By Staff Writer
The Supreme Court has dismissed MP Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi’s challenge to the Attorney-General’s decision not to appeal several acquittals arising from a high-profile criminal case, while emphasising the importance of independent prosecutorial decision-making and strongly criticising political involvement in operational police matters.
In a judgment delivered on 9 September, Justice Harrison rejected Lealailepule’s application for judicial review of the Attorney-General’s decision not to appeal acquittals entered by the District Court following criminal proceedings against several defendants, including Prime Minister Laaulialemalietoa Polataivao Fosi Schmidt, former Associate Minister of Police Fepuleai Faimata Sua and former police officer Lio Faataumalama Auvaa.
The Court’s judgment was particularly critical of the Prime Minister’s involvement in a police inquiry into allegations against Lealailepule.
Justice Harrison found that then Cabinet Minister Laaulialemietoa Polataivao Fosi Schmidt instructed a senior police officer to investigate the allegations and concealed his involvement from the Commissioner of Police.
The Court stated that he had “no legal right or authority to intervene in an operational police matter” and found that the intervention failed to respect the operational independence of the Commissioner of Police and police staff.
Justice Harrison described the intervention as “foolhardy and unconstitutional”, while making clear that, in the Court’s assessment, it did not approach the threshold of criminality.
The proceedings stemmed from events following a fatal road accident in April 2021. Rumours emerged that Lealailepule had been the driver involved in the accident, but a police investigation was unable to identify the driver or lay charges against him.
Nearly two years later, Samuelu Leau Fauega alleged that he had witnessed the accident and claimed Lealailepule was responsible. This led to a further police investigation and subsequent criminal prosecutions.
The District Court proceedings concluded in March 2026 with mixed outcomes.
Samuelu Leau Fauega was convicted of several offences, including misleading police, defamation and harassment. Sivai Kepi Mamea was convicted on some charges of misleading police, while Lise Marie Schmidt was convicted of breaching a bail condition.
Other charges resulted in acquittals, including all charges against Fepuleai Faimata Sua, Lio Faataumalama Auvaa and Laaulialemalietoa Polataivao Fosi Schmidt.
Importantly, the District Court found that allegations portraying Lealailepule as a murderer or criminal were false and defamatory and noted that no charges had ever been laid or proven against him in relation to the 2021 accident.
The Supreme Court also made notable observations about the District Court proceedings that gave rise to the dispute.
Justice Harrison described the District Court’s 197-page judgment as being “of inordinate length”, repetitive and, in places, confusing and contradictory.
While not questioning the outcome reached by the District Court, he said the decision reviewed witness evidence in extensive detail, including matters that were not directly relevant to the legal elements of the offences before the court.
Justice Harrison went further, stating that the criminal trial had become diverted from the central question of whether the alleged offences had been proven.
In relation to several defendants who were ultimately acquitted, he observed that the proceedings evolved into what he characterised as an examination of the adequacy of the police investigations conducted in 2021 and 2023 rather than a focused assessment of criminal liability.
The judgment concluded that, even on the most favourable view available to prosecutors, the actions of several acquitted defendants “did not approach the threshold of criminality” and that their acquittals were effectively inevitable.
Justice Harrison said an appeal against those acquittals would inevitably fail and would serve no purpose other than adding to the significant public resources already consumed by the matter.
Lealailepule subsequently sought judicial review of the Attorney-General’s decision not to appeal the acquittals.
He argued, among other things, that the decision was affected by apprehended bias and that, as a complainant and victim, he should have been consulted before the decision was made.
The Supreme Court rejected those arguments.
Justice Harrison noted that only the Attorney-General has statutory authority to appeal acquittals and that judicial review of such prosecutorial decisions is limited to exceptional cases involving serious misconduct, abuse of power or flagrant impropriety.
The Court found no evidence supporting such allegations in this case.
The judgment also reaffirmed that the Attorney-General owes no obligation to consult complainants when exercising prosecutorial discretion.
Referring to existing authority, Justice Harrison stated that the Attorney-General’s duty is to act independently and in the public interest, not according to the views or interests of a dissatisfied complainant.
The Court noted that Attorney-General Mauga Precious Chang had recognised a potential conflict arising from her previous legal representation of one of the defendants and had retained experienced lawyer Leinafo Strickland to independently review whether grounds existed for appeal.
According to evidence before the Court, Strickland concluded that no appeal should be filed and did not consult with the Attorney-General regarding that decision.
While dismissing the application, the Court acknowledged the significant personal and reputational harm suffered by Lealailepule and his family over several years.
In an unusual postscript to the judgment, Justice Harrison noted evidence that they had been subjected to online and in-person harassment, public stigmatisation and allegations linking Lealailepule to serious criminal offending.
The judge said Lealailepule’s 30 years of public service and reputation had been overshadowed by what he described as lies perpetrated by others, affecting both his work and leadership.
Justice Harrison stated that Lealailepule had never been charged, let alone convicted, in relation to the 2021 fatal accident and had instead been the subject of years of unsubstantiated rumours.
However, he concluded that the damage to Lealailepule’s reputation had occurred long before the 2025 criminal trial and the 2026 District Court decision.
He noted that the District Court had already found allegations portraying Lealailepule as a murderer and criminal to be false and defamatory, and had emphatically rejected suggestions of his involvement in criminal offending.
According to the Court, the acquittals themselves could not objectively have caused any further adverse effect on Lealailepule’s legal rights or reputation.
Justice Harrison also observed that the controversy ultimately demonstrated little beyond the falsity of Samuelu Leau Fauega’s allegations against Lealailepule.
While criticising the political intervention that occurred during the 2023 investigation, the Court noted that both the intervention and Lealailepule’s subsequent complaint to police contributed to a matter that consumed years of police and judicial resources.
The Supreme Court dismissed the judicial review application in its entirety and made no order as to costs.