The former Attorney General Savalenoa Mareva Betham-Annandale has filed a $650,000 lawsuit against the Prime Minister over her sacking in September last year. 

Savalenoa, who is represented by QC Dr. Rodney Harrison, filed two motions before the Supreme Court against the Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mata'afa and the Office of the Attorney General. 

The first motion is a statement of claim over what she says is her unjustified dismissal and secondly a motion was filed for judicial review of the decision that led to her dismissal. 

Former Attorney General and veteran lawyer, Taulapapa Brenda Heather–Latu is acting for the Prime Minister and the Office of the Attorney General. 

The civil claim was called before Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke for the first time on Monday afternoon. 

Mr. Harrison, who appeared for his client through video link, said the respondents in the matter were served with the papers on the proceedings on Monday 16 May. 

Taulapapa had asked for four weeks adjournment to prepare a statement of defence to the claim. 

Justice Clarke then adjourned the matter to 27 June to allow the respondents to file their response and motion. 

Savalenoa is seeking a total of $650,000 in damages and compensation for her dismissal by Fiame just weeks into taking office last year. 

According to an excerpt of the claim, the former Attorney General is seeking $300,000 in damages which comprises $241,707 of 101 weeks gross salary (@$124,443.57 per annum), and unpaid leave entitlement worth $200,000 by way of general damages or compensation for damage to reputation, humiliation and emotional distress. An additional $150,000 is sought by way of aggravated and punitive damages. 

Outside Court, Taulapapa confirmed she is representing the Office of the Attorney General and the Prime Minister in the proceedings. 

On 2 September 2021 Prime Minister Fiame announced she had asked the Head of State to have the then suspended Attorney General dismissed entirely from her role effective immediately. 

She outlined the reasons behind her decision to dismiss Savalenoa – who was only appointed to the role by the former Administration just over a year before her sacking – in a press statement.

The Prime Minister had also revealed advising the Head of State to appoint Su’a Hellene Wallwork-Lamb as the Attorney General “on a short term appointment”. 

Fiame noted she wrote to Savalenoa informing her she did not have confidence in her ability to discharge the functions of the Office of the Attorney General. 

She added this followed the Court proceedings where Savalenoa was cited for contempt of Court and other events that followed in April’s General Election. 

Savalenoa was acquitted following the contempt of Court proceedings. 

“…in which a series of actions of His Highness the Head of State were found – without any criticism of His Highness – to have been ill-advised and contrary to the Constitution,” Fiame said. 

"The Attorney-General’s own behaviour before the Supreme Court, for example in walking out of a hearing in May and then issuing a press release, critical of the Court and seeking to justify that behaviour;

 "Other disrespect to the courts and the failure, for example, either to correct criticisms made by the former Prime Minister or to resign in protest; and the Attorney-General’s lack of response to continuing attacks on the judiciary.

"Each of these fell short of my, and the government’s, high expectations for the office of Attorney-General. I recognise that some but not all of these matters may have been the result of directions from the former Prime Minister. 

"But my expectation is that an Attorney-General should stand for the rule of law, including by resignation if need be.

According to Fiame, the former Attorney General's response noted that neither the Head of State nor the Prime Minister had the legal authority to suspend or dismiss an Attorney General. 

She subsequently rejected the submission from Savalenoa leading up to her termination of service.