Damning police inquiry report

A “significant culture of corruption” and “exploitation” exists at Tafa’igata Prison. Further, the jail is being run by a “sad state of leadership” whom “we cannot assert with any element of confidence that basic honesty and truthfulness are (its) strong points.”

These are among numerous shocking discoveries made by the Commission of Inquiry, which had been tasked to investigate allegations of mismanagement and misadministration at the Prison.

A copy of the report has been obtained by the Sunday Samoan.

The Commission of Inquiry was chaired by the Ombudsman, Maiava Iulai Toma. Other members of the Commission were Gatoloa’i Tili Afamasaga and Su’a Tanielu Su’a. Lawyers Sine Lafaiali’i Koria and Sefo Ainuu, of the Attorney General’s Office, assisted.

The Inquiry was prompted by an anonymous “ghost letter” and sequel correspondence pointing to widespread misconduct and deviant sexual activity in Tafa’igata Prison.

The letter alluded to liaisons between police officers and inmates and to rampant homosexuality among female inmates and with wardens. It also alleged favouritism in the treatment of officers in the Samoa Police Force.

The Commission confirmed many of the allegations.

“The significant culture of petty corruption, prisoner ill treatment and exploitation that is flourishing in Tafaigata is directly linked to the absence of prescriptions in Regulations for proper warden conduct and the inability of Prison leadership to breach this serious gap,” the report reads.

“Prison staff contempt of ordinary decencies towards prisoners, open disregard of the strict prohibition against alcohol consumption within prison precincts and the creeping abuse of concessions allowed to them as in personal crop plantings on prison land, illustrate the shocking state of professional conduct prevailing in Tafaigata and the inability of prison leadership to impose appropriate standards.”

The Commissioner added that: “We cannot assert with any element of confidence that basic honesty and truthfulness are strong points of Samoa Police.

As an ongoing phenomenon, this sad state of affairs reflects directly upon leadership.”

The Commission also delved into a number of individual cases at the prison.

One such case is the unsolved mystery surrounding the death of New Zealand mental health patient, Hans Dalton.

“The event described above (Dalton’s death) tells of the pitifully low level of performance that Tafaigata prison through habit has permanently set for itself to deliver,” the Commission’s report reads.

“It reflects miserably also on the capacity of Samoa Police to be sensitive and responsive to the situation of an ill person in desperate need of relief from his mental anxieties.”

The actions taken by the Police after Dalton’s death were also questioned.

The investigation ordered by the Commissioner of Police focussed on shortcomings in the actions within the cell block of the lowest ranked prison officers involved.

Disciplinary charges of negligent performance in not locking the individual cells were laid against the Senior Constable who was in charge and two duty constables.

“The two constables quickly pleaded guilty to the charges even though it is clear that leaving the cells unlocked in this cell block had been common practice. The two constables were dismissed. The Senior Constable team leader while admitting in statements to the PSU that he had not locked Dalton’s cell and throwing himself at the mercy of the Commissioner, chose to defend the disciplinary charges against him.”

According to the Commission, to date, these charges have yet to be heard by a Police Tribunal.

“No one else was held to account for the tragic events of Christmas and Boxing Day 2012 at Tafaigata Prison."

“An observable manifestation of the creeping abandonment of prisons by the Ministry over the years is the absence of any verifiable active interest by police command in prisons performance. Where there is little expectation of quality performance or even of the mere possibility of it, little performance in fact emerges. Delegation is a vital factor to operational success in the Police. Over reliance on delegation appears to have been a downfall here.”

In relation to claims of “improper liaisons in prison,” the Commissioner highlighted “one particularly lurid story” involving an Assistant Commissioner.

“This story had come to the attention of the Commissioner of Police who directed investigation by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) of Police. From the perspective of indictable wrong doing the PSU concluded that there was nothing with which to further proceed,” the Commission reports.

“From the perspective however of possible questionable personal conduct, the findings of one PSU investigator did indicate sufficient reason for further examination whether or not disciplinary charges against the Assistant Commissioner could be justified. This further step was not taken by PSU."

“Our own enquiries tell us that at the very least, what could have been looked at was failure on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to exercise good judgement in allowing himself to be alone, if in fact he was alone, with a female inmate in circumstances with high potential of impacting adversely upon the reputation of the Police and Prisons Service."

“The female inmate was required to fofo (treat by massage) the Assistant Commissioner’s legs for a skin disorder. The Assistant Commissioner’s wife had picked up the female inmate from prison and brought her home on the occasions of the fofo treatment.”

The Commission said it has sworn evidence from both the Assistant Commissioner and his wife that the Assistant Commissioner was never alone with the female inmate in question.

However, “we learned on the other hand that the PSU in their investigations had discovered a witness at the spot to dispute the evidence of the Assistant Commissioner and his wife for one visit occasion. This witness is a prisoner with no apparent reason to lie."

“In contrast the fofo practitioner inmate who subsequently told what allegedly happened in one particular session to anyone who would listen had been described by the Chief Justice in trial as someone hard to believe."

“It turns out also that an alleged intimate condition this witness categorically claims to have diagnosed of the Assistant Commissioner during the last and allegedly more extensive fofo encounter was not confirmed by hospital records. In all of the circumstances the lurid aspects of her story are very suspect."

“It would appear that physical contact with female inmates is a matter of little consequence to the mind of the Assistant Commissioner.”

The Commission also highlighted other sexual concerns.

“Homosexual activity at Tafa’igata prison featured prominently in the “ghost letter”. The indulgence of individuals in homosexual activity is we think no fabrication but cannot be said to be unusually extensive. It does not appear to be an issue at all in the male sector of the prison."

“With regard to heterosexual liaisons, the Commission was made aware of information allegedly implicating, a former prison chief in a liaison with an inmate who became pregnant and went through an abortion during her time in gaol."

“The prisoner concerned was convicted for her part in events along with a fellow inmate for procuring the abortion. Nothing of the kind eventuated with regard to the alleged involvement of the former prison boss in the affair."

“The Commission was made aware of another pregnancy with an insinuated connection to the current Assistant Commissioner. The aborted baby in this case had been unearthed at Aleisa on or about August 2011 some months after it had been buried. The supposed mother, a prison officer at the time of the discoveries was alleged in “ghost letter” dispatches to have been then in an affair with the Assistant Commissioner."

“For some reason the outcome of the police investigation of possible charges against the woman in connection with the discovery of the baby’s remains have yet to be formally concluded following forensic and DNA analysis in New Zealand of specimen evidence."

“The Commission was told that the DNA results did not provide the clear linkage sought by Police in their enquiries. It is puzzling that the police are taking so long to use the DNA results to clear matters up with regard to the individuals so far implicated by rumour."

“The long delay has served to fan speculation and innuendo surrounding the rumoured affair between the Assistant Commissioner and the woman concerned. The insinuated paternity linkage seems farfetched however unless the alleged affair had commenced months before the woman in question was ever recruited into Tafaigata service.

“The rumoured affair itself on the other hand was made more credible in interested minds by another quite separate development. The female officer involved was suspended on pay pending the outcome of criminal charges against her from an unrelated complaint. It transpired that after the Court had disposed of the matter the woman continued to be paid for about a year and 4 months before her employment with police was quietly terminated, supposedly because the ghost letter had drawn public attention to the matter."

“The sequence of events was perceived as favoured treatment because of the affair between the woman and the Police Commissioner’s friend. The Commissioner attributes it to oversight."

“The Commission can point with some certainty to only one sexual relationship mentioned in “ghost letter” dispatches. This was an affair between a female prison officer and a male inmate. The police officer happens to be the same officer alleged to have been active in facilitating link-ups between inmates.”

