A motion to strike out counter petitions filed by the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (F.A.S.T.) party, mostly against petitioners from rivals the Human Rights Protection Party, have been dismissed. 

The counter petitions from F.A.S.T. party elected Members of Parliament were in response to petitions from their opponents on the 9 April General Election. 

Twelve counter petitions were made against H.R.P.P. candidates including former M.Ps who were unseated after the final count of polling day. 

In addition, two other counter petitions from F.A.S.T. were in response to petitions from the Tautua party leader and a colleague. 

On Wednesday morning, a panel of Supreme Court Justices dismissed a motion that asked to deny the counter petitions from F.A.S.T. party elected M.Ps. 

Another preliminary matter in relation to petitions that was dealt with is an application to amend electoral petitions. It was granted by consent of lawyers involved in the cases. 

The third application was from the Electoral Commissioner that petitions against him to be struck out. 

The application was also granted by consent by counsels and costs of $4000 were ordered to be paid to the Electoral Commissioner. 

“Our argument is they should only bring allegations or evidence to disprove the allegations we are bringing against them,” lawyer Tuatagaloa Shane Wulf said.

Tuatagaloa added that that specific section in the Electoral Act bars the respondent from bringing counter petitions. 

Justice Vui Clarence Nelson then pointed to section 107(1) of the same act that makes no reference to a petition having claimed a seat of some person. 

“It just says the only way they can bring challenge in election is by petition complaining of an unlawful election,” he said. 

“It doesn’t say by petition complaining of unlawful petition and un-claiming seat. 

“The only thing to do is to complain about election petition that makes it an election petition.” 

Justice Nelson then asked that if the Court is to take the interpretation and not allow counter petition what happens if a witness give evidence that even the petitioner’s committee was involved in bribery and treating. 

“Are we supposed to act only in relation to that evidence in relation to petitioner and ignoring that it has in relation to the respondent,” he asked. 

“What do you suggest the court should do in those kinds of circumstances?” 

Tuatagaloa noted that the question was difficult but he believes that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to look at the interest of justice.  

He maintains their submission is under the Electoral Act the petitioner is not properly elected in turn what is happening now the respondent is filing a counter-petition to a petitioner. 

The hearing of petitions has been adjourned until 7 June to give the Supreme Court time to solve urgent constitutional issues which go to the maintenance of the rule of law.