The Supreme Court found Member of Parliament for Sagaga No.2 Maulolo Tavita Amosa and others from the village of Afega guilty of contempt of court in an ongoing land dispute at Leauvaa. 

On Monday, Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese found that Maulolo, businessman Ututaaloga Charlie Ulia, Fata Roketi and Fata Vaafai Tolutasi were in contempt of the court’s order dated 11 October 2024. 

The decision follows an application from Leauvaa families of contempt of court from those in Afega. 

The Chief Justice pointed to an admission from Maulolo that Afega’s intent to continue evicting the people of Leauvaa pierces any veil that the respondents are not responsible for the actions of those carrying out the intimidation, threats and inflicting damage.

The M.P. made the admission in an interview with TV1 which was exhibited in court during the trial last week.   

“The defiance is intentional and the suggestion that they do not need to follow the order of the court lessens respect for the court,” said the Chief Justice. 

“The defiance puts a completely different complexion on the allegations of dangerous, intimidating and ugly behaviour referred to in the uncontested affidavits filed on behalf of the applicants. 

“Rather than random acts of vandalism and ill-considered actions, there appears in fact a strategy or response to ignore this court’s orders.”

Maulolo together with others from Afega elected not to call evidence during the trial last week. 

Further to his judgement, Chief Justice Perese said he is satisfied the “people of Leauvaa have been subjected to unlawful, dangerous, distressing vigilante action, and will continue to be subject to the plan to have them removed from the disputed land”.

He stressed the Supreme Court has the power to make orders in accordance with the principles of Samoa’s supreme law, the Constitution. 

“If parties are unhappy with the decision, there is a proper process to follow - they have a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal,” he continued. 

“But, and this is what the respondents and their advisers fail to appreciate, in the meantime the Supreme Court’s order represents the law, whether you agree or disagree with it and everyone must obey.” 

The Chief Justice also ordered to provide a copy of the decision to the Commissioner of Police and invited him to consider whether a breach of the Arms Ordinance 1960 had occurred when reports of firearms were discharged. 

He also directed another copy of the judgment to be forwarded to the Speaker of the House noting the findings of contempt of court against a person who is a sitting M.P.