The Commission also investigated claims of attempted intercourse between Police officers.

“A young police woman told the Commission of Inquiry that she had had to fight off the officer in charge of her shift who was bent on having intercourse with her on two occasions during duty hours. The woman was barely an adult at the time and had been assigned to duties at the Faleata Police post,” the report reads.

“The attacks had occurred about three weeks apart in the small hours of the morning when other officers were on patrol leaving only the senior sergeant and herself in the police post. According to the witness she was accosted while napping. She was physically overwhelmed on both occasions by the commanding officer’s strength, slaps and vicious pinching as she struggled with him to keep her clothes on.

“She was luckily spared the ultimate violation on each occasion by the man’s own physical inabilities at the crucial stages of his attacks.”

The Commission’s report was handed to Cabinet several months ago.

At the time, Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi, said Cabinet has “fully approved the recommendations.”

“The 75-page report lucidly outlined several management and administrative problems at the Ministry and validated unfavourable conditions, unflattering incidents and incongruous behaviour at the country’s main prison,” he said.

The Prime Minister pointed out that the Inquiry supported the decision by the Minister of Police and Prisons, Sala Fata Pinati, to separate the Prison from the Police.

“The recommendation has resulted with the view that it is necessary for Tafa’igata Prison to be made independent from the Ministry of Police,” said Tuilaepa.

Tuilaepa said the only way “to improve (the running of) Tafa’igata (Prison) is to separate it from the Ministry.”

"That way, a separate Commissioner will be responsible for the Prison."

“Since the Commissioner is based here at the Ministry (of Police), he tends to give all his attention to the Ministry and not to the prison,” said the Prime Minister.

Since that interview with the Prime Minister, the government has appointed Taitosaua Edward Winsterstein as the Commissioner of the newly established Prisons and Correction Services.

The Assistant Commissioner, Sala Uili Seaga, who had looked after the prison has resigned. Meanwhile, a second Commission of Inquiry was ordered to look at suspended Police Commissioner, Lilomaiava Fou Taioalo’s performance. That Inquiry ended last Thursday.

Below is the Commission of Inquiry’s report published in verbatim:

Preface The Commission of Inquiry (“COI”) was appointed on 6 September 2013 by His Highness the Head of State in the following manner:

ALLEGATIONS PERTAINING TO THE MISMANAGEMENT AND MISADMINISTRATION OF TAFAIGATA PRISONS AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES I TUI ATUA TUPUA TAMASESE EFI, Head of State of the Independent State of Samoa, acting on the advice of Cabinet, pursuant to section 4 of the Commission of Inquiry Act 1964, APPOINT the following persons:

1. Maiava Iulai Toma – Chairperson;

2. Gatoloai Tili Afamasaga – Member;

3. Su’a Tanielu Su’a – Member; and 4. Sine Lafaialii Koria and Sefo Ainuu – Counsels Assisting.

To be a Commission to inquire into and report to Cabinet and to no one else, the matters relating to the subject matter in accordance with the Terms of Reference in F.K (12) 28 dated 16 August 2012 and F.K (13) 30 dated 21 August 2013.

The Terms of Reference (TOR) were as follows:

1. To review the administration of the Prison Service relating to:

a. The general management of prison;

b. The handling of complaints filed by prisoners and police officers;

c. The treatment of prisoners in terms of accommodation and meals;

d. The treatment/mistreatment of prisoners including the cells they are placed and how they are treated by the Prison officers;

e. The release of prisoners on weekend parole;

f. The posting of prisoners outside of prison; g. The relevance of Programmes offered to Prisoners which includes the context of the programmes and its aims and objectives and that such programmes shall not have a negative effect or create more problems for the Prisons Division. (e.g. religious programmes);

h. Any other relevant administration matter that may come up during the inquiry.

2. To review the relationship between Police officers and prisoners relating to:

a. The alleged giving or loaning of money by prisoners to Police officers; b. The alleged affairs involving Police officers, prisoners and spouses and relatives of prisoners;

c. Any other relevant relationship matter that may come up during the inquiry.

3. To consider submissions relating to the cause of recurring instances of escape by prisoners from Tafaigata Prison.

4. To review the methods used by Police to re-capture escaped prisoners.

5. To refer any matters of criminal or disciplinary matters to the Professional Standards Unit to investigate.

6. To review the guidelines relating to Prison Officers which includes their employment, suspension, termination, conduct, scope of authority, disciplinary proceedings and how effective they are.

7. To provide recommendations regarding ways or methods to resolve the various issues that keep arising from the way the prison officers carry out their work. 8. The TOR may be extended to address any other issues that the Commission may come across and wish to include in its TOR during the course of the inquiry.

9. For the Commission to report back to Cabinet within four (4) months from the date of the warrant.

-------------------------- Parties to the Inquiry Both the Commissioner of Police and the Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) made application at the outset to be cited as parties.

The Assistant Commissioner’s application was granted.

With regard to the Commissioner’s application the Commission had this to say1:

“Just because the inquiry is about the Police and Prisons and the Commissioner is Head of Police and Prisons do not on those grounds alone necessarily mean that risk for him being adversely affected justify citing him as a party to the inquiry. We are authorized and charged with responsibility to make an inquiry.

As there are no accusers or prosecutors here, we are taking a pragmatic approach to citing parties to this inquiry, bearing very much in mind evidence that already appears to be out there for us to hear and any that may emerge. To that end we ask ourselves the questions:

• How is the Commissioner implicated?

• To what extent is his conduct the focus of evidence coming before the Commission?

• Are there particular attacks upon him?

• Is he the object of allegations in existence?

• Is his conduct or reputation adversely reflected upon in evidence giving rise to any right to challenge that evidence as opposed to any indirect or peripheral impact upon him?

We are not concerned at this time with prospects of peripheral or more remote matters such as any issue of vicarious responsibility. Should issues of that kind arise they will be addressed as such in appropriate manner. Having asked ourselves these questions, we do not think it unfair treatment of the Commissioner at this time to deny his application to be treated as a party to this inquiry.

Should the situation change as the inquiry progresses the Commissioner will be informed and invited to renew his application.

We will remain mindful throughout this inquiry of the Commissioner’s right to fair treatment with regard to evidence that may arise concerning him. We will ensure that any evidence that may arise during the course of the inquiry which may implicate the Commissioner, Counsel assisting will ensure that transcripts of such evidence will be provided to the Commissioner so that he can appear before the Commission and make submissions.

We have another concern in the public interest which we will not keep secret. We are concerned with conduct and expressions refl ecting a sense of intimidation among potential witnesses with regard to providing information to the inquiry. Given the circumstances in which such potential witnesses fi nd themselves, there can be a risk to the free fl ow of information of the very kind and from the very sources that the Commission of Inquiry must hear in order to properly carry out the task we are authorized and charged to do. To be plain, the participation of the Commissioner of Police in person or by proxy in these proceedings may hamper the effectiveness of the Commission of Inquiry process with regard to some matters, not in all, but some matters of our Terms of Reference.”

On 18 November 2013 the Commissioner renewed his application to be cited as a party. The application was granted.

Contributors to Report This Commission of Inquiry Report has been developed with the support of members of the public, police officers, prisoners, and former prisoners. The Commission began its inquiry on 20 September 2013 and concluded its hearings on 29 November 2013. The Commission heard from 144 witnesses.

Additionally the Commission made visits to the Tafaigata, Olomanu and Vaiaata prisons as well as to the Tuasivi police lock-up facility.

The Commission would like to acknowledge and thank those who have contributed to this inquiry. We would especially like to thank those who were able to speak candidly about issues which were sensitive for them and to their own situations. The Commission hopes the Report has formulated recommendations that are relevant to the development of law and order in Samoa.

