An application to have a former Member of Parliament who admitted to involvement in corrupt, election-related dealings recalled to give evidence a second time has been denied by the Supreme Court. 

The request was made by lawyer Leiataualesa Jerry Brunt, who is acting for the elected Member of Parliament for the seat of Aleipata-Itupa-i-Lalo, Fiugalu Eteuati Eteuati. 

Leiataualesa wanted to recall the former M.P., Tafua Maluelue Tafua, who has also lodged a petition against Fiugalu, so that he might be further probed about allegations against him contained within a counter-pettion. 

Fiugalu who is being challenged by his Human Rights Protection Party (H.R.P.P.) colleague filed a counter petition against Tafua in response to the latter's mounting of a legal challenge to his election victory. 

He made 15 claims of bribery and corrupt practices from the election to challenge his H.R.P.P. foe. 

But after Tafua had given evidence earlier this week where he “generally” made an admission to being involved in corrupt practices Fiugalu’s lawyer is asking to have him brought back to the stand. 

Leiataualesa told the court that he had made the assumption that he was prevented from putting allegations from the counter petition to Tafua. 

He said that evidence contained within the counter petition should have been put to Tafua, who he says is accused by 15 witnesses of being involved in corrupt practices but this was becer dibe, 

“It was put to the petitioner so generally where the allegations should have been put to the petitioner directly,” argued the lawyer. 

He told the Court that he had put the question to Tafua about his alleged involvement in corrupt dealings so generally as to receive the reply from the former M.P.:

“To be honest I’m not an angel, I would have been lying if I didn’t”. 

Leiataualesa added the petitioner in his evidence said he could not denied people who come to him (for money). 

“It is our prayer for the Court to recall the petitioner – he wasn’t asked the allegations in the counter petition,” he said. 

“There is no appeal for petitions and it was a technicality of failure to put the question to him and it would not prejudice the petitioner…” 

Leiataualesa relied on the interest of justice for the court to grant his application and  said that the rules of the Electoral Court were “unique” and can allow it. 

Justice Lesatele Rapi Vaai told the lawyer that there was nothing stopping him from asking Tafua about the counter claim. 

In response, Leiataualesa admitted that it was wrong of him to presume that was the general guidance from the court. 

He added that it was an error to do so and to assume. 

“We failed to put the specifics to the witness and we are seeking that [second] opportunity in the interest of justice,” he said. 

The application was strongly opposed by Tafua’s lawyer, Muriel Lui. 

Ms. Lui said the counsel’s chose not to ask the question when he was given the opportunity to do. 

She told the Court that the lawyer to ask for a second chance to have a go at her client is prejudice to the petitioner just because the lawyer did not do his job properly.     

Furthermore she said the Court shouldn’t grant the second opportunity citing the rule in Browne Dunn which cannot be a remedy nor an excuse. 

“In the interest of justice, it has to be viewed both ways and not just for the respondent [Fiugalu],” said Ms. Lui. 

“It is in the interest of justice that the petitioner has taken the stand and should not do so again so that the respondent can clean up his case.

"This can only be done [recalling witness] in compelling reasons and when there are new evidence…”

Justice Niava Mata Tuatagaloa and Justice Vaai denied the application to recall Tafua. 

The court has reserved its decision on the Aleipata-Itupa-I-Lalo electoral challenge after it was heard this week. 

Tafua is amongst three H.R.P.P. members who filed petitions against their winning colleagues.