Matafea v Chief Electoral Officer [2001] WSSC 40 (16 May 2001)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback Supreme Court of Samoa

IN THE MATTER concerning the election of a member of Parliament for
the territorial constituency of Vaisigano No. 2.

LESAISAEA REUPENA MATAFEA
of Papa Sataua, a candidate for election
Petitioner

Counsel: TRS Toailoa for petitioner
T Lawson and R Schuster for first respondent
TV Eti for second respondent

In the general elections held on Friday, 02 March 2001, there were three (3) candidates competing for the Parliamentary seat from the territorial constituency of Vaisigano No. 2: Fata Nafoaga, Lesaisaea Reupena Matafeo (the petitioner in these proceedings) and Valasi Tafito (the second respondent in these proceedings).

The territorial constituency of Vaisigano No. 2 comprises the villages of Fagasa, Sataua and Papa in the island of Savaii. Accordingly, there were polling booths at Fagasa (booth 182), Sataua (booth 183) and Papa, Sataua (booth 184). In addition there was a further booth no. 245 situated at Matafele in Apia which was designated for this territorial constituency no doubt for the convenience of electors residing in the island of Upolu, and in the town of Apia in particular.

It is clear from the evidence that when the polling booths for the general elections were closed at 3pm on Friday, 02 March 2001, each of the above polling booths conducted a preliminary count of the vote under the supervision of the booth presiding officer in accordance with section 75 of the Electoral Act 1963 (hereinafter also referred to as 'the Act'). Section 75 provides not only the procedure for the counting of the ballot papers but also the procedure for separating, securely packaging and transmitting to the Chief Electoral Officer (hereinafter also referred to as the 'first respondent' or the 'CEO') certified copies of the voting rolls used, the counterfoils of all ballot papers issued (a 'counterfoil' being similar to a cheque butt in that records the roll number and other identification details of the elector to whom a ballot paper bearing a particular serial number has been issued), all the unused ballot papers and accompanying unused counterfoils, all the used ballot papers containing the votes for the various candidates, any spoilt ballot papers which have been inadvertently spoilt by an elector and in respect of which a replacement ballot paper has been issued by the booth presiding officer and all informal ballot papers declared as 'informal' by the booth presiding officer because they did not clearly in his or her view indicate the candidate for whom the elector desired to vote. The section also requires the booth presiding officer to complete and sign a Certificate, Accounting and Results Sheet ('Accounting Sheet') setting out the number of votes received by each candidate, the number of votes declared to be 'informal', the number of 'spoilt' ballot papers, the number of any apparent dual votes lodged by an elector, the number of any missing or unaccounted for ballot papers and the number of unused ballot papers. The sum total of all these ballot papers must correspond and tally with the total number of ballot papers originally delivered by the Chief Electoral Officer into the custody and control of each of the booth presiding officers.

The count conducted by the booth presiding officer after the close of polling hours was conducted in the presence of booth officials and the scrutineers for each of the three candidates as required by section 75(1). Each booth presiding officer also completed and certified an Accounting Sheet setting out the votes received by each candidate and the other matters required by section 75(1). It would appear from the affidavit evidence tendered to the Court that each booth presiding officer also duly separated and packaged in a secure manner the various categories of ballot papers and the other materials in accordance with the legislation. These materials were then placed in locked ballot boxes and were in due course transferred to the custody and control of the Chief Electoral Officer at the Electoral Office headquarters at Mulinuu. There, they were kept in a locked room together with the ballot boxes from other territorial constituencies around the country and access to and from this room was strictly controlled and monitored by the Chief Electoral Officer with the assistance of a 24 hour Police guard at the gates of the Electoral office. There was no evidence adduced that anyone was able to or in fact did tamper with the ballot boxes of this or any other territorial constituency or that at any stage unauthorised personnel were allowed into this room.

What the evidence did establish was that during the week following the general elections on Friday, 02 March 2001, the office of the first respondent issued numerous public notices stating the date and time when the official count for this territorial constituency would be effected. These dates and times kept changing and created a state of uncertainty as to exactly when the official count would be held. The reason for this seemed to be that there was a preset order for counting of the vote being followed by the Electoral Office and since the duration of each count could not be predicted, no-one could say exactly when the count for a particular constituency would be carried out.

