The Supreme Court’s finding of a guilty verdict against a party leader in an election petition has created difficulties for him when dealing with people questioning his integrity.

That is the dilemma facing the Tautua Samoa Party leader Afualo Dr. Wood Salele, which was highlighted in an affidavit he submitted to the Court, as part of a plea not to include him in a list of election-related corrupt practices uncovered during petitions that were being compiled for the Parliament Speaker.

In his affidavit to the Supreme Court, Afualo said the consequences of reporting him are “grave and will adversely impact my reputation as an aspiring politician”. 

“That there will be serious damage to my reputation if the Court reports to the Speaker as this record would be entered in the Journals of the Assembly…” he said. 

“There is also a real likelihood that this will impact profoundly on the public perception of my integrity as a person and also as a respectable politician and as a person whom the public can trust. 

“That as a matai who had been serving my family and village for many years, I have only just recently since the verdict of the election petition had realised the adverse effect on me as I have been encountering difficulties in dealing with people questioning my integrity.”

The Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the motion from Afualo not to report his corrupt practice and revisit his case in an “inquiry”. 

Following the April’s general election, Afualo who was placed third in the Salega No. 1 race filed a petition against the eventual winner, Fepuleai Faimata Su’a. 

But instead of unseating the now Minister of Police, the party leader’s legal action backfired when the Court found him guilty of corrupt practice while claims against his rival Fepuleai were dismissed. 

In his affidavit, Afualo said the matter which he’s been found guilty of was a “one off occasion that had arisen as a result of poor judgment on my part”. 

“I had not been aware nor did I foresee how this lack of judgment will impact on me personally and professionally,” he said. 

Afualo also made it known that he intends to contest as a candidate in the next election but “this conviction will impair my chances with the voters given how they now perceive me negatively”. 

“That the high likelihood of being disqualified for the next election is consequential of the Court’s report to the Speaker.

“That a possible criminal proceeding on the charge of for not less than two (2) years and not exceeding four (4) years which renders me disqualified to contest as a candidate as required by section 8(2)(d) of the Electoral Act 2019.” 

The request from Afualo was dismissed by the Court that also said the aspiring politician should not be worried about getting a criminal record from his guilty verdict in the election petition.

“This is only related to the Electoral Act to allow or disallow someone for the purpose of contesting in the election or by-election,” she said Justice Niava Mata Tuatagaloa.

In their ruling the Court concluded that Afualo did not claim the seat nor did anyone else claim the seat on his behalf in his electoral petition which has already been determined.

He had only sought to void the seat and the election of the Salega No. 1 M.P. Fepuleai. 

“We reject the submission by counsel for the applicant that we should nevertheless simply infer from his petition that he was also claiming the seat,” the Court ruled. 

“Apart from referring to s118 on real justice to be observed which we find does not apply, no authority was provided in support of the submission by counsel.

“We agree with the submission for the respondent that claiming the seat for a candidate under s122(2)(b) is available only when a petition is found on an irregularity on the roll where some electors were not qualified to vote. 

“Clearly the petition by the application was not founded on such irregularities.” 

In addition the Court said Afualo was heard in response to the allegations made against him and does not qualify for another opportunity to defend himself. 

“We are mindful that if we grant the application on the basis as submitted by counsel for the applicant it would open the floodgates and give every other candidate party to a petition whom a finding of guilty of corrupt or illegal practice was made a second opportunity to be heard,” the Court concluded. 

“We find that such exercise is not intended by the spirit and purpose of the act.”