Introduction The Commission of Inquiry was prompted by an anonymous “ghost letter” and sequel correspondence pointing to widespread misconduct and deviant sexual activity in Tafaigata Prison. Ghost letter correspondence alluded to liaisons between police officers and inmates and to rampant homosexuality among female inmates and with wardens. It also alleged favouritism in the treatment of officers in the Samoa Police Force.

Police investigation of the ghost letter allegations did not turn up anything of great interest to the police nor did a rush of witnesses eventuate to give incriminating evidence of sexual liaisons or other deviant activities to the Commission of Inquiry.

Ghost letter aside, the Commission of Inquiry has been an opportunity to look at the police in operation both in the prisons and in general policing at an interesting juncture in the Ministry’s development.

Whereas general policing has been at the receiving end of massive technical and capital assistance to push forward its development and modernization, prisons policing has been left to scratch and scrape for survival by whatever means it could make things to work. The physical condition as well as the staffing of the prisons in terms of both quantity and quality reflects the reality of this situation.

Even so, it has to be said that the Prison Service with all its faults as identified in this report and despite the difficulties has been quite successful in achieving the limited objective of containing incarcerated persons away from the general population. It has achieved this at the lowest cost possible upon the public purse. Its modus operandi, derived from years of experience deliberately utilizes mechanisms, dynamic forces and influences inherent in communal existence and traditional styles of human interaction. While this is proving effective for most inmates there is no avoiding the harsh ‘lock up’ option for a very small percentage of the incarcerated population who do not assimilate.

At the completion of the inquiry the Commission has concluded among other things that:

• All three prisons and particularly Vaia’ata and Oloamanu prisons provide clear proof that a largely open type prison system which harnesses the social dynamics of traditional communal existence can work in Samoa. Competent leadership and quality staff is key to success. The visible ever available hard ‘lock up’ alternative while a necessity for the few serves as effective deterrent for the rest.

• The significant culture of petty corruption, prisoner ill treatment and exploitation that is flourishing in Tafaigata is directly linked to the absence of prescriptions in Regulations for proper warden conduct and the inability of Prison leadership to breach this serious gap.

• Modernized facilities are essential including an urgently needed substitute for the facilities that are currently used to house people held in custody.

• While noting impressive transformation in recent years enabling the police to regularly contribute to international peace keeping operations it is not obvious that infrastructural and institutional strengthening achieved has improved police performance of its core functions at home. • Within the rank and file of police there is either inadequate appreciation of police duty to be accountable in the exercise of power, or little inclination to so act.

• It cannot assert with any element of confidence that basic honesty and truthfulness are strong points of Samoa Police.

Recommendations in this report seek to address concerns raised by the TOR and others which arose during the inquiry.

The Report is presented in two chapters:

Chapter 1 on Prisons Policing looks at the prisons establishment at Tafaigata in particular; its physical structures and institutional framework. It discusses the treatment of prisoners, the conduct of prison officers and examines some of the complaints made against prison management as well as improper activities alleged to have happened in the prison.

Chapter 2 on General Policing gives an overview of recent developments which have transformed Samoa Police to impressive new capacities. It examines allegations of differential treatment of officers within police as well as allegations of abuse of power and demonstrated lack of accountability by police. CHAPTER 1: PRISONS POLICING 1.1 The Prisons Establishment - a quick eye opener

Samoa’s prison population as of 26 September 2013 comprised of four hundred fifty seven (457) male and thirty-six (36) female inmates. Seventy six (76) males and three (3) females were also being held in custody at Tafaigata Prison making a grand total of five hundred seventy two (572) detained persons. Except for a high concrete wall under construction around the small women’s compound situated within Tafaigata prison, there are no perimeter security walls around any of the three detention facilities.

Tafaigata, the main prison and top security unit is only a twenty minute drive from Apia. Vaiaata prison in Savaii and Olomanu, a prison opened in November 2006 for young offenders, are both very low security facilities for male inmates. The latter two facilities have neither security fencing nor a single lock-up cell.

Forty seven (47) prison officers under the command of the Commissioner of Police through an Assistant Commissioner as the Chief Gaoler are responsible for and maintain prisons security without visible arms of any kind. It is quite normal on the other hand for large gangs of often twenty or more prisoners, each with a razor sharp machete, to be supervised in plantation work by one or two unarmed policemen far from the prison buildings and other prison officers. This never fails to impress or stun people when they see it or when it is recounted to them by Samoan prison officials. The latter explain it in terms of Samoan culture and traditional modes of interaction between officers and inmates.

Without detracting from the remarkable achievements of prison officers in truly risky circumstances on the job, it is undoubtedly the case that the system works and operates with minimal visible structural support because of its functionally effective basis in fear and intimidation; – fear of the Police and the “pa sima”, the “concrete wall” or punishment block.

The key component of the fear mechanism is prisoner conviction that while in gaol, the “pa sima” is his lot in life, whenever a prison officer chooses to make it so. This is re-enforced continuously either by the reality of the punishment itself or frequent verbal threats or reminders of it. The realization moreover that escaping from prison is futile and does not offer relief must also help.

Convicts on the run in Samoa are not able to melt into anonymity in society as may be possible elsewhere, and find themselves in traditional communities that are not only incapable of accommodating them as anonymous individuals, but are uncomfortable or even unwilling nowadays to accommodate them at all. In these circumstances escapees inevitably find themselves quickly back in prison and into the ever waiting solid, sinister, dank and de-humanizing reality of the prison “pa sima”.

1.2 Governance Incarcerated persons lose their freedom of movement and have no choice but to endure inconvenience and hardship in prison. However, imprisonment does not mean they lose their right to live in a reasonable manner.

The principal governing legislation for prison life and inmate management is the Prisons Act 1967 (Prisons Act).

Other related legislation includes the Police Service Act 2009 (Police Service Act) and the Police Service Regulations 2010 (Police Service Regulations).

The Prisons Act empowers the Commissioner of Police and assigned subordinate officers to control the Prisons. That Act envisages Regulations to set out in greater detail how its objectives are to be achieved and to prescribe for the efficient and reasonable governance of the prisons within the provisions of the Prisons Act.

No regulations have ever been promulgated under the Prisons Act. As a result, unless the Prisons Act specifically provides otherwise, prison life in general and prisoner management in particular are in accordance with whatever the Assistant Commissioner and his subordinate officers consider appropriate.

To aid compliance with legitimate prison requirements the Commissioner is empowered under the Prisons Act to punish a prisoner in the “pa sima” for up to six days after a hearing for offences listed in the Prisons Act as minor prisoner’s offences. Punishment for periods longer than six days and up to thirty days may be given for offences listed as aggravated prisoner’s offences after a re-hearing by a District Court Judge. The Commissioner is required to advise the Minister forthwith of punishment given for prisoner’s offences.

Apart from a posted listing in prison of minor and aggravated prisoner’s offences there is no publication of any prescribed requirements or standards that prison officers and inmates living in prison must observe. Lack of policy or procedure guidance extends to punishment in the pa sima, which punishment is within normal everyday gaoler jurisdiction.

Laws and associated rules in any community guide people living under such laws in what they may or may not do. These things being reasonably clear in civilized society enable individuals to make decisions or organize their personal lives to the extend they are able to do as human beings within the parameters of permissible conduct.

Without prescri p t ions in Regulations as envisaged in the Prisons Act, the law for inmates in a Samoan prison, for all intents and purposes, is essentially the whim of the Assistant Commissioner or his subordinates to lesser extent.

Deviant behaviour is what they determine it to be when situations arise.

