Having come through a major Constitutional Crisis in 2021 that threatened to derail Samoa’s democracy, there was relief all around as the Courts were steadfast in the face of criticism and attacks from political actors. 

Twenty months after the Court of Appeal ruled that the 24 May 2021 swearing-in undertaken by the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) party in a tent outside the Fono was lawful for a legitimate government, there has been a consensus among the people that the Court’s decision was pivotal in ensuring the restoration of the rule of law after weeks of chaos and uncertainty.

Early this week, on Sunday night, to be exact, the Minister of Justice and Courts Administration told visiting eminent members of the New Zealand Judiciary that it was the Judiciary that saved Samoa’s democracy during the constitutional crisis.

"I hope the Chief Justice will not mind me saying this, but Samoa and its democracy was saved by the application of the rule of law, by the country's independent and exceptionally talented judiciary,” said Matamua Vasati Pulufana, at a welcome dinner at the Taumeasina Island Resort.

"The events of the recent past in Samoa underline the fact, that we often take our freedoms and peace in our lands, for granted. That peace and that freedom are founded upon the concepts of democracy, justice, the rule of law, and rights we included in our Constitution upon independence in 1962.”

We agree with the Minister and also acknowledge the role of Samoa’s Judiciary at such a critical juncture in the nation’s history. We take off our hats to the men and women who sit on the bench at all levels of our Courts to deliver justice.

But the dispensation of justice often has its challenges and is a work in progress, especially when you factor in some of the hurdles that key agencies in the law and justice sector are facing which can also impact the delivery of justice.

Take, as an example, the recent concerns expressed by Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke at the handling of a case connected to an 8 October 2016 murder case. The defendant was charged with murder on 12 October 2016 and the matter was in court for close to seven years before it was called for trial on 20 March 2023. And when the trial began the prosecution made an application – 6 years, 5 months, and 8 days later – to withdraw the murder charge on the grounds that the two key witnesses left for seasonal work on 16 November 2022. The victim’s family also wanted to withdraw the charges.

“It is bewildering that given the completely unsatisfactory conduct of this matter, that almost seven years after the victim was allegedly killed and the defendant charged, the prosecution now applies to withdraw the charges against the defendant,” said Justice Clarke.

“This is because this week’s hearing date is about the tenth or eleventh hearing date for this matter, the first hearing having been scheduled for 26 June 2017. Most of the earlier dates were vacated due to the prosecution not being ready to proceed.

“When the last hearing date was vacated on application by the prosecution on 19 July 2022 on the grounds that the prosecutor’s children were unwell, I delivered oral remarks expressing concern over the conduct of this matter and persistent applications by the prosecution to adjourn matters and vacate hearing dates.”

We concur with the disappointment expressed by the presiding Justice. It is unacceptable conduct on the path of the prosecution counsel. The fact that it has been in Court for that long also calls into question the counsel’s level of professionalism and their desire to conclude the case.

The fact that the victim’s family also asked for the charges to be withdrawn points to a travesty of justice – and raises questions as to whether the family simply gave up hope of ever getting justice for their deceased loved one – due to the length of time the matter was in Court. And the decision by the prosecution to apply to the Court for the murder charge to be withdrawn, after two key witnesses for the prosecution flew to New Zealand for seasonal work, seems to suggest the counsels threw in the towel and opted not to use avenues at their disposal to ensure they gave evidence to support the case.

Justice Clarke highlighted some of those avenues, after pointing out the unsatisfactory conduct of the prosecution, and then granted the application for the charges to be withdrawn.

Sadly, it is cases like this that will tarnish the reputation of the Courts and breathe life into the legal maxim of “justice delayed is justice denied”. It could undo all the good work that the Judiciary has done over the years and lead to a loss of confidence in the Courts by ordinary citizens. The long-term implications include the refusal by sections of the community to uphold the rule of law.

We hope the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Police will revisit this case, with a view to identifying the factors that led to it spending six years in the system, and whether bottlenecks in the police investigation or prosecution process contributed to the delay.

Having come out of the Constitutional Crisis two years ago stronger, it is incumbent on all law and justice sector agencies including the Attorney General’s Office and the Police, to ensure the wheels of justice keep on turning for the benefit of all citizens.