iloa po o se pikiapu mumu?
	Tali: 	Ia, po o le lagu pa’epa’e po o le lagu mumu.”
27. 	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.
28. 	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:
	“Na ma feiloai ma Gako i le fogo a le guu lea sa fai. Sa’u fesili ia Gako oga o lea ou ke vaai o lea e alu le faipule i isi aiga ae misi a le makou fale. Pei o le mea lega sa ou fesili ai ia Gako pe leai se kaimi avagoa o le faipule oga ua uma aku le kausaga a’o lea laa koe alaku ma legei kausaga e lei oo aku a le faipule i le makou fale. Pei o le makou fale e misi i kausaga uma i le vaikaimi o le paloka.”
29. 	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.
30. 	In response, the Respondent called as witnesses: 
(i) 	Nato – who confirmed he passed on Soloau’s request for a visit to the Respondent. According to Nato, there were two such requests from Soloau. Of her evidence he says in his affidavit dated 30 September 2025 (Exhibit “R-3” for the Respondent):
	“Ou te le’i iloa la le taimi sa alu ai le faipule e vaai ia Soloau.
	Ae o lea ua ou faalogo i le molimau a Soloau lea ua fai i le faipule, e matua faanoanoa tele ona o la lava sa talosaga soo atu e alu atu le faipule e vaai ia. Foliga mai la o se mea lava na fai ina ia taumafai e molia ai le faipule i se taimi mulimuli.”
(ii) 	The three matais who accompanied the Respondent to Soloau’s house: Tilino Tapu, Mateifaga Vesi and Fuimaono Alofi. All three testified that the visit did not occur on pre-polling day but the week before on 19 August 2025 after a Committee meeting at Soloau’s village, that no money as claimed changed hands and that the reason Soloau requested the visit was to discuss with the Respondent the fixing of the poor quality dirt access road to her house. 
Analysis
31. 	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.
32. 	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.
33. 	The charge is not proven to any degree, allegation (b) of the Petition must be dismissed. 
Counter-petition
34. 	Of the nine (9) counts in the Counter-petition, the Respondent proceeded with seven (7). These were: 
(i) 	On or about 09 June 2025 at Salani, the Petitioner through her agent named Fuimaono Kalama Afa in her presence, directly gave $3,000 to the village of Salani, such money was then distributed to voters and of which Aigaimaulupe Anamani Vine (numera 2 i le lola palota) a voter for the Constituency of Falealili 2, received $100, in order induce the said voter to vote;
(ii) 	On or about 09 June 2025 at Salani, the Petitioner through her agent named Fuimaono Kalama Afa in her presence, directly give $3,000 to the village of Salani, such money was then distributed to voters and of which Fuimaono Vo’a (numera 72 i le lola palota) a voter for the Constituency of Falealili 2, received $100, in order induce to the said voter to vote;
(iii) 	On or about 6 August 2025 at Utulaelae, the Petitioner, through her agent/committee member named Fuimaono Te’o in her presence, gave $100 to Utu Lemafa (numera 906 i le lola palota), a voter for the Constituency of Falealili 2, in order induce to the said voter to vote;
(iv) 	On or about 08 August 2025 at Lotofaga, the Petitioner, through her agent/committee member named Fuimaono Te’o in her presence, gave $100 to Seine Leatigaga (numera 768 i le lola palota), a voter for the Constituency of Falealili 2, in order induce to the said voter to vote;
(v) 	On or about 08 August 2025 at Lotofaga, the Petitioner, through her agent/committee member named Fuimaono Te’o in her presence, gave $100 to Gali Aliimalemanu (numera 724 i le lola palota), a voter for the Constituency of Falealili 2, in order induce to the said voter to vote;
(vi) 	On or about 15 August 2025 at Salani, the Petitioner, through her agent/committee member named Fuimaono Te’o, gave $50 to Leatigaga Agatupu (numera 225 i le lola palota), a voter for the Constituency of Falealili 2, in order induce to the said voter to vote;
(vii) 	On or about 28 August 2025 at Siuniu, the Petitioner indirectly through her agent/committee member named Fuimaono Te’o, gave $100 to Lesina Talifeau (numera 939 i le lola palota), a voter for the Contituency of Falealili 2, in order induce to the said voter to vote.
35. 	We will deal with them chronologically and according to the place where they occurred 
(i) 	09 June 2025 - $3,000 presentation to Salani village
(ii) 	06 August 2025 – $100 bribe at Utulaelae 
(iii) 	08 August 2025 –  two $100 bribes at Lotofaga
(iv) 	15 August 2025 – $50 bribe at Salani
(v) 	28 August 2025 – $100 bribe at Siuniu 
09 June 2025 - $3,000 presentation to Salani village
36. 	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.