1.3 Treatment of Prisoners A prisoner is given little to guide him for life ahead when he enters prison. More often than not he learns what not to do from other prisoners. If he is given guidance at all from the prison authorities it is simple advice to obey police officers; not to try to escape; and to quietly serve out his sentence.

In these circumstances an inmate has no standards or markers to use as bearings and nothing to stand on as a matter of right. His life consists simply of doing what he is told, in the manner he is told, when he is told by anyone in authority. If he displeases those in authority in this regard he, under current practice, can be punished on the spot by confinement in the “pa sima” for up to a maximum of six days. In fact however, prisoners have been confined in the “pa sima” for periods much in excess of those envisaged by the Prisons Act.

There is no history of ‘hearings’ in connection with pa sima punishment, at which the prisoner to be punished is present, as envisaged by the Prisons Act. The duty under the Prisons Act to give a hearing falls on the Commissioner or more logically the Assistant Commissioner and his second in command to carry out.

There is no history of proper compliance with s31 (3) of the Prisons Act which says: “The Commissioner on imposing any such punishment shall enter and sign in a separate book, to be called the “Punishment Book” a statement of the nature of any offence for which the Commissioner has imposed a punishment, the name of the offender, the date of the offence, particulars of the punishment, and the date on which the Commissioner imposed the punishment”. Further, the Prisons Act requires that “a copy of every such entry shall be forthwith sent by the Commissioner to the Minister”. Likewise, there is no history of ‘rehearings’ by a District Court Judge in cases of “aggravated prisoner’s offences” and of reports “forthwith” to the Minister as required by the Prisons Act.

The lack of standards to guide conduct can impact on prisoners in different ways. For instance, we were told of a situation where joking and ribbing between a particular officer and certain young prisoners during work periods was the norm until one day the officer decided that this was no longer appropriate and broke an inmate’s jaw. The injured inmate in spite of being in need of medical attention was directly put in the pa sima Prisoners told the Commission of Inquiry that they are treated like slaves or “nonpersons” in prison with no rights to speak of. They endure the reality of a prison maxim drummed into them that whether right or wrong, an inmate gains nothing from questioning any decision or directive of a prison officer.

Prisoners claim to be subjected to indignities through requirements put in procedures to cause humiliation for the sake of humiliation.

Verbal abuse through foul language has its own twists too. Putting up with invectives and profanities in conversation is never pleasant.

The deliberate use however of disgusting expressions when addressing large groups or the assembled inmate population in the Samoan language is arrogant uncouthness in pointed denial of the intrinsic dignity of one and all.

The reason for the obviously thriving culture among the prison officers of treating inmates badly is clear from the evidence before the Commission. There exists very little structure within the prison system that directs prison officers on their conduct. Moreover the leadership is lacking effective overall control and as a result the officers are largely left to their own devices.

It is beneficial to consider the Stanford Prison experiment of 19711, which sought to emulate conditions for prisoners in an environment where the prison guards had little to no direction on how to treat their subjects, and the effects arising from this. The consequences were wide ranging and one of the more relevant findings was that without proper supervision or direction, the guards began to mistreat the prisoners, subjecting them to ritual humiliation and dehumanisation.

The author of the experiment, Phillip Zimbardo draws direct comparisons with the prison of Abu Ghraib in Iraq where guards working under little supervision subjected prisoners to sexual abuse and ritual humiliation. One observed behaviour repeated many times was that guards would film their abuse of the prisoners. The Commission notes that 1 Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P.G. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison. Internati onal Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1, 69-97 the filming of prisoners in unflattering or demeaning circumstances for dissemination has been observed in Samoa, demonstrating it seems a linkage with the findings in the Stanford Prison experiment.

The unequivocal reason for guard behaviour in this manner was not because of the bad character of the guards employed. It was due to the lack of structure the guards operated under. The Stanford Prison experiment demonstrated that without a rigid structure of command and guard control most normal people would tend towards these behaviour traits.

Conviction of a crime in Samoa does not mean that one’s right to human dignity and freedom from ill-treatment is removed. There were worrying instances where inhumane treatment was evidenced to the Commission including the perception held of inmates by prison officers as having no rights except the right to receive a meal. Each and every one of us deserves the chance to rectify our mistakes and the conditions within Tafaigata prison for some prisoners may not be conducive to this.

In addition to a moral responsibility it makes little sense to dehumanise and mistreat prisoners. This merely serves to foster a section of society who have little self-worth and consequently contribute very little to the country. It has been well proven that prison systems which treat prisoners with respect and pay close attention to rehabilitation achieve far lower reoffending rates with ex-prisoners going on to make substantial contributions to society.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 10 provides that any person deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and dignity. As a signatory to the ICCPR Samoa should uphold these standards, yet is currently falling short.

Changes need to be made to facilitate detention environments where inmates serve their sentences without being subjected to inhumane treatment and degradation and are free to return and contribute to the development of Samoa. This can be achieved through prescription in Regulations that sets standards of behaviour for guards, gives direction on how to treat prisoners and provides for a rigid structure of management and responsibility.

The expectations we should have of our prison guards is only one side of the coin however, as there must also be defined expectations of our prisoners for a system to work effectively. Prisoners must know what to expect and have a clear understanding of how their behaviour will impact their treatment.

When obedience to prison officers is essentially the one and only operating rule in the Tafaigata prison, anything less than unquestioning compliance can and do result in serious punishment. The most frequent entry for pa sima punishment is “disobedience” with no further explanation whatsoever in the Punishment Book.

The price of compliance in these circumstances, not surprisingly, is suppressed resentment. It was made clear to the Commission of Inquiry that there is deep resentment among prisoners at Tafaigata.

In individual situations they resent inability to meaningfully question the reasonableness of directives and decisions of prison officers regarding them without risking punishment or victimization. In general they see inconsistency and favouritism in decisions concerning the high interest matters to all prisoners of weekend parole, visitor privileges and postings out of Tafaigata. Special treatment they see extended to individuals supports a general belief among inmates that a prisoner with money or other means by which he or she can benefit prison officers is able to have an easier life in prison than others.

The case was cited to us of a prisoner who was allowed to have a house in which he was able to receive visits from his wife and family, seemingly at any time he wanted. The Commission of Inquiry was led to believe that special treatment in the particular case was extended on medical grounds. The documentary evidence produced to us did not satisfactorily support this claim.

With regard to perceived inconsistent treatment in the grant of weekend parole, prison authorities explain that these benefits are extended to prisoners strictly at the discretion of the Commissioner or his proxies.

Appropriate factors have to be taken into account such as the monitored conduct of individual prisoners and degrees of risk associated with the different inmates.

Frequent escapees from prison cite resentment of the kind explained above as having a bearing on their decisions to break out. The rejection of requests to see a doctor was also put forward as a major factor.

These however are probably in large part rationalization of conduct that has become habitual for some young inmates.

These prisoners appear not to be deterred by fear of the pa sima and think nothing of walking out of prison when they feel the urge to do so.

A pair of young prisoners who were denied permission to go to the hospital did in fact break out in August 2013, proceeded to the hospital, bought medication supposedly prescribed for them and broke back into prison later in the day. They were punished for escaping.

Another prisoner walked out of prison also in August 2013 and broke into a house. He helped himself to clothes he fancied and returned to prison to resume prison routine as if nothing had happened. It was not until the clothes and gum boots he left behind at the burgled house were traced to him in prison that his “walk about” episode was discovered. He also ended up in the pa sima.

When due to frequent exposure and long experience of the pa sima prisoners are no longer constrained or affected by it and become insolent towards prison officers, exceptional measures which the system does not have are called for. In these situations exasperated prison officers have turned to physical violence probably more often than we would like to believe.