On Saturday, 10 March 2001, the appointed scrutineers for each of the candidates were at the first respondent's offices at Mulinuu when they were informed that before their official count could be conducted, it was necessary to first conduct a scrutiny of their electoral roll. This is a procedure required by sections 76 to 78 of the Act whereby the certified copies of the rolls from each polling booth are compared ('scrutinised') to each other to ensure that no elector cast two or more votes at different polling booths. The scrutiny was duly carried out and there is no suggestion from the evidence that any elector in this territorial constituency voted twice at different or even the same polling booths.

After the scrutiny was conducted the scrutineers for each of the candidates were then advised not to leave as it was possible the official count for their territorial constituency would be carried out later that day. It was subsequently confirmed to them by the first respondent that their count would proceed that day. The evidence further shows that because the first respondent was involved in a potentially contentious count for another territorial constituency, the count for Vaisigano No. 2 was delegated to one of her senior staff assisted by five assistant officers. The count was carried out and completed sometime during the afternoon of Saturday, 10 March 2001. For convenience, this count will be referred to as 'the Saturday count'

To understand the petitioner's complaint in this matter, it is necessary to refer to the results of the preliminary count conducted by the respective booth presiding officers when the polls closed on election day. The results of that 'preliminary count' were as follows:

BOOTHS		FATA NAFOAGA	LESAISAEA REUPENA MATAFEO	VALASI TAFITO	TOTALS
182	Valid votes	21	13	138	172
	Informal votes				03
	Used ballot papers				175
	Unused ballot papers				375
	Total ballot papers				550
183	Valid votes	57	30	75	162
	Informal etc. votes				00
	Used ballot papers				162
	Unused ballot papers				938
	Total ballot papers (it was subsequently established this total was clearly in error as only 550 ballet paper were supplied to this booth by the CEO)				1100
184	Valid votes	07	198	07	212
	Informal votes				04
	Spoilt ballot papers				01
	Used ballot papers				217
	Unused ballot papers				333
	Total ballot papers				550
245	Valid votes	28	103	131	262
	Informal votes				11
	Spoilt ballot papers				01
	Missing ballot papers				01
	Used ballot papers				275
	Unused ballot papers				326
	Total ballot papers (also subsequently established this was a clear error as only 600 ballot papers were supplied to this booth by the CEO)				601

While this count did not include the figures for 'special votes' (i.e. votes for this territorial constituency cast at other polling booths around the country as well as votes cast by electors whose eligibility to vote was in question and the validity of whose votes would be subject to a final determination at a later stage by the Registrar of Electors and Voters and the Chief Electoral Officer), it was quite clear that the differential between the first and second placed candidates was small and that a final result would depend on whether the Chief Electoral Officer accepted the 18 votes declared at the various booths to be 'informal' and the two votes declared to be 'spoilt'; and the impact of 29 'special votes'.

As it transpired, the Saturday count for this and other reasons revealed quite a different picture as will be seen from the results reproduced below:

BOOTHS		FATA NAFOAGA	LESAISAEA REUPENA MATAFEO	VALASI TAFITO	TOTALS
182	Valid votes	22	13	140	175
	Informal etc. votes				00
	Used ballot papers				175
	Unused ballot papers				375
	Total ballot papers				550
183	Valid votes	57	30	75	162
	Informal etc. votes				00
	Used ballot papers				162
	Unused ballot papers				388
	Total ballot papers				550
184	Valid votes	07	204	05	216
	Informal votes				03
	Spoilt ballot papers				01
	Used ballot papers				220
	Unused ballot papers				330
	Total ballot papers				550
245	Valid votes	29	107	134	270
	Informal votes				03
	Spoilt ballot papers				01
	Missing ballot papers				00
	Used ballot papers				274
	Unused ballot papers				326
	Total ballot papers				600
Special Votes	Valid votes	03	13	11	27
	Disqualified votes				02
	Total special votes				29

The result of the Saturday count was declared by the presiding officials of the first respondent as the official result viz.:

At some stage during the evening of Saturday, 10 March 2001 when the first respondent became available from the count she had been overseeing, these results were communicated to her by her officials. She immediately noted the disparities between the preliminary count and the Saturday count and accordingly took steps to summon, the scrutineers for all the candidates in order for her personally to conduct a further count. The Chief Electoral officer in her evidence testified that she did this because she was not satisfied as to the accuracy of the Saturday count and she was not about to report it to the general public or to the -Head of State as the official result given such doubts. It was not possible to convene a count on Saturday night and the count therefore only took place the following day, Sunday 11 March 2001 at her office at Mulinuu. For convenience, this is hereinafter referred to as 'the Sunday count'.