37. 	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
38. 	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.
39. 	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. 
40. 	The law in this area was recently restated in Tafili v Peto [2021] WSSC 30:
	“We respectfully consider that Petaia v Pa'u [2006] WSSC 1 (4 December 2006) accurately sets out the state of the law as follows;
	“To be guilty of the corrupt practices bribery and treating the petitioner must prove that the respondent intended to induce the voters to vote other than in accordance with their conscience: Gagaifomauga No. 2 Territorial Constituency (1960-1969) WSLR 169 at 177; or gave with the intention of influencing the election, either generally, as by acquiring popularity, or with the intention of influencing a particular voter to vote or refrain from voting: Hereford Case (1869) 20 LT 405; if in any case looking at all the circumstances, the reasonable and probable effect ... 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: Wairau Election Petition (1912) 2 NZLR 321; re Election Petition Anoama’a East Territorial Constituency: Faamatuainu Talamailei v Savea Sione (unreported Misc 6007; (28/7/1982). Not only must the subject intent of the respondent be corrupt but the methods employed must also be corrupt.”
	Further, in Lufilufi v Hunt [2011] WSSC 49 (26 April 2011), and Vui v Ah Chong [2006] WSSC 52 the Court cited with approval Rogers on Elections (20th ed) at page 270, on the issue of a person’s intent;
	"The intention of a person charged with bribery must be gathered from his acts. Mellor J in Launceston (1874) 2 O'M & H 133 said: I cannot go into any intention of the respondent, I must be governed by what he said and what he did, and by the inferences I ought to draw therefrom. And this was followed in Kingston-upon-Hull (1911) 6 O'M & H 389, per Buchnill J: You cannot allow a man to say, I did not intend to do that which amounted to bribery, if when you look at all the things which he did there is only one conclusion to draw and that is that he has done that which he said he did not intend to do."
	We consider that it is important to note what this Court held in Posala v Sua:
	“An intention can never be proved as a fact; it can only be inferred from facts proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”
	The meaning of this observation was further discussed in Vui v Ah Chong in which Chief Justice Sapolu said:
	"I accept that in order to ascertain a person's intention one has to look at what he said and what he did in the circumstances of what took place. It is not physically possible to look into a person's mind to see what he was thinking at the time when he gave out money or valuable consideration to an elector or voter. So one looks at what he said and what he did and infer from that as a fact what his intention was at the time of the giving. Sometimes the impression given by what a person said may be inconsistent with what he did. It will be for the court to decide which of the two conveys the person's true intention.””
41. 	We consider the following factors to be significant when assessing the issue of intent:
(a) 	This was the first time the Petitioner had ever attended a “Aso Gafua” of the village. At such meetings, matters of importance in the village are discussed and dealt with. 
(b) 	She must have known from Fuimaono Kalama the advisor of her ‘fuaiala’ who resides and represents the family in the village that the majority if not all of the village would be present. It is likely word would have spread that prospective election candidates would attend the meeting. Such meetings involve the aumaga, the faleupolu, the faletua ma tausi and the people of the village. It was undoubtedly a large gathering.
(c) 	It is irrelevant that the purpose of the meeting was not to specifically receive electoral candidates. What is important is election candidacies were announced and dealt with at the meeting in the presence of the whole village including the Respondent as current Member of Parliament for the itumalo.
(d) 	The presentation of money and the Petitioners candidacy were not treated as separate events. They were dealt with in the one ‘lauga’ by Fuimaono Kalama. In his affidavit and evidence, Fuimaono Kalama was quite clear: 
	“O lea $3,000 o le mafuaaga na ave ai mo le nuu ona o le manaoga o Fuimaono Maria e fia alu i le faiga palota tele ma e manao i le lagolago o le nuu e avea ia ma le tofi.”
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.
42. 	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:
	“You cannot allow a man to say, I did not intend to do that which amounted to bribery, if when you look at all the things which he did there is only one conclusion to draw and that is that he has done that which he said he did not intend to do."
43. 	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
44. 	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.
45. 	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.
