Bankside barrister Hon Christopher Finlayson KC and employed barrister Stephen Rankin have been involved in proceedings before Samoa's Court of Appeal, which recently dismissed an application for judicial review by former Deputy Prime Minister Toelupe Poumulinuku Onesemo, upholding the Supreme Court's decision to void his election as the Member of Parliament for Falealili 1, an electoral district in Samoa.
Hon Christopher Finlayson KC and Stephen Rankin, along with Hellene Wallwork of Wallwork Lamb Lawyers, were appointed amici curiae to assist the Court. They were expressly directed to oppose the application. The unanimous judgment was delivered on 29 June 2026.
The original Supreme Court decision, issued on 24 March 2026, found that Mr Onesemo had committed the corrupt practice of bribery through an agent, who had provided WST $150 to a voter on the eve of the 2025 General Election.
Mr Onesemo filed an application for judicial review alleging that his constitutional rights under the Constitution of Samoa had been violated. Specifically, he alleged that his right to cross-examine witnesses had been breached and that the Supreme Court had inappropriately adopted a prosecutorial role in pursuing the election petition under the electoral legislation.
The Court first found that it had jurisdiction to determine whether Mr Onesemo’s constitutional rights had been violated, despite the clear terms of an ouster or privative provision in the electoral legislation, which provided that the Supreme Court’s decisions on election petitions were “final and conclusive and without appeal, and must not be questioned in any way.”
The Court then found that Mr Onesemo had not been denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, noting that his legal team had decided not to challenge evidence or present rebuttal evidence during the original proceedings. The right to a fair trial "does not insulate a party from the consequences of considered litigation choices,” the Court said.
Lastly, the Court rejected allegations of judicial bias. It held that the Supreme Court had acted appropriately in exercising its investigatory powers under the electoral legislation, emphasising that the vigorous investigation of electoral fraud is essential to protecting democratic processes. Even though the parties had sought to withdraw the petition, the Court noted that election petitions serve a broader public interest beyond the interests of the parties themselves.
Photo credit: Hellene Wallwork
“The proceeding involved the intersection between the electoral legislation and the supreme Constitution of Samoa. The judgment confirms an important point of principle. Merely raising a constitutional issue does not permit a re-examination of electoral decisions; a clear breach of a constitutional right must be established,” says Stephen Rankin.
As a result of the decision, the Supreme Court's ruling declaring Mr Onesemo’s election void remains in force, and the Court's statutory report will now be submitted to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
Further Reading
Samoa Global News, 29 June 2026
Pacific Media Network, 20 June 2026
Comment