Additionally, the pa sima section which represents punishment for most prisoners has become permanent accommodation, but with normal rations, for the hard case inmates because of demonstrated high propensity for escaping. Strictly speaking, they cannot be said to be in “solitary” confinement continuously but they are in every other way cut off from the routine life and work of the prison community for months on end.

1.4 What of rehabilitation?

Rehabilitation in any meaningful sense is not a feature of the Samoan prison system. Not only is there no concerted effort to rehabilitate the incarcerated, there is no policy endeavour to properly use the considerable manpower cooped up in prison to utilize the potential in the also considerable land resource available to the prison system to support itself more fully. The objective of the system, pure and simple, has been to confine and to keep prisoners occupied at minimum effort and cost.

With confinement as its sole major objective, the prison system has been remarkably successful in spite of the dilapidated facilities at its disposal and the dismal resources it has had to contend with over the years. It is not officially admitted, but a lower entry threshold for Tafaigata staff recruits than for general policing has been in effect for some time now.

The direct involvement of the most senior prison officers in the pursuit of the limited objectives of Tafaigata prison seems minimal to us. Their engagement with prison management appears limited to the exercise of superior authority to deny or approve matters submitted upwards from time to time. Managerial or corporate strategies for the organization’s goals are nonexistent.

By all accounts, the initiative and energy of one person, who happens to head middle management, appears to be responsible for order and control in Tafaigata prison and for any progress in recent times that the prison may be able to claim.

We comment below on money earning activities or “projects” operated by inmates in Tafaigata. These were explained to us as measures to keep prisoners occupied and to help rehabilitate inmates for life after prison.

1.5 Conduct of Prison Officers Liberal recourse in the main prison to disciplinary powers available under the Prisons Act has been of central importance to the prison system’s ability to keep convicted persons contained away from the general population.

As noted earlier, there are no Regulations to govern the day to day exercise of these powers.

The procedures that have become practice facilitate ready backing for prison officer authority, and the capacity of individual officers to instigate dreaded pa sima punishment for any prisoner.

Human frailty and lack of prison regulations have allowed a significant culture of petty corruption and prisoner exploitation to flourish in the prisons. Furthermore, the attitude of those in authority that inmates have no rights during their incarceration has facilitated unreasonableness, elements of brutality and on occasion, callous disregard for the health and welfare of prisoners.

In the comparatively smaller women’s compound, prison officers have fallen into the habit of having “favourites” among prisoners. Informal alliances and groupings thereby emerge across the dividing line that interfere with the proper exercise of authority, undermine discipline and sour relationships in general within the small compound.

Prison officers when they choose can effectively appropriate for themselves food and money prisoners get from their aiga.

Money “borrowed” by officers from prisoners may or may not be re-paid depending on the disposition of the borrowers.

It often happens that a prison officer would casually ask an inmate particularly of a female inmate by female wardens for personal items such as cigarettes, soap or clothes. Even a can of paint has been the subject of a request of this kind. On such occasions, a prisoner who does not have cash borrows money or purchases from the canteen on credit. She knows better than to resist or question prison officer demands guised as friendly requests.

Freedom assumed by prison officers to help themselves to inmates’ possessions has extended, it seems, even to the taking of liberties with regard to inmate spouses and visiting female relatives.

It was reported to the Commission of Inquiry by a credible source that one particular officer habitually insists on kisses from visiting female relatives of inmates as part of the process of passage through the gate. Another officer exacts similar favours from female inmates who robotically comply to end his embarrassing pestering of them before assembled prisoners, while yet another likes to shock with indecent supposedly accidental exposures.

Behaviour explained to the Commission of Inquiry as well intentioned kindness by the Assistant Commissioner towards the de-facto spouse of an inmate was differently perceived by that inmate on claimed confessed revelations from the spouse in question. The inmate subsequently made loud and embarrassing efforts to draw out the Assistant Commissioner on the matter. A widely rumoured apology supposedly given in private was categorically denied by the Assistant Commissioner.

We believe the rumour to be an exaggeration of dialogue facilitated by the Assistant Commissioner to end the animosity that was being openly expressed towards him by the disgruntled male prisoner.

We describe below episodes brought to our attention that reflect the conduct of prison officers and their treatment of inmates:

1..5.1 Missions out of bounds Allegations of prison officers colluding with prisoners, for personal gain came before the commission of inquiry.

Prisoner Y serving time for ‘breaking and entry’, claimed that he escaped from prison in August 2013 because a prison officer had told him to find a way to get him a laptop for $300 tala. This prison officer, as confirmed by his own evidence, was usually friendly and interacted well with the prisoners.

About 4 days after the alleged conversation about the laptop, Prisoner Y asked the prison officer for some money and was allegedly given $50 tala. The officer when handing over the cash according to the prisoner enquired about progress with the laptop matter. The next day, while on plantation work, Prisoner Y escaped apparently to look for a laptop. He broke into a family home at Aleisa but did not find a computer.

The prisoner was later connected to the break-in through gum boots he had left behind and was taken to Faleata Police post. He told an officer there that he wanted to make a complaint to the PSU regarding his reasons for escaping

The implicated police officer denied the allegations against him in a statement to the PSU. The matter was pending at the time of the Inquiry but we learned later that the complaint was not successful due to insufficient evidence against the prison officer.

We shall never know the truth of this matter.

It is not impossible for Prisoner Y to have made up the whole thing. On the other hand, disbelieving him does not come altogether easily when the Commission is aware that a police officer, now dismissed, had actually organized young Olomanu inmates to regularly steal produce for the officer’s benefit from surrounding plantations. Another prison officer, an Inspector was at time of writing awaiting trial for the corrupt use of prisoners for personal benefit.

1..5.2 An unrepentant defiant inmate A Tafaigata prisoner implored counsel assisting when he recognized him in court one day for an opportunity to talk to the Commission about his experience in Tafaigata.

We sent for the prisoner and learned of his unusual circumstances. Prisoner X is currently in prison; and in there with him are his father and brother, all serving sentences for different unrelated convictions.

Prisoner X has been in and out of prison and seems destined to be a resident of Tafaigata for the long haul. We learned from him that the pa sima can be home in Tafaigata for an inmate for periods ranging from a few days to a whole year and more.

Prisoner X is a classic example of a hardened prison resident for whom continuous beating and confinement in the Tafaigata pa sima had done nothing. These measures had failed to reform him or curb his habitual deviant inclinations in any way. We surmise that as far as he is concerned the seemingly indefinite pa sima confinement he currently finds himself in presents him with only one option. That option is to escape when opportunity arises.

Instinctive determination to do this presumably can in time transform into the resignation of a broken spirit.

It is high time the Prison Service acquires in-depth knowledge of effective strategies and practices for the reform and rehabilitation of incarcerated individuals.

Prisoner X testified that he is continuously beaten by prison officers for various reasons including breaking out of prison. This treatment did not deter him from yet again breaking out of prison with four other boys in or about May 2013. Ironically, because of his history of escaping, Prisoner X had been living in the pa sima for over a year following a break-out in 2011, when he, once again, with the others took advantage of their daily hour in the exercise yard to escape. It was in connection with this escape that Prisoner X was in court the day he sighted our Counsel Assisting.

When asked why he broke out in 2011, he said that his son was sick. With regard to his May 2013 escape, he said that he wanted to get some things to help him serve his time. Each time he escaped, the police would capture him and beat him with apparently no consequential effect on his conduct or intentions. Being beaten up by police seemingly has become a facet of life which is endured when it comes from time to time.

A prison without rules and rigidly prescribed standards for wardens to observe is a dangerous place indeed for a person such as Prisoner X.