46. 	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): 
	“Sa saunoa ai ia Fuimaono Te’o o lea e faafeiloai le nuu ma faailoa le sui tauva o Fuimaono Maria. Fai mai o le talosaga a Fuimaono Maria lea na vave ai ona sua le auala galue a Utulaelae, ia matou alolofa atu ma palota mo Fuimaono Maria o ia lea ua vave ai ona sua le auala. Sa fai mai e faaeteete lava ia mea e fai ona o le matagi e faitatala. Sa faafetai mai loa ma fai mai loa e iai sina meaalofa mai ia Fuimaono Maria mo matou.
	Sa ave e Fuimaono Te’o le tupe ia Tuu e alu e tufa i tagata ae o lea e nonofo ma Fuimaono Maria. Ae o au ma Tauanuu Apelu sa valaau mai e Fuimaono Te’o ma igoa ma aumai e Tuu ma seleni. O isi tagata sa tufa lava e lei valaau igoa. Sa valaau mai lou igoa ma aumai e Tuu lou $100. Uma loa faafetai loa iai Tauanuu Apelu mo le seleni ma taape ai.
	O lea lava e mautinoa i lou iloa o le tupe lenei o le faatosina i le palota mo Fuimaono Maria.”
47. 	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
48. 	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:
	“Counsel contended that the evidence of an accomplice cannot provide independent corroborating evidence of another accomplice….We do not agree. In respect of an allegation of election corrupt practice such as bribery, the Court is not bound by the strict practice applicable to criminal cases but may act on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice (M'Clory v Wright (1860) 10 ICLR 514 cited in 4 Halsbury's Laws of England, paragraph 780 fn5).”
49. 	Regard can also be had to section 118 of the EA which in giving the court a wide discretion provides:
	“118. Real justice to be observed: 
	On the trial of an election petition, the Court:
	(a) 	shall be guided by the substantial merits and justice of the case without regard to legal forms or technicalities; and 
	(b)	 may admit such evidence as in its opinion may assist it to deal effectively with the case, despite that the evidence may not otherwise be admissible in the Supreme Court.”
50. 	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.
51. 	This count is proven to the required standard.
08 August 2025 –  two $100 bribes at Lotofaga
52. 	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):
	“Sa saunoa muamua ia Fuimaono Te’o, sa faailoa atu Fuimaono Maria ma lona tagata. Sa ia faailoa foi le faasologa o le igoa o Fuimaono Maria i le pepa palota. Sa ia faapea mai loa “o le a tufa atu tou ta’i tala e avatu e faatau ai se meaai a tamaiti”. Sa tago loa Fuimaono Maria tuu le tupe ia Fuimaono Te’o, ma valaau Fuimaono Teo i lona afafine e sau ma tuu iai e Fuimaono Te’o le seleni ae sau lona afafine tufa mai ia matou. Sa tuu mai ia te au le $100 ma e $100 sa tuu i lo’u toalua o Gali. Sa ta’i $100 uma matou lea sa iai.
	Sa uma loa ona tufa le tupe fai mai loa Fuimaono Te’o e tautuana mo matou e aua nei iloa e seisi o lea na oo mai Fuimaono Maria i tua ma tufa mai ni tupe. Uma loa, sa matou faamavae loa ae matou foi i le fale.
	O lea lava e mautinoa i lo’u iloa o le tupe lenei o le faatosina i le palota mo Fuimaono Maria.”
53. 	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:
	“Sa matou o uma i totonu o le fale. Sa muamua saunoa mai ia Fuimaono Te’o, sa faapea mai sa alu atu e faailoa mai ia le sui tauva o Fuimaono Maria, e matou te faamasani iai. Sa tago faamatala mai le faatulaga o le igoa o Fuimaono Maria i le pepa palota. Sa fai mai e tautuana le palota mo Fuimaono Maria. Sa fai mai loa o le a tufa mai le ta’i tala, o se mea e faatau ai meaai a tamaiti. 
	Sa tago Fuimaono Maria tuu le seleni ia Fuimaono Te’o, ma sa fai Fuimaono Te’o i lona afafine e sau e tufa le seleni i tagata ae faasoa mai e ia. Sa tago loa Fuimaono Te’o tuu le tupe i lona afafine ae sau lona afafine tuu mai ia matou. Sa tuu mai ia te a’u le $100, sa tuu leisi $100 i lo’u toalua o Seine. I le taimi lea o loo matou iai ma isi tagata e iai ia Ieremia ma lona toalua, ma le la fanau teine e toalua, ma Vaisola ma Ailua. Ou te iloa e ta’i $100 uma matou.
	Sa saunoa mai loa ia Fuimaono Te’o e aua nei faailoa i seisi matou fonotaga ma ia tautuana ma matou le palota mo le sui tauva.
