The Prime Minister has confessed to washing his hands over the resignation from the Party of his former Cabinet Minister and Speaker of the House but the fallout lingers.
The most recent is an Attorney General’s Office press release on criminal court proceedings against the newly independent MP Laaulialemalieltoa Leauatea Schmidt and others.
The press release is in response to comments by the MP on a private television that appears to question the independence of the Office of the Attorney General.
MP Laauli has responded to the press release while at the same time critical of the PM’s influence on the matter.
The press releases by the two sides are reprinted here firstly from the Office of the Attorney General :
Laauli’s comments impact on two important aspects of the powers, duties, and responsibilities of the Attorney General.
Therefore such comments warrant a response to ensure there is no room for misinterpretation and misinformation. The said powers and duties that Laauli’s comment impacted are the Attorney General’s:
(a) Powers to institute, conduct and discontinue any criminal proceedings without any interference from any other persons (except the Court); and
(b) Independence.
On the Manuo Program, Laauli commented that the Government had pushed through the criminal case, and that the case is between him and the Government.
With respect to Laauli, he has been misinformed and his comments do not reflect what occurs in a criminal investigation and prosecution:
(a) Whilst the civil proceedings (in which the Government was not a party) had been dealt with, the criminal proceedings operate separately. The determination of the civil proceedings does not affect the criminal proceedings;
(b) Whilst a complainant (in this case, the Honorable Peseta Vaifou) had desired to withdraw his complaint, the power to discontinue such proceedings vests solely with the Attorney General, in this case, the prosecution. Therefore, only the Attorney General can withdraw or discontinue a criminal case;
(c) Laauli stated that the Prime Minister said “it’s no longer your case, o le case a le malo” This statement is consistent with what usually transpires in a criminal case. When a person commits an offence, that offence becomes an offence against the State.
When charges are laid, the matter is referred to the Attorney General’s office to institute and conduct the criminal case. The decision to prosecute is guided by a Prosecutorial Guideline which sets out the universally accepted principle of assessing whether a matter should be prosecuted or not. The guideline requires that prosecutors must be independent and free from political, media, public, sectional or individual pressure of an inappropriate kind in prosecution decision making, and freedom from direction or control in decision making by any other person or authority.
In determining whether a matter should proceed for prosecution, the three (3) questions prosecution considers are:
(i) whether there is a prima facie case;
(ii) what is the reasonable prospects of the case; and
(iii) whether there was public interest in proceeding with the case.
The decision to prosecute Laauli and to proceed with his prosecution despite the desire by Peseta to withdraw his complaint was done in accordance with the guidelines, free of any pressure, and it satisfies the test set out above.
To conclude, the power to institute, conduct or discontinue any criminal proceedings is vested only in the Attorney General and his or her legal staff pursuant to Article 41 of the Constitution and sections 5(2)(iv)(b) and 7(1)(2) of the Attorney General’s Office Act 2013.
In carrying out the power under the said provisions, the Attorney General is independent and is not subject to any direction from any other person except a direction of a Court.
The MP La’auli press release reads :
The Honourable Prime Minister has made some inappropriate references regarding a court case against myself and others that is currently and yet to be completed.
The Justice System is supposed to be that a person charged is innocent until proven guilty, however, the Honourable Prime Minister appears to already find me guilty and wanting the public to find me guilty based on his public comments when the case is not yet completed.
I am not sure why he has brought this up in public unless he is trying to use his position and his publication in public to influence the case and the decision that is yet to be completed. In my humble opinion this is a very inappropriate conduct by the Honourable Prime Minister and an abuse of his position.
In any event, I have been advised by my lawyers that I cannot comment on my case until it is fully completed. I therefore will await the completion of my case.
In relation to the press release by the Office of Attorney General regarding their independence in the process used to make a decision to prosecute, I only have this to comment at this stage.
“It is interesting that they have made a decision to comment only against myself but not in relation to the conduct of the Prime Minister in discussing a case in public when it is not completed.”