The following is a writeup and opinion that I have sent (via email) to the Samoa Government through The Ministry of Women Community and Social Development and The Office of The Ombudsman. It is inspired by recent events in Samoa and is by no means an exhaustive treatment of the subject(s), just a synopsis and overview.
_______________________________________________
The Need for Clarification of “Nuu”, “Pulenuu” and “Sui o le Malo” Within Their Socio-political and Legal Contexts.
ABSTRACT:
The informed opinion in this writeup is the result of a personal intuitive prognostication – as opposed to any secondary nudges – based solely on a recent series of REAL issues and events in a village and sub-village in Samoa to which I have familial connections and relationships. My personal knowledge of the events, in addition to my overall socio-political cognition of Samoa, have prompted me to scrutinize the events and then pose (and expose) a possible and specific conundrum regarding the topic and subject of the writeup.
Village, as probed here, refers not only in its Samoan socio-political and traditional contexts, but hopefully in a potentially legal one, notably in connection with the context and contents of the Land and Titles Act 2020, its application, implementation and administration.
The gist of the writeup, therefore, is to seek a clarification and disambiguation of the terms and concepts, especially of what a village is in light of the above-referenced issues – with potential of worrisome violence – among families of the village and subvillage involved. I hereby petition, albeit indirectly, the Courts, the Legislative Assembly and Government Ministries (as main arbiters) to study and look into the matter, not only in order to pass legal muster but ultimately resolve the seeming ambiguity - at the very least.
NOTE: I will not be using the real and actual names of the village and subvillage involved; instead I will be using fictitious designations and labels A,B,C etc. The matter is a potential case study that will have national ramifications and therefore can possibly be a consequential one.
PROLOGUE:
In a de facto sense, according to the Samoan government, there are two main types of villages in Samoa - traditional and non-traditional. In the de jure and contemporary contexts, however, the term “village” (nuu), has, and is becoming ambiguous at best and controversial at worst. It lacks a specific, definitive and uniform meaning and therefore should be analyzed and scrutinized so as to be intelligible in its burgeoning contexts. As it currently stands, “village” and its evolving connotations are “not all equal under the law”.
BACKGROUND (CASE STUDY):
B, throughout history, has been a SUB-VILLAGE (PITONUU) of TRADITIONAL VILLAGE A. It (subvillage B) consists of one big family (X) and a few other smaller families. At any one point, through the years, there had been no more than five families (aiga) in this B subvillage. Any title bestowal (saofai) for families in subvillage B, including the Sa’o of X had always been under the authority and auspices of Traditional Village A and its council (fono). Subvillage B, according to the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development as well as testimonies of some of the staff of the Land and Titles Court, was neither an independent (nuu tuma’oti), non-traditional village nor a traditional village (nuu mavae); it was, and still is, as recent as two years ago (2019/2020), a subvillage of A.
Within the last several years, however, there have been attempts and efforts by the chiefs of subvillage B to secede and break away from A. These efforts, including two group visits by the said chiefs to the former Prime Minister’s office and residence to bid him to declare B as a separate and independent village, were unsuccessful and were therefore denied.
In 2020, the case of the title bestowment (nofo/saofai) for the Sa’o of X, was nullified by the Land and Titles Court. One of the main issues and perhaps the main determinant of the dubious decision had to do with the claim and interpretation that B was already independent and “self-ruled”, hence had seceded from A. That was an error if not a blatant disregard by the Court of the “custom and usage” of A and its sub-villages. It is also a direct contradiction and possible violation of the Land and Titles Act 2020 (details below). The said case is currently in the process of being appealed.
Fast forward to the end of 2022 (a few weeks ago). B held a mass installation of titles (saofai) without the presence and/or auspices of A and its village fono. Surprisingly, some Members of Parliament (past and present) were involved as candidates and recipients of titles. These were audacious and in possible violation of the law, if not the Land and Titles Act 2020 which states that in order for a bestowment to be valid, one of the requirements is that:
“the village council of the village are physically present to acknowledge recognition of the bestowment of the Matai Title.”(Part 15(1)(c)(ii)) (Emphasis mine)
The fact is that subvillage B does NOT have an official village council (fono) per se, due to its lack of a traditional village (nuu mavae) status, including being without its own traditional salutations and honorifics (faalupega). Subvillage B is supposed to be under the umbrella of Traditional Village A. The blatant irony in the recent title bestowments in B is that some of the recipients, and attendants, are present and past lawmakers or Members of Parliament.
Consider also the fact that B is not a “village” around town where non-traditional villages mostly exist. Therefore the village fono requirement and status above had been circumvented, forced and sanctioned allegedly through and by the auspices of the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development so as to satisfy its programs by installing a “pulenuu” or “sui o le malo” in what seems a controversial and conflicting process. This seemingly new development of “village” creation by ministries and other government bodies is adding fuel to the fire and controversy of what the definition of a village is - hence what a pulenuu (versus “sui o le malo) is as well.
In 2019, according to the Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development, B was not a village apparently in all the available connotations and contexts discussed above. It was still a PITONUU (sub-village) of A. What has changed since? Yet B, presently, has a “pulenuu” (or “sui o le malo”) and that change alone, a seemingly arbitrary and unsanctioned move has therefore given a de jure and full-fledged village status to B. The process, seemingly by the WSCD, can be viewed as an anomaly and deviation in the contexts – legal and otherwise – of the terms “village” (nuu) and “pulenuu”. It’s a contradiction within the socio-political and legal framework of government operations.
Faamalie pe afai e popona le toa i se finagalo ona o le mataupu ua laga, but for the sake of honesty, transparency and accountability, ua mafua ai ona faato’ai atu le mataupu. Ae maise e mafai ona faapogai ai nisi o lave ma feteenaiga (complications and conflicts) i isi faiga ma tulafono a le Malo. It certainly begs the basic questions: How, when and who has the authority to form or create a village? Are there basic requirements - legal and otherwise?.... Etc., etc.
Also consider that with the vagueness of a village definition also comes the ambiguity between “pulenuu” and “sui o le malo”. The two terms may be synonymous at best and contradicting at worst. Again the terms and concepts parsed herein need to be studied, settled and resolved in their meanings, contexts and applications.
Ma lo’u faaaloalo tele,
LV Letalu