	Sa matou faamavae loa ma taape ai i lea afiafi. 
	Ou te iloa o le tupe lenei o le faatosina i le palota mo Fuimaono Maria ona matou te le masagi i lea tagata.”
Analysis
54. 	The Petitioner called no witnesses in reply but this evidence was challenged on the basis of –
(a) 	absent a personal connection, there was no reason why Te’o would have the phone number of the couple;
(b) 	Seine’s recollection of the date was based on her diary which her husband testified had long ago been lost; and
(c) 	Te’o had stated the money was for the purpose of “e faatau ai meaai mo tamaiti”.
55. 	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.
56. 	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
57. 	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):
	“Sa alu atu Fuimaono Te’o i se taimi o le latalata i le 9:00pm. Sa alu atu i tua o le fale i le mea lea e matou te nofonofo ai. Ou te lei iloa pe faafefea ona alu atu, poo se taavale ona o lea e matou te i tua o le fale. Ae sa alu atu Fuimaono Te’o ma saofai atu i ou autafa. Sa faamalo mai ia matou le galulue, ma sa tago loa momono mai i lou lima ia le $50. Sa ou talia ma ou fai iai, o na ua e iloa au, e ese le tagata ou te alu agai iai. Sa tu i luga Fuimaono ma ata ma alu loa. Ou te le o iloa pe sa iloa mai e nisi le tuu mai e Fuimaono o le seleni i lou lima ona lea e monomono mai i autafa.
	O le uiga o lau tala sa fai ia Fuimaono Te’o, ona o lea ou te iloa lelei o ia o le Komiti a Fuimaono Maria Tuatagaloa Meredith. Ou te iloa o ia e komiti ia Fuimaono Maria ona e masani ona ou vaai o o atu ia Fuimaono Te’o ma Fuimaono Maria i le matou nuu. E masani na ou vaai o o atu faatasi i le taavale. 
	O le tupe fo’i la lea e tuu mai e Fuimaono Te’o ia te au, e le o se mea e masani ai. O lea ua faatoa alu atu tuu atu le tupe ona o lea e loma le faiga palota ma o lea e naunau mo lana sui tauva o Fuimaono Maria.”
58. 	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. 
59. 	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.
60. 	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 
61. 	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):
	“Ona ou alu lea i tua o le maota o Te’o ma ma faatalofa ma Fuimaono Te’o. Ona aumai lea e Fuimaono Te’o ia te a’u le SAT$100.00 ma fai mai ia ou manatua le tatou sui tauva mo le palota. Ona ia fesili mai “po’o fea le teoaina” ma sa ou fai atu ia te ia o loo i le fale. Ona ia tuuia mai lea o le SAT$50.00 mo le teoaina. Ona ou alu ese lea ma latou toe momoli a’u i lo’u fale.”
62. 	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).
63. 	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):
	“E le’i alu lo’u tinā mo se taimi umi. Ina ua foi mai o ia sa ou vaaia o alii lava ia na o mai ave lo’u tina lea ua toe foi mai e momoli mai i le fale. Ina ua taunuu lo’u tinā i le fale, sa ou fesili ia te ia pe aisea na latou ave ai o ia. Ona fai mai lea o ia na ave i le fale o Fuimaono Te’o. Sa tuuina atu ia te ia tupe. Fai mai ia te a’u, ua avatu ia te ia le SAT$100.00 ma le SAT$50.00 mo le toeaina. Fai mai, o Fuimaono Te’o na tu’uina atu ia te ia le tupe.”
64. 	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.
65. 	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:
	“It is settled law that the entrusting to an agent by a candidate of the acts to be done to promote the election of the candidate may either be in express terms or arise from 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… 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…. This approach is consistent with the spirit of the legislation that elections should be conducted by honest and proper means and untainted by under hand influences.”
66. 	This was further clarified in Kasimani v Seuala [2011] WSSC 87:
	"It is the corrupt actions of a candidate or persons acting on his or her behalf which vitiates an election because an election must be, so far as is possible, free and fair. Vitiating an election is a serious step requiring the Courts to be careful in determining the question of agency in the circumstances of each case. Vitiation of an election is governed by the public need for fair election rather than culpability of the candidate."
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: 
(a) 	allegations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 – proven beyond reasonable doubt and we will report this to the Speaker as required by law. 
(b) 	allegations 4 and 7 – no evidence was offered, dismissed. 
(c) 	allegation 8 – not proven beyond reasonable doubt, dismissed by the court.
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