Only the scrutineers for the petitioner and the second respondent chose to be present at the Sunday count. The first respondent was assisted by members of her staff.

BOOTHS		FATA NAFOAGA	LESAISAEA REUPENA MATAFEO	VALASI TAFITO	TOTALS
182	Valid votes	22	13	140	175
	Informal etc. votes				00
	Used ballot papers				175
	Unused ballot papers				375
	Total ballot papers				550
183	Valid votes	57	30	75	162
	Informal etc. votes				00
	Used ballot papers				162
	Unused ballot papers				388
	Total ballot papers				550
184	Valid votes	07	202	07	216
	Informal votes				03
	Spoilt ballot papers				01
	Used ballot papers				220
	Unused ballot papers				330
	Total ballot papers				550
245	Valid votes	29	107	135	271
	Informal votes				03
	Spoilt ballot papers				00
	Missing ballot papers				00
	Used ballot papers				274
	Unused ballot papers				326
	Total ballot papers				600
Special Votes	Valid votes	03	13	11	27
	Disqualified votes				02
	Total special votes				29

The second respondent testified that she was satisfied that her count conducted on Sunday, 11 March 2001 gave the true and correct figures and on Monday, 12 March 2001, she publicly declared this to be the official result for Vaisigano No. 2 and the second respondent to be the successful candidate. There is no doubt in our minds that this would have been gut-wrenching news to the petitioner whom on the Saturday count had been declared the successful candidate.

The petitioner now brings a petition essentially alleging that the anomalies in the various counts for this territorial constituency were caused by foul play in that unknown persons tampered with the ballot papers, and were caused by negligence on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer and her staff in failing to properly secure and safeguard the said ballot papers. The petition also suggests, as did the evidence adduced by the, petitioner, that the first respondent and/or her staff failed to properly assess the validity or otherwise of the ballot papers declared by the presiding officers of booths 184 and 245 to be 'informal' and 'spoilt' votes. There was also some questioning as to the basis upon which certain special votes had been disqualified and upon which certain special votes had been allowed. There was no real challenge mounted by the petitioner of the eventual results of booths 182 and 183 and the few anomalies in the counts for those booths were explained to the Courts satisfaction as the proceedings progressed.

As the petitioner unfolded his case against the respondents, it became clear to the Court that at some stage of the petition, two issues needed to be addressed:

(a) did the first respondent have any legal basis or authority for conducting the Sunday count, bearing in mind the provisions of section 79 and section 80 of the Electoral Act 1963?; and

(b) as the evidence was raising more questions than answers, would an in-depth examination by the Court of the roll and all the ballot papers cast and uncast in this matter yield a satisfactory and final solution?

After the close of the petitioner's case and while the first respondent was being cross-examined by petitioner's counsel, the parties through their lawyers in a joint submission requested the Court to rule on (a) above, and furthermore, to undertake an audit of this territorial constituency involving but not limited to an examination of the roll, all the ballot papers, their counterfoils, all informal votes, spoilt votes and any other material the Court considers relevant and then for the Court to conduct its own count of the votes. We agreed to the latter part of the submission but only on the strict condition that the proposed audit would not compromise the secrecy of the electors' ballots. As to the first part of the application, we required full submissions to be made.

These were duly received from all counsel on the issue of the first respondent's power if any, in the circumstances that here prevailed, to conduct what was in effect a third count by the Sunday count. The relevant provisions are section 79 and section 80 of the Act and it is useful to set them out fully herein:

"(1) On completion of the scrutiny hereinbefore directed the Chief Electoral Officer, with such assistants and such Returning officers designated under section 76 of this Act as he deems necessary, and in the presence of such of the scrutineers appointed under section 76 of this Act as choose to be present, but of no other person, shall select and open one of the parcels of used ballot papers referred to in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 75 of this Act and shall mark each ballot paper therein with a number in consecutive order, beginning with the number, one, so that no 2 ballot papers in that parcel shall bear the same number.

Provided that the procedure set out in this subsection need not be delayed until the inquiries under subsection (2) of section 77 of this Act have been completed, but the ballot papers from any particular polling booth shall not be counted until any inquiries in respect of ballot papers from that booth have been completed.