When questioned about the routine for prisoners in the pa sima, Prisoner X stated that there was none outside of the daily hour in the daylight for exercise and cleansing of body and toilet bucket in the yard. This routine of darkness, day in and day out for an indefinite period is all that the Samoan prison system with its inadequate physical facilities can offer an unreformed prisoner who becomes an habitual escapee.

Chillingly, this grim ‘end of the road’ type situation can be within easy reach of a certain type of young inmate if not properly helped and guided in a timely manner.

We understand from prison officials that young men who have become incorrigible house burglars are a tough problem for the authorities. Among convicted inmates the house burglars as a group pose the greatest threat to the hassle-free enjoyment of life and property within the community. Because of this nuisance factor they, more than any other group, are seen to be a priority focus for containment away from the general community.

A few “walks” out of gaol, which is easy to achieve, by any young man in this category can quickly put him on the slippery slope with accumulating time to serve and a record that recommends continuous lock-up in the atrocious but the only facilities available. The ‘end of the road’ self perpetuating cycle thus begins.

It is unfortunate for some young men who start down this path that their parents and families give up on them and do not visit them anymore. Eventually for some, the prison and prison community become the only family they relate to.

1..5.3 A joke not always a laughing matter Officer P and Prisoner Q routinely enjoy joking with one another. Officer P was apparently not in a joking mood however, when Prisoner Q made fun of him one day in front of other prisoners. He beat the prisoner up resulting in the loss of some of his teeth and being put in the pa sima.

The incident was witnessed by a number of inmates who gave evidence to the Commission as did both Prisoner Q and Officer P. The officer told the Commission that he was new at the time in 2010 and did not know any better. He did not admit to injuring Prisoner Q or to giving his mother money when he allegedly asked her to withdraw a complaint that had been lodged against him. The beating was later reported to the Commissioner who issued a warning to Officer P on the matter.

The same Officer P informed the Commission that he has martial arts training and a blue belt in taekwondo. He testified to an understanding that this experience was regarded as an important element of qualification and one of the reasons for his recruitment in 2010. When asked if his martial arts training is ever used in his line of work, he mumbled that “...e faaoga pe a faafiufiu pagota.” It is apparent from Officer P’s evidence that he does not understand that his so called “qualification” should not ever be used in his line of work or on prisoners.

Officer P was also accused by another prisoner of beating him in his bed for no reason. This was strongly refuted by officer P. He claimed to have only spoken to the prisoner who refused to follow his instructions and wanted to be put in the pa sima. He was adamant in his strange explanation that he merely told the prisoner to go to his cell but the prisoner insisted on being sent to the pa sima.

In the course of a submission to the Commission on another matter a prisoner claimed to have suffered a beating at the hands of prison officers. The prisoner explained that he was punched because he had not bathed when he was supposed to. He was banged against the wall of the cell next to the bathroom and severely injured his head. In spite of his injuries he was simply locked up after the beating. A woman prison officer later came with a first aid kit and attended to his injuries. He told the Commission that he was not taken to the hospital.

A current prisoner who is well known for breaking out of prison and has been living nearly half of his life in prison also told the Commission that he was beaten up and suffered a broken jaw for talking back to a prison officer and not obeying rules. The prison officer admitted hitting the prisoner and stated that he was totally out of line and became physical.

The Commission believes from the evidence of prisoners and prison officers alike that severe injuries as a result of beatings are not an uncommon sight or happening in prison. The Samoa Victims Support Group also testified to prisoners darting into their office to give them a glimpse of injuries when accompanying police escorts are not looking. The prisoners referred to here are apparently those en route to hospital to have injuries dressed some time after such injuries had been incurred.

1..5.4 Three months in pa sima for inconvenient rumours The longest confinement in the pa sima that the Commission is aware of for a female prisoner is 3 months. The prisoner involved, Prisoner F told the Commission that she had discovered the pregnancy of a fellow inmate and told police officers in the female compound. She was not believed at that time.

According to Prisoner F the pregnancy was later terminated and a bag containing the instruments used to terminate the pregnancy was in the female prison compound. Prisoner F reported the bag to the prison officer in charge. The bag was taken from the prisoners’ cell room and taken to the office where according to Prisoner F, it sat for weeks.

The bag was later sent to police headquarters in Apia for investigation.

It apparently did indeed contain the instruments used to procure the abortion.

Prisoner F made a statement about her knowledge of the matter. For this, she said she was put in the pa sima on the orders of the then Chief Gaoler for spreading supposedly, rumours and making up false stories. The then Chief Gaoler allegedly was rumoured to have fathered the aborted baby.

Prisoner Y stayed in the pa sima for 3 months. She told the Commission that she was very sick in the pa sima due to the long confinement and having to sleep on the cold floor without a mat and having only one meal a day.

The reported lock-up of Prisoner F is a glaring example of the use of the pa sima by prison officers to get at prisoners for personal reasons or to intimidate them into silence. Other prisoner witnesses confirmed to the Commission that Prisoner F was so sick during her confinement in the pa sima that on more than one occasion prison officers had to carry her out of the pa sima to be taken to the hospital.

A police sergeant when questioned about this incident confirmed the confinement and said that she told the then, chief Gaoler that the lock-up was not in accordance with the prison rules and that it was not right. She was ordered to just do what she was told.

The sergeant told the Commission that she regrets not doing anything at the time to push Prisoner F’s case and not lodging a written report on the matter.

1.5.5 A tragic Christmas On Christmas day 2012, shortly after 6.00 pm a thirty-eight year old man was brought to Tafaigata prison to be detained there. The man had been under a Mental Health Act 2007 ‘in-patient treatment order’ since 23 December 2012 and had been handed over to the Police because the hospital could not cope with excessively physical manifestations of agitation he had shown.

He was placed in one of four cells in pa sima cell block No. 2 shortly after arrival at Tafaigata prison. At that point he was seen to act strangely. He mumbled to himself continuously but otherwise he was not an active threat to anyone.

At about 8.45 p.m. he started to scream loudly and to shake the iron bars of his cell or punch the concrete walls from time to time.

Two other detainees, a convicted prisoner and a man held in custody charged with murder shared the small cell block with the detained mental patient. The cells that the two other detainees occupied were not locked and the two men were free to walk about in the common area into which all four cells in the block opened.

At about 9.00 p.m. two medical personnel arrived to administer medication. They were however unsuccessful in this task and the ill man was forcibly put back into his assigned cell. He received no further medical visits.

The cell block was checked throughout the night and early morning at irregular intervals ranging from 35 minutes to 2hrs 25 minutes.

Each visit was made by at least two of the three prison officers who made up the night watch at the male residential part of the prison.

This watch had been on duty since 8.00 a.m. Christmas morning and due to come off its 24 hour roster duty at 8.00 a.m. Boxing Day. It is clear that the mentally ill man had kept up his loud screaming and occasional swearing throughout the night. He shook the cell door’s iron bars from time to time and was frequently heard to call out “Lisa” his wife’s name to the deaf world around him. At about 7.15 a.m. on Boxing Day, Hans Dalton was dead. He was found head down in a large drum half full of water in the prison cell.

The event described above tells of the pitifully low level of performance that Tafaigata prison through habit has permanently set for itself to deliver. It reflects miserably also on the capacity of Samoa Police to be sensitive and responsive to the situation of an ill person in desperate need of relief from his mental anxieties.

Tafaigata is used to having only three or four officers as the full complement of the night watch in the prison office and male inmate compound. Such numbers provide capacity for nothing more than the manning of the office and rounds of the cell blocks by foot from time to time throughout the night. The low numbers is also a convenient excuse for not attending to any demands outside of the basic tasks that may arise during the night. Demands outside of the basic tasks include requests from inmates for medical attention.

