Dear Editor,

The proverb “the coconut tree does not sway by itself” is not a poetic flourish. It is a warning. 

The article “The Coconut Tree Doesn’t Sway by Itself: Assessing China’s Foreign Interference in Samoa and Its Impact” challenges us to stop accepting decisions as natural or inevitable and instead to ask the harder question: who shook the tree and who is pretending not to notice?

That question is unavoidable when examining the lease of Sasina customary land.

Under Samoan law, customary land is owned collectively by the aiga and administered through the village. The Village Fono Act recognises the Sasina Village Fono as a legal body with full authority to manage land affairs, enter into contracts and receive income on behalf of the village. There is no legal requirement for a village to act through a private company or intermediary in order to lease its land. Yet the current Sasina arrangements raise serious and unresolved questions.

In 2024, approximately 3,985 acres of customary land were leased to the Oceania Blockchain Special Economic Zone company for a term of up to 30 years. The lease is reported to have been signed by Ali‘i ma Faipule o Sasina Fagaee and Letui. This immediately raises fundamental issues:
Were all relevant village councils consulted?
Did they give informed, collective approval? And do they know precisely where the leased land is located, including its boundaries and extent?

We should return to a concern raised early by Hon. Fiame Naomi Mata‘afa when she was Prime Minister. At the time, she publicly questioned the actions of the then Minister of Finance, Mulipola Anarosa Ale Molioo, who travelled to Hong Kong and signed agreements with three Chinese cryptocurrency companies without Cabinet approval. Fiame’s concern was not one of ceremonial protocol, it was substantive. She warned of the profound consequences that a stock exchange and special economic zone could have for the Samoan people.

Those warnings can no longer be dismissed and the people must know the true purpose of those engagements. Samoa deserves to know who was being represented—the Government, or private commercial interests? And most critically, how do those unauthorised discussions now align so neatly with the lease of Sasina customary land?

Viewed alongside the Sasina lease, the pattern becomes increasingly difficult to ignore. Foreignlinked development models, opaque decision-making, and the marginalisation of collective consent are no longer abstract concerns. They are observable realities.

The financial terms of the lease deepen those concerns. Of the total area 1,094 acres are reportedly leased at USD $500 per acre per year, while 2,891 acres are leased at only USD $10 per acre per year, for an initial 20-year term with the possibility of extension to 30 years.

Such disparity in valuation demands explanation. Why is the majority of the land valued at a fraction of the remainder? On what basis were these figures determined  and who assessed whether they represent fair value for land held in trust for present and future generations?

The law is unambiguous. Lease payments for customary land must be paid to those lawfully entitled to receive them, with only one deduction permitted: the Government’s administration fee, commonly understood to be 5 per cent. Yet, to date, no one can say with certainty whether that Government share has been paid at all. There has been no public confirmation, no published accounts and no independent audit.

If lease payments are not going directly to the village or rightful landowners, if they are being diverted through private entities, or if the Government itself has not received its lawful share, this is not a technical oversight, it is a serious breach of legal and fiduciary duty.

This situation cannot be separated from its history. Previous leases dating back to 2007 involved a different local company, in which Lau‘uli and his children among others, were shareholders. Those leases covering more than 500 acres were cancelled in 2023 after more than ten years of outstanding payments and the absence of any meaningful development. That history alone demands heightened scrutiny of the present arrangements.  Again, was money ever paid to the people of Sasina under the lease? And how about the Government, did it receive its 5 percent share? 

Perhaps most striking however, is not only what is happening but who is now silent.

Members of SSIG, once among the most vocal critics of the Land Titles Registration Act, repeatedly warned of threats to customary land, village authority and sovereignty. Today, those same figures appear politically aligned with FAST, yet there is a conspicuous absence of public commentary from them on the Sasina lease.

Where are they now?
 Where are the statements, the challenges, the demands for transparency?

When voices that once claimed to defend customary land fall quiet at the very moment serious questions arise, the proverb applies again. Coconut trees do not sway by themselves. Silence too, is an act.

Customary land is not an ordinary commercial asset. It is held in trust for present and future generations. Long term leases bind descendants who had no voice in the decision making process, which is precisely why the law demands strict adherence to process, collective consent and transparent financial management. Any deviation from this framework risks eroding the very foundations of Samoan land tenure.

The people of Sasina and the people of Samoa are entitled to clear, documented answers to the following questions:

• Who exactly signed the Sasina lease and in what legal capacity?
• Were all relevant village councils formally consulted and did they give informed, collective approval?
• Do those councils know precisely which lands are leased and where those lands are located?
• Which legal entity receives the lease payments, and how are those funds audited and accounted for?
• Why are large portions of land leased at vastly different rates, including as low as USD $10 per acre?
• What role, if any do politically connected individuals or companies play in these arrangements?

These are not attacks on individuals. They are legitimate questions grounded in law, ethics, and the protection of customary land. Failure to address them openly only deepens suspicion and weakens public trust in leadership.

If Sasina village truly has legal standing, it should be treated as such. If it does not, then the Village Fono Act risks becoming decorative legislation, useful for speeches, but inconvenient when substantial financial interests are involved.

After all, customary land belongs to the village not to political office, not to family companies, and certainly not to those who believe accountability is optional once power is secured.

Part 2 will examine foreign-linked development models, political silence, and the cost of trading scrutiny for access. More to come.