(2) When the ballot papers from the parcel so selected have been marked as aforesaid the Chief Electoral officer shall make a record of the last number marked, and shall then, in the presence of his assistants (if any) and such of the scrutineers as choose to be present, but of no other person, deal with the ballot papers as follows:

(i) that does not bear the official mark if there is reasonable cause to believe that it was not issued to an elector or voter by any Presiding officer, or

(ii) that does not clearly indicate the candidate for who the elector or voter desired to vote; or

(iii) that has anything not authorised by this Act written or marked thereon by which the elector or voter can be identified; or

(iv) that purports to vote for more candidates than the number of candidates to be elected:

Provided that no ballot paper shall be rejected as informal by reason only of some informality in the manner in which it has been dealt with by the elector or voter if it is otherwise regular and if in the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer the intention of the elector or voter in voting is clearly indicated:

Provided also that no ballot paper shall be rejected as informal by reason only of some error or omission on the part of an official if the Chief Electoral Officer is satisfied that the elector or voter was qualified to vote at the election.

(b) The Chief Electoral Officer shall then count the number of votes received by each candidate, and the number of votes rejected as informal, and compare the result of that count with the certificate of the Presiding Officer in respect of the preliminary count, and shall, where necessary, amend that certificate, and every such certificate shall be initialled by the Chief Electoral officer;

(c) The Chief Electoral Officer shall then make up and secure the parcel a new, and endorse thereon a memorandum specifying the number of ballot papers contained in the parcel, the number of informal ballot papers, the name of the polling place, and the number of the booth at which the votes were recorded; and the endorsement shall be signed by the Chief Electoral Officer.

(3) After the ballot papers from one parcel have been dealt with in the manner aforesaid, those from the remaining parcels shall be successively dealt with in like manner, the marking of the ballot papers to commence with the number one in the case of each parcel".

(1) When all the ballot papers have been dealt with as aforesaid the Chief Electoral Officer, having ascertained the total number of votes received by each candidate, shall forthwith declare the result of the poll including the number of votes received by each candidate by giving public notice thereof, in form No. 9, and report the result of the poll to the Head of State. Thereupon the Head of State shall, by warrant under his hand, declare the successful candidate or candidates to be elected.

(2) Where there is an equality of votes between candidates and the addition of a vote would entitle one of those candidates to be declared elected, the Chief Electoral Officer shall forthwith apply to a District Court Judge for a recount under section 81 of this Act, and all the provisions of that section shall apply accordingly, except that no deposit shall be necessary'.

It was forcefully argued by petitioner's counsel that the scrutiny of the rolls as required by sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act had been completed just prior to the Saturday count and pursuant to section 79 of the Act, the Saturday count was therefore the only official count sanctioned by the legislation. Counsel further submitted that the first respondent had in effect and in law herself conducted the Saturday count because -she had delegated this task to her staff and 'Chief Electoral Officer' is defined by section 2(1) of the Act to include 'any person authorised to exercise the powers, duties and functions of the Chief Electoral officer'. Counsel also submitted the first respondent has no discretion under section 79(1) because section 79(1) mandates that 'On completion of the scrutiny hereinbefore directed the Chief Electoral Officer shall' conduct a count of the ballot papers. Counsel placed much emphasis on the use of the word 'shall' in the subsection. It was argued that this being the case, then the next statutory provision, viz. section 80(1) comes into operation. Section 80(1) requires that 'When all the ballot papers have been dealt with as aforesaid' (i.e. dealt with as provided for under section 79), then the first respondent 'shall forthwith declare' the result of the count that has been conducted under section 79. Counsel again submitted this was a mandatory duty imposed on the first respondent by section 80(1) and that it was in keeping with the spirit and policy of the legislation that the results of a count be expeditiously and immediately declared as official once a count is completed given the public interest in such matters.

As to the meaning to be ascribed to the words 'the Chief Electoral officer, having ascertained the total number of votes received by each candidate,...' in section 80(1), counsel argued that this had been fulfilled by the Saturday count conducted by the Chief Electoral officer's subordinates and that the Chief Electoral officer had in accordance with the Saturday count therefore ascertained the total votes received by each candidate. Both requirements of section 80(1) were consequently fulfilled and the Chief Electoral Officer was mandated by the provision to immediately declare the result of the Saturday count as the official result. Counsel said there are no words in section 80(1) that sanction or permit the first respondent to do anything else, and certainly there is nothing permitting her to conduct a further count. The Sunday count was therefore ultra vires of her powers. If there was any dissatisfaction with the official result as declared by the first respondent, then the legislation provides in the succeeding provisions of sections 81 and 82 a mechanism whereby disaffected candidates can apply to the District Court for a judicial recount by that Court.

