Through his defense attorney, Sen. Nuanuaolefeagaiga Saoluaga T. Nua has requested the Trial Division of the High Court to deny the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and a new trial, arguing that the court didn’t err in its Mar. 31st decision, dismissing a challenge filed by three traditional leaders of Ta’u over the selection of the defendant to occupy one of the two senatorial seats for Manu’a District No. 1, comprising Ta’u, Faleasao, and Fitiuta.

In its motion for reconsideration and new trial, the plaintiffs — Lefiti Atiulagi Pese, Maui Aloali’i and Tauese Va’aomala K. Sunia, for themselves and on behalf of the Ta’u County Council — argued among other things that they have standing in this case.

DEFENSE ARGUMENTS

However, the defense argues that plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration and new trial as well as memorandum in support of the request cites “no newly discovered evidence, no clear error or manifest injustice in the [court’s] decision, and no intervening change in controlling law.”

Instead, plaintiffs reiterate the same arguments made in their closing remarks at trial, arguments, which the court has already considered and ruled against, the defense said.

According to the defense, the court correctly articulated the test to determine whether or not plaintiffs had standing to bring this action. Additionally, the court correctly found that plaintiffs failed to show that they have standing, either in their individual capacity or as members of the Ta’u County Council.

The defense argues that the court recognized that the Senate seat held by Nuanuaolefeagaiga is one of the two seats slated for the three villages of Faleasao, Fitiuta and the Faletolu of Ta’u and this was also confirmed by the case of “Eseroma v. Faresa” (a few years ago), which dismissed the idea that one of the two Senate seats of District No. 1 is not specifically slated for the Faletolu.

“Therefore, while the plaintiffs, may all be chiefs from Faletolu, they have no voice in the village councils of Faleasao and Fitiuta and therefore no standing to sue or complain on behalf of these other two villages — and without these other two villages, there is no substantial controversy and therefore, no standing,” the defense argued.

According to the defense, the heart of plaintiffs complaint was that their set of meetings held last December were “procedurally valid and therefore superseded any decision made at meetings held [last] November where the defendant was elected.”

“Indeed, this begs the question, if the decisions made at the meetings in December should have superseded the results of meetings in November, it would seem logical that the three counties [Ta’u, Faleasao and Fitiuta] that allegedly met and decided in December would support plaintiffs complaint to validate the decisions they reached,” the defense argues.

“In fact, as the court pointed out, not only did the counties of Faleasao and Fitiuta fail to make an appearance at trial, but even the successful candidate decided upon in December, named only as an interested party, appeared uninterested in the complaint [by the plaintiffs],” the defense said and asked the court to deny plaintiffs’ motion of reconsideration and new trial.

The complaint identified Vaitautolu Liugalua as the interested party and he along with Sen. Galeai Tu’ufuli were the selected Manu’a District No. 1 senators at the Dec. 27 meeting and were certified by the county chief.

Local attorney Gwen Tauiliili-Langkilde represents Nuanuaolefeagaiga, while attorney M. Talaimalo Uiagalelei represents plaintiffs.