Hans Dalton presented the Tafaigata night watch with a challenge that, had the prison wanted to handle in a minimally satisfactory manner, would have required additional manpower to provide, at the least, fuller surveillance throughout the night of the seriously agitated detainee. Such manpower was only a shout away for the asking. All of the Samoa Police force on Upolu not on regular duty that night was camped at Tafaigata in readiness for contingencies. The camp is routine Police procedure for the festive season holiday period.

Sadly however, the idea of doing anything out of the ordinary that night to help Hans Dalton does not appear to have entered the duty leader’s mind. To him the mentally ill detainee was a nuisance. In fact he was more concerned about the safety of the other two detainees in the cell block from Hans Dalton. The team leader and another colleague said so quite plainly in statements given to the Police Professional Standards Unit.

The watch was commanded by a Senior Constable. Why was command in the hands of such a low level officer? Why weren’t any of the senior ranks available to make decisions when the mental patient’s behaviour changed drastically later in the evening? The Superintendent who is 2nd in command of the prison resides in the compound. Why wasn’t his wisdom and experience brought to bear on the problem on the spot? In total perspective, what kind of a ‘ship’ was the Assistant Commissioner running at Tafaigata? How could the pitiful cries of an ill, for all intents and purposes, totally trapped human being yearning aloud desperately for the comfort of his wife and children, not be heard in the midst of assembled police manpower poised in readiness supposedly, to keep the community safe?

Police command showed no interest in these questions after the event. The investigation ordered by the Commissioner of Police focussed on shortcomings in the actions within the cell block of the lowest ranked prison officers involved. Disciplinary charges of negligent performance in not locking the individual cells were laid against the Senior Constable who was in charge and two duty constables.

The two constables quickly pleaded guilty to the charges even though it is clear that leaving the cells unlocked in this cell block had been common practice. The two constables were dismissed. The Senior Constable team leader while admitting in statements to the PSU that he had not locked Dalton’s cell and throwing himself at the mercy of the Commissioner, chose to defend the disciplinary charges against him. To date, one year later, these charges have yet to be heard by a police tribunal. No one else was held to account for the tragic events of Christmas and Boxing Day 2012 at Tafaigata Prison.

An observable manifestation of the creeping abandonment of prisons by the Ministry over the years is the absence of any verifiable active interest by police command in prisons performance. Where there is little expectation of quality performance or even of the mere possibility of it, little performance in fact emerges. Delegation is a vital factor to operational success in the Police. Over reliance on delegation appears to have been a downfall here.

1.5.6 Samoa Victims Support Group (SVSG) The Commission invited the Samoa Victim Support (SVSG) to make a submission as material before the Commission showed the SVSG to be a much used avenue by prisoners to raise complaints; and by others to draw attention to perceived situations of victimization. The Commission’s TOR required it to look at how prisoners’ complaints are handled.

The Commission is of the clear impression that prisoners are not inclined to seek redress for problems through the prison authorities.

They get the clear message from officers that prisoners have no rights in prison except the right to get some food. They see little prospect of their issues being taken seriously by the prison authorities.

It is not unusual for prisoners’ families to approach SVSG to inform them about problems that their sons or daughters face in Tafaigata. These approaches have been about ongoing beatings or suffering as a result of a severe beating. The President of SVSG told the Commission that police officers sometimes complain to them because the officers were not confident that the PSU would properly deal with the matters of concern. As a result SVG are landed with a lot of matters which were not part of their core functions. They have not turned the complainants away because they had nowhere else to go.

SVSG testified that they draw the attention of the police to the matters brought to them as complaints but they claim police show little interest in investigating them. The President of SVSG testified that she is instead accused of meddling and interfering in police business.

The President of SVSG told the Commission that family members of a prisoner at Tafaigata had approached SVSG after learning from media news that their son had been severely injured in prison from a beating.

The president immediately contacted the Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) because she was concerned and wanted to make sure that he knew of the incident to avoid anything worse developing. However, the Assistant Commissioner was not very happy with her calling. When questioned about this incident in evidence, the Assistant Commissioner stated that he did not like what he saw as the President of SVSG wanting to dictate how he was to do his work.

The Commissioner in his evidence testified that there was no hiding the fact that the Ministry did not have a good working relationship with SVSG who in his opinion was venturing outside its proper scope. He, like the Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) who had given evidence before him also felt that the President of SVSG was interfering and wanting to push where she was not welcome. He cited an occasion when the President of SVSG advocated for him not to proceed in a matter against a prospective defendant. He did not appreciate this encroachment into an area that was the prerogative of the Court and Police.

The SVSG claim that some serious matters raised through them have yet to be fully dealt with. They point to the case of the former prison officer whose baby supposedly, was unearthed from Aleisa. This however is a criminal case and is more strictly a concern for the police and not SVSG. It is nevertheless of concern to the public and to this Commission of Inquiry. We comment briefly elsewhere on implications this long drawn out matter has had on allegations and innuendos concerning Tafaigata prison management and individuals in it.

The SVSG point also to the “lotu tamaiti” lock-up which happened in October 2012 and about which the couple involved had made statements in complaint to the police Professional Standards Unit. They are still awaiting responses from PSU. The couple gave evidence to the Commission of Inquiry and we comment elsewhere in detail on their matter.

SVSG has come to be well known as a place for troubled people to go to for help. This Commission is of the view that this role should be maintained and not discouraged. Prisoners and prisoner families seem comfortable with SVSG and have found it useful in the past to go to them.

Prisoners need to be made fully aware by the prison authorities of section 22 (2) of the new Ombudsman Act 2013 which requires:

“a letter written and addressed to the Ombudsman by (a) a person in custody on a charge or after conviction of an offence; or (b) an inpatient under the Mental Health Act 2007, must be immediately forwarded, unopened, to the Ombudsman by the person-in-charge of the place or institution where the writer of the letter is detained or of which writer is an inpatient.

(3) A person, other than the Ombudsman, who opens a letter in contravention to subsection (2) commits an offence ...”

This function of the Ombudsman is another means for prisoners or concerned members of the public to make complaints.

1.6 Improper liaisons in prison Section 22 of the Prisons Act requires female inmates to be imprisoned “in such manner, as far as practicable as to prevent any female seeing, conversing or holding an interview with a male.” This is a far cry from the situation that exists in Tafaigata Prison today. There is plentiful opportunity for female inmates to meet or even fraternize with the opposite sex.

It was boldly stated to the Commission by several witnesses that one particular female police officer profits from facilitating connection between inmates desirous of meeting up with prospective friends of the opposite sex.

A number of stories alleging improper relationships between inmates and prison officers have been in circulation for some time.

These stories appear to have emanated from the female section of Tafaigata and through both inmates and prison officers have spread far and wide; even into the print media. As details or sordid insinuations in some of the alleged incidents are already in the public arena it seems appropriate that we explain what we found or did not find regarding these matters in our inquiry.

One particularly lurid story involves the Assistant Commissioner. This story had come to the attention of the Commissioner of Police who directed investigation by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU) of Police. From the perspective of indictable wrong doing the PSU concluded that there was nothing with which to further proceed. From the perspective however of possible questionable personal conduct, the findings of one PSU investigator did indicate sufficient reason for further examination whether or not disciplinary charges against the Assistant Commissioner could be justified. This further step was not taken by PSU.

Our own enquiries tell us that at the very least, what could have been looked at was failure on the part of the Assistant Commissioner to exercise good judgement in allowing himself to be alone, if in fact he was alone, with a female inmate in circumstances with high potential of impacting adversely upon the reputation of the Police and Prisons Service. The female inmate was required to fofo (treat by massage) the Assistant Commissioner’s legs for a skin disorder. The Assistant Commissioner’s wife had picked up the female inmate from prison and brought her home on the occasions of the fofo treatment.