In reply, counsel for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent's function is more than the mechanical certification of a count under section 79. He said her functions under section 80(1) were separate and distinct from those under section 79(1). Some of her functions can be delegated but the task of ascertaining the total votes received by each candidate was a function she retained under section 80(1) and was one that she could not and indeed should not delegate. The petitioner's interpretation would mean that the Chief Electoral Officer would be bound by section 80(1) to certify and declare even an obviously incorrect result. This would lead to absurdity and Parliament cannot be presumed to have intended an absurd result. Counsel referred to various legal authorities to the effect that the Courts must always seek to avoid that construction of a statutory provision that would produce an absurd result. Counsel also seemed to be urging the Court to take a very expansive view of what is or can be an 'absurd result' i.e. that it would include impractical, illogical and futile results.

Counsel for the second respondent also made submissions but he seemed content to rely more on the fact that given the obvious differences in the three counts conducted in this territorial constituency, the interests of justice and fairness required that the Court should conduct a judicial recount and an audit of the ballot papers. He however supported the view that the petitioner's interpretation cannot be correct because the first respondent must be free to conduct her own count to alleviate any mistakes or errors that were made in earlier counts. Counsel also noted that if the Saturday count had been the declared official result, the second respondent would have had no hesitation in utilising the provisions of section 81 of the Act to seek a recount in the District Court.

The Court considered the submissions made and held that what was done by the first respondent as Chief Electoral Officer in counting the ballot on Sunday, the 11^th March was within the meaning and spirit of the Electoral Act 1963. Whilst we agree with counsel for the petitioner that the spirit and policy of the electoral legislation is aimed at finalising election results as a matter of priority (which is why for example section 111(7) of the Act provides that in allocating a time for hearing of an election petition, priority must be given to the election petition over all other Supreme Court matters) in order to facilitate continuous and stable government, we do not agree that this means the Chief Electoral Officer must therefore blindly declare as official and final a result that she believes is inaccurate, flawed or at least, highly questionable.

In our view the proper construction of section 79(1) and section 80(1) of the Act is as follows: Section 79(1) directs that on completion of a scrutiny of the rolls, the Chief Electoral Officer herself or such of her subordinate officers as delegated by her shall conduct a count of the ballot papers. At such a count, the Chief Electoral Officer or her delegate may be assisted by such assistants and returning officers designated under section 76 as is deemed necessary. Section 79(1) also requires that the duly appointed scrutineers for each of the candidates 'and no other person' can be present at the count if they so desire, Section 79 goes on in its various subsections to lay down the procedures and guidelines to be followed during this count of the ballot papers. Section 80(1) then provides that once all the ballot papers have been dealt with in this manner ('dealt with as aforesaid'), then a second stage is reached by the Chief Electoral Officer. The second stage is that the Chief Electoral Officer must ascertain the total number of votes received by each candidate. This second stage is part of section 80(1) because of the words 'the Chief Electoral Officer, having ascertained the total number of votes received by each candidate...' These words impose onto the Chief Electoral Officer the need to carry out a further enquiry but notably, the manner for carrying out such further enquiry is not defined. The manner of the further enquiry has been left by Parliament entirely to her discretion. But there is no question a further enquiry is required. To hold otherwise would be to give no meaning to the words 'having ascertained the total number of votes received by each candidate'. To state it another way, to hold otherwise would mean ignoring those words and to read section 80(1) as saying:

"When all the ballot papers have been dealt with as aforesaid, the Chief Electoral Officer shall forthwith declare the result of the poll... "

