When a judge makes a significant decision in a criminal trial, especially one that breaks from standard legal procedure, the public has a right to know. That right is not just a media convenience; it is a cornerstone of open justice.

The recent decision by District Court Judge Talasa Saaga to entertain a “no case to answer” application mid-trial, while the prosecution had yet to call the majority of its witnesses, raised eyebrows across Samoa’s legal community. In any common law jurisdiction, including Samoa, such an application is only considered after the prosecution closes its case. To do otherwise risks undermining the integrity of the entire process.

But what followed is even more concerning.

The judge has since expressed disapproval that her decision, made during a chamber hearing, was reported by the Samoa Observer. She suggested the matter was confidential and that the source of the “leak” should be investigated.

Let us be clear. When a judge makes a ruling that affects the course of a public trial, that ruling becomes part of the judicial process, not a private conversation. While chamber hearings can involve procedural matters, rulings that impact a trial’s progress are inherently of public interest. To suggest that the press should stay silent, or that reporting it constitutes a breach, is to misunderstand the role of the media and the principle of open justice.

The press has a duty to report matters of public importance, especially when they relate to how justice is administered. Attempts to chill reporting or question how such information becomes public are deeply troubling.

The question is not how the public found out. It is why such an extraordinary application was entertained in the first place.