Magistrate attacks

government

By Chris Peteru

The afternoon before Western Samoa's first ever sedition trial went to the Apia Magistrates Court, Human Rights Protection Party Prime Minister Tofilau Eti Alesana told

parliament member Toalepaialii

Toesulusulu were guilty.

Whether that will ever be proven is now unlikely because magistrate Richard Lussick threw out all seven sedition charges against the pair because of a lack of police evidence.

Adding to what amounted to a debacle, was confusion and finger generals office as to who was meant to present the case.

The government who until then made a great show of bringing the pair to trial have since remained tight lipped over the shock outcome in one of the most bitter

episodes in the country’s judicial history.

Last March the two former members of parliament Toalepaialii and Faamatuainu and members of the traditional Samoan pressure group representing chiefs from a number of traditional districts, were key organisers in a demonstration against the government imposed Value Added Goods and Services Tax (VAGST).

In February they were charged with the sedition offences. The police charge sheet referred to speaking “seditious words” with the intention of exciting disaffection against the government and prime minis ter. References were also made over a press statement containing seditious libel, i.e a call for a change of government.

Incredible the key prosecuting witnesses were to have been six journalists who had

been given little prior warning were

required to testify and were summoned by police the night before.

On several occasions prime minister Tofilau went on state owned television to say that the actions of the pair was an attempt to bring down the government and posed a threat to the harmony of the coun try.

Letters to the government from Human

Rights watch dog Amnesty International,

who with the World Council of Churches (WCC) and five other groups had observers in court, were politely ignored by the government. Spokesmen and finance minister Tuilaepa Sailele saying that they had not been fully informed.

But amidst jubilant scenes outside the courthouse afterwards the dismissal -

termed a hollow victory by pro- govern ment supporters- seemed to endorse the individuals constitutional right to freedom of speech (article 13), which had been the defendants catch cry all along.

“At least we can walk away with clear conscience that justice precedes every thing else in the country. I’m sure the whole country will appreciate this, we believe this is our constitutional right (to protest) and at least there is justice in this country regardless of what politicians, the government and even the prime minister thinks, you must have the guts to fight for this,” said Toalepaialii, a one time MP with the present ruling party.

“This is embarrassing for the present, embarrassing in the sense that they went all out to ensure that we go to jail. You can judge that by the speeches the prime min ister has made in parliament. Justice has been served,” said Faamatuainu. “It goes to show that they had failed to provide spe cific charges from the start.”

Police prosecutor Chief Inspector Max Wendt asked the court for an adjournment on the grounds that: • The crown prosecutor wanted the case tried in the Supreme Court as it was a “political matter.” • The prosecution wanted the case tried in the Supreme Court as it was a political matter. • The prosecution was unprepared, adding he had only received the file from the Attorney-Generals office 15 hours before.

Defense counsel Tasi Malifa opposed the application for an adjournment and asked that the case be dismissed.

In turning down the adjournment because one crown solicitor was overseas, Magistrate Lussick said there was more than one lawyer in the Attorney-General’s chambers. He asked why the case had not been delegated to another crown solicitor given there had been a four month gap since the charges were laid to prepare the case.

“This particular ground has no validity

whatsoever.”

He criticised the prosecution sugges tion that the case be heard in the Supreme Court as it was a political matter.

“This is a court of law and not a court of politics. If it is alleged by the prosecu tion that a law has been broken then this is the place to be. If this is purely a political matter it shouldn’t be in my court room.

Political strategies have no place here.”

“This is a court of law and not a court of poli tics, 99 Magistrate Richard Lussick

He accepted the circumstances that lead to the prosecution being unprepared say ing that chief inspeqtor Wendt “To use the vernacular had been left holding the buck et.

“Anyone else who has had anything to do with conducting the prosecution has made sure he has not appeared in court today.”

Still the prosecutions lack of prepara tion was entirely its own fault.

Mr Malifa told the court he had received no notice from either the police or the attorney-generals office indicating the prosecution needed more time to pre pare.

Following a 45 minute recess Wendt asked if the charges could be withdrawn.

He explained that during the recess Police Commissioner Galuvao Taniela had phoned the Attorney-General asking for a crown solicitor to appear for the state.

The Attorney-General told the Commissioner that none was available.

“Isn’t the Attorney-General a lawyer?” the magistrates asked.

Mr Lussick said if the court allowed the charges to be withdrawn the Attorney- General’s office and the police department would suffer as a result of the decision to dismiss the case.

“This is very embarrassing for the police. Comments from the magistrate reflects badly on us.

“All along we were given the under standing that this was a case that was down to be prosecuted by the Attorney- General, and all of a sudden we hear our crown prosecutor is in the Solomon Islands and none of the other attorney gen erals office is prepared to come and face the court. We consider that poor excuse.”

“I’m curious as to why they are backing down from the case,” said Galuvao.

While Tolepaialii and Faamatuainu have had their day in court, the govern ment still wiping the protest egg off its face now looks to be on a courtroom roller coaster.

The country’s Controller and Chief auditor Su’a Rimoni Ah Chong, who last year tabled a report on widespread govern

ment corruption and mismanagement

announced last month he was suing the

Prime Minister, Legislative Assembly,

government and a Commission of Inquiry in relation to that document. ■