What then is involved in this further enquiry by the Chief Electoral Officer? Clearly, if the Chief Electoral Officer had personally conducted the count done pursuant to section 79, she need go no further because she has already ascertained the total votes received by each candidate. If however the count was undertaken by delegated officers, she must then proceed to ascertain for herself the total votes received by each candidate. How she undertakes this task must depend on the circumstances of the count before her. One would expect that in the normal course of events, if she is satisfied as to the correctness and accuracy of the count conducted by her delegated officials, she would rely on that as ascertaining the total votes received by each candidate. She would accordingly endorse the result of that count and forthwith declare that as the ... official and final result of the poll in the manner prescribed by section 80(1). If however as in the present case she is not satisfied as to the veracity or reliability of the earlier count by her subordinates, we are of the view that it is within the meaning and spirit of the Act that she conduct a further count as she did in this case on Sunday, 11 March 2001, which count she then declared on Monday, 12 March 2001 as the official result for Vaisigano No.2. It is for these reasons that we upheld the Sunday count taken by the first respondent and denied the petitioners application to strike down the results of that count and to reinstate the results of the Saturday count as the official and final result for this territorial constituency.

Having dealt with that issue, we then proceeded with the audit and count of the ballot papers along the lines suggested by counsel in their joint submission but always bearing in mind the rider imposed by the Court that at no time should this process compromise the secrecy of the electoral ballot. It was agreed by all counsels that none of them would take part in this exercise but that the duly appointed scrutineers for each of the candidates would be present throughout as would the Chief Electoral Officer and some of her staff to assist the Court. No one else would be present apart from those persons, the Court staff and Police orderlies.

Ever the eternal optimists, it was originally envisaged by counsel that the audit and recount would take no more than a half day. As it turned out, the process began in the afternoon of 9th May 2001 and was not completed until the afternoon of 15th May 2001. The Court deliberately took time because it desired to resolve once and for all the outstanding questions, issues, suspicions and doubts about the ballot papers used in the Vaisigano No.2 election. We considered it important that at the end of the exercise, all doubts be dispelled and all uncertainties be cleared up. The rolls were examined and scrutinised again, all queries regarding membership on the rolls resolved, all invalidated ballots reinvestigated and resolved, the validity of all ballot papers investigated and confirmed or otherwise dealt with, all informal votes reinvestigated and dealt with, all spoilt votes reinvestigated and dealt with, all ballot papers both used and unused reviewed and all matters raised by the scrutineers were addressed to their satisfaction. The enquiry extended to the calling of the Registrar of Electors and Voters to give evidence regarding findings made by him in respect of various electors and a number of electors themselves were summoned and appeared before us to answer certain questions concerning their votes. In respect of every witness, the scrutineers were given the fullest opportunity to question and examine not only the witnesses, but also the first respondent and -her staff. Transparency principles were observed throughout and all matters were painstakingly explained and clarified to the representatives of each of the parties to these proceedings. At the conclusion of this exhaustive inquiry, we determined that no stone had been left unturned and were satisfied that all matters had been fully, fairly and finally canvassed and resolved.

BOOTHS		FATA NAFOAGA	LESAISAEA MATAFEO REUPENA	VALASI TAFITO	TOTAL
182	Valid votes	22	13	140	175
183	Valid votes	57	30	75	162
184	Valid votes	07	200	07	214
	Informal votes				03
	Disqualified votes				02
	Spoilt votes				01
245	Valid votes	29	107	134	270
	Informal votes				03
	Spoilt ballot papers				01
Special Votes	Valid votes	03	13	10	26
	Disqualified votes				03
					860

These results were advised to and fully accepted by the parties and their respective counsels on 16th May 2001 and they represent the final and official result for the territorial constituency of Vaisigano No.2.

(i) the Court has not found any evidence of foul play or negligence on the part of the first respondent;

(ii) in accordance with the results of the Court's audit and count, the second respondent remains the duly elected member for the territorial constituency of Vaisigano No.2;

But the Court is also conscious of the fact that the petition was not totally without merit and that is a factor which must be taken into account in the decision whether to award costs, and if so, the amount to be awarded. The Court awards costs of $500 to each of the first and second respondents to be paid by the petitioner:

(vi) the Courts judgment to be reduced to writing and copies to be made available to all parties concerned. But this is for convenience only and the judgment of the Court became effective as from the date of its delivery.

Solicitors:
Toailoa & Associates for petitioner
Attorney-General's Office for first respondent
TV Eti for second respondent

Fata Nafoaga	-	118
Lesaisaea Reupena Matafeo	-	367 (successful candidate)
Valasi Tafito	-	365
Informal votes	-	06
Disqualified votes	-	02
Spoilt votes	-	02
		860

Supreme Court of Samoa

Matafea v Chief Electoral Officer [2001] WSSC 40 (16 May 2001)