Investigation into ‘stop order’

“There are procedures that must be followed and as Chief Executive Offi cer of the Prime Minister’s offi ce and the Immigration we will do what is right against any unlawful act.”

A former member of parliament shouted and screamed at Immigration staff who allegedly let him go overseas after a phone call despite an official ‘stop order’ prohibiting his departure from the country.

Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Vaosa Epa, has confirmed they are investigating how the former politician was allowed to leave the country.

“The ministry will deal with the problem and the government has its own way of dealing with these complaints when they arise. Her comments follow a complaint from a woman who said she paid $1,400 tala in fees to get a Departure Prohibited Order against the man concerned.

He could not be contacted and is understood to be at a family funeral in New Zealand.

But Mrs. Epa said that they would look into the complaint about the 'stop order'.

“There are procedures that must be followed and as Chief Executive Officer of the Prime Minister’s office and the Immigration we will do what is right against any unlawful act.”

The complaint comes from Mrs. Tea Sanft, who accused the former politician of owing her thousands of dollars. Her case against the man is due for hearing in March. Which is why she sought the Departure Prohibited Order (D.P.O.).

“The whole reason for doing it is because I heard that there are previous cases when, around the time of the court hearing, he always leaves the country, and it takes a long time for him to return and I don’t want that to happen in my case,” she said. She said she paid the $1,400 for an urgent D.P.O. to stop the man from travelling outside Samoa.

Contacted for comment, Acting Chief Executive Officer of Immigration Seuamuli Henry Taefu said there was no such charge for a Departure Prohibited Order, saying the fee must have come from her lawyer. Mrs. Sanft’s lawyer, Tima Leavai, declined to comment on the matter. Mrs. Sanft is adamant that she followed the right procedures but has nothing to show for it.

“What’s really sad, after paying the order which I can now describe as ‘throwing money into the rubbish’ I also checked with the airport to see whether the D.P.O. was already on the system.”

“Last Thursday evening he went to New Zealand and he had an argument with the Immigration employees that were working that night.”

“The Immigration officer at the airport confirmed that it was already on the system.” Mrs. Sanft claims things got heated at the airport.

“He was shouting at the top of his voice saying that he didn’t know what they meant.” She claims the officer ended up calling Seuamuli who gave the authority to allow him to go. Angered by the alleged breach of the stop order, Mrs. Sanft said she went to see Seuamuli the next morning.

“I asked him what exactly is D.P.O. for in Samoa?” “He asked me what exactly was my point, and I told him that I was paying $1,400 for the D.P.O. and why in the world did he allow [him] to go?”

Mrs. Sanft claimed that Seumuli told her to ‘be patient, he will come back on Monday, he is away for a family fa’alavelave’, or function. “Why keep on worrying, he will be here at the hearing of your case”, she said he told her.

Mrs. Sanft said she told Seuamuli her court hearing was not the problem. What she wanted to know was what worth was it to pay $1,400 for a D.P.O. when she might as well have thrown the money into a rubbish bin, if he was allowed to leave the country.

“Where is the truth?” she asked. She said she was told that the man concerned must sign the order before it can become effective.

Mrs. Sanft accused Immigration of avoiding responsibility for the failed order. “Who is responsible? Not me.”

Mrs. Epa, the C.E.O. from the Ministry of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, confirmed that Mrs. Sanft had contacted her last Friday.

“I already told Tea to go and write us a report concerning the issue and we will move on our investigation.” Mrs. Epa said that she would seek quick responses from those concerned.

“I will require a reply from Seuamuli before Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi is back.”

Why?

“I am sure the matter will end up with Tuilaepa because he is the minister for the Immigration and a matter like this must be presented to him with full details and an investigation.”

She said that Immigration officers are not authorised to cancel a departure order.

“The only person that can authorise cancellation on a D.P.O. is the Prime Minister and that is only in special cases; even then procedures must be carefully followed as well.”

“There is lots of paper work involved, because we have to deal with the Ministry of Justice, and other related reports, but this cannot be done by the authority on the phone. “Proper procedures and careful actions must be taken first before any cancellations of a D.P.O. if we deal with such a case.”

However, the Immigration Act 2004 makes no mention of the Prime Minister being able to cancel a Departure Prohibited Order, according to documents on the Samoa Law Information site. Only the courts, and the Attorney General, can issue and cancel such stop orders. Under Part Four, Section 26, the Attorney General has the authority to revoke a stop order – but only those orders made by the Attorney General - him or herself.

Their authority does not extend to stop orders issued by the court. An Attorney General can issue a stop order in cases of national security, national interest or a criminal case, for up to three months. The courts can issue a stop order for a maximum of six months, including for debts exceeding a limit set by the mini s ter responsi b le for Immigration.

For his part, Seuamuli Henry Taefu, the Acting Chief Executive Officer of the Immigration; also confirmed talking with Mrs Sanft. “I already told her that a stop notice is issued only to those who are found guilty of not paying a debt that is over $7,000.”

“And that order is not from me or anyone else but from the court.”

The man concerned has “not yet been found guilty so she should wait until the hearing.”

If the man does not appear that day, then that is when she should come and contact Immigration. He confirmed cancelling the stop order.

“One of my employees contacted me on the phone and an investigation into previous travel was carried out before releasing him to attend his relative’s funeral in New Zealand.”

He said that records show the man usually comes and goes overseas and there was no need to stop that person if he had not been found guilty.

As for the $1,400 charge, he said there is no such fee paid to their office. “Must be the lawyer’s fee," he said. Meantime, “There is no need to take any action until we receive a court order from Justice that the person is found guilty.”

“There are also rules and policies that I myself am guided by in doing my job.”

However, again , t h e Immigration Act 2004 does not appear to support this interpretation. Part 4 Section 25 (a) allows the courts to issue an order against a person who “has a debt or debts in Samoa in excess of the amount determined by the Minister by Notice and is unlikely to pay such debt or debts if allowed to depart from Samoa”.

Alternatively, under subsection (b), a person “currently involved as a party or as a witness in a civil or criminal case which is before the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court or the Lands and Titles Court or the District Court and it is not in the interests of justice for the person to depart from Samoa”.

This means a ‘stop order’ may be given by the courts against someone yet to be proven ‘guilty’ of owing debts.