We have the sworn evidence of both the Assistant Commissioner and his wife that the Assistant Commissioner was never alone with the female inmate in question. We learned on the other hand that the PSU in their investigations had discovered a witness at the spot to dispute the evidence of the Assistant Commissioner and his wife for one visit occasion. This witness is a prisoner with no apparent reason to lie.

In contrast the fofo practitioner inmate who subsequently told what allegedly happened in one particular session to anyone who would listen had been described by the Chief Justice in trial as someone hard to believe. It turns out also that an alleged intimate condition this witness categorically claims to have diagnosed of the Assistant Commissioner during the last and allegedly more extensive fofo encounter was not confirmed by hospital records. In all of the circumstances the lurid aspects of her story are very suspect.

It would appear that physical contact with female inmates is a matter of little consequence to the mind of the Assistant Commissioner.

The women’s compound Occurrence Book records the Assistant Commissioner visiting in September 2011 for a head fofo. To be fair to the Assistant Commissioner, there is nothing to suggest that he saw the woman prisoner in question as anything but a “taulasea” with curative talents or capabilities.

Homosexual activity at Tafaigata prison featured prominently in the “ghost letter”. The indulgence of individuals in homosexual activity is we think no fabrication but cannot be said to be unusually extensive.

It does not appear to be an issue at all in the male sector of the prison. With regard to heterosexual liaisons, the Commission was made aware of information allegedly implicating, a former prison chief in a liaison with an inmate who became pregnant and went through an abortion during her time in gaol. The prisoner concerned was convicted for her part in events along with a fellow inmate for procuring the abortion. Nothing of the kind eventuated with regard to the alleged involvement of the former prison boss in the affair.

The Commission was made aware of another pregnancy with an insinuated connection to the current Assistant Commissioner. The aborted baby in this case had been unearthed at Aleisa on or about August 2011 some months after it had been buried. The supposed mother, a prison officer at the time of the discoveries was alleged in “ghost letter” dispatches to have been then in an affair with the Assistant Commissioner.

For some reason the outcome of the police investigation of possible charges against the woman in connection with the discovery of the baby’s remains have yet to be formally concluded following forensic and DNA analysis in New Zealand of specimen evidence.

The Commission was told that the DNA results did not provide the clear linkage sought by Police in their enquiries. It is puzzling that the police are taking so long to use the DNA results to clear matters up with regard to the individuals so far implicated by rumour.

The long delay has served to fan speculation and innuendo surrounding the rumoured affair between the Assistant Commissioner and the woman concerned. The insinuated paternity linkage seems farfetched however unless the alleged affair had commenced months before the woman in question was ever recruited into Tafaigata service.

The rumoured affair itself on the other hand was made more credible in interested minds by another quite separate development. The female officer involved was suspended on pay pending the outcome of criminal charges against her from an unrelated complaint. It transpired that after the Court had disposed of the matter the woman continued to be paid for about a year and 4 months before her employment with police was quietly terminated, supposedly because the ghost letter had drawn public attention to the matter.

The sequence of events was perceived as favoured treatment because of the affair between the woman and the Police Commissioner’s friend. The Commissioner attributes it to oversight.

The Commission can point with some certainty to only one sexual relationship mentioned in “ghost letter” dispatches. This was an affair between a female prison officer and a male inmate. The police officer happens to be the same officer alleged to have been active in facilitating link-ups between inmates.

All other relationships were advanced on mere suspicion or hearsay.

1.7 Prison Activities and Projects The “projects” programme was explained to the Commission during the course of the Inquiry by prison officers and prisoners. We understand the programme to consist of cooperative type activities nurtured by the efforts of a senior sergeant who is obviously the “go to” person at Tafaigata for prisoners and prison officers. We understand that the senior sergeant personally supplied the commencing seed money for some of the small projects.

In other cases the mentioned senior sergeant was approached by prisoners who had various skills, talents and resources for potential projects.

The Commission gathers from evidence given that the projects programme is very successful and engages the inmate population in a positive and sustained manner. A vibrant cash economy ticks away in the prison. It is taxed in a loose voluntary manner to fund communal objectives within the prison. We note that these funds have even financed such things as quality hand cuffs and tyres for the prison truck which ought to have been purchased by the State.

Small projects for the women prisoners include handicrafts of all sorts such as fans, leis, and bags. Elei making is an activity that is undertaken by both female and a few male prisoners. Faleaiga involves both male and female prisoners in cooking light food items and meals which they sell to the prison population. Money received belongs to the prisoners to keep their business ventures going and to accumulate funds for themselves. All projects however, are required by the Assistant Commissioner to provide a “turn in” to the Office.

Projects operated by male prisoners only are the fish nursery for tilapia, vegetable garden, pig sty, a poultry farm, a carpentry house, a mechanic shop and an IT group. Most of these projects were the initiative of the prisoners with the help of the earlier mentioned senior sergeant.

Prisoners explained to the Commission that for some of these projects they actually made funding submissions to different organisations such as JICA. High revenue earning projects are the vegetable garden and the carpentry project where inmates build and sell coffee tables, different sized beds, chairs, tables, vanities and other items.

The turn in is any amount that the prisoners agree to give to the Assistant Commissioner.

The Assistant Commissioner issues receipts for money turned in and keeps it in a vault in his office. The money is not regularly banked but accumulates in the vault until such time that the Assistant Commissioner produces a Financial Statement of sorts and banks accumulated loose funds.

This money and the Assistant Commissioner’s terrible record keeping were the subjects of a lot of questions from the Commission. By the end of the Inquiry we were still not able to get a complete picture of monies received and spent.

This we think is due as much to the Assistant Commissioner’s amateurish record keeping as anything else including the fact that funds accumulated from past years are not clear and books of record was an innovation that only started less than two years ago.

Greater accounting expertise than what the Commission possesses would no doubt fare better in understanding a situation of which we weren’t able to make neither head nor tail.

For sure however, there is urgent need for these monies to be precisely recorded in a non- Mickey Mouse-type system of accounting that is approved by Treasury and regularly audited by the audit authorities.

1.7.1 The bigger “development” projects

The prisons establishment raises pigs and chickens and grows vegetable and taros. We understand that there are cattle also somewhere. We didn’t see any of these projects at Tafaigata but we assumed that they would be playing a part in feeding the prison population.

We were surprised then to hear disappointed prisoners complain that they had been required over time to bring live chickens from their aiga following weekend parole to kick start the prison chicken project. They have yet however, to eat one bite of chicken from the prison chicken project.

Prisoners don’t get to eat vegetables from the vegetable garden either it would seem. We were told that there have been times when prisoners have had to eat low grade ta’amu that was only fit for pigs because the prison had no taro or banana supplies. It was during one of these periods that prisoners boarded a bus to call on the Prime Minister. It was apparently a “come as you are” event because the prisoners had come in their work gear, machetes and all, straight after a work session on the prison plantation. They were stopped in their tracks three minutes from town, at Pesega by police shooting the bus tyres.

We find it difficult to understand how the prison at Tafaigata with a huge acreage of land and the manpower at its disposal could be unable to supply its own staples. In contrast to this was the extremely impressive sight we witnessed at Olomanu prison of acres upon acres of planted taro, the result of the work of about twenty-five young men under obviously very capable police leadership.

It seems that unlike Olomanu, prisoners at Tafaigata don’t always get to eat the fruit of their labours. This is with regards to chickens, green vegetables and perhaps even taro if one is to believe the evidence of the disappointed prisoners who appeared before us.

Some of these prisoners advanced the view that they were being used by the system in being asked to provide things for projects but that project production was not used for them.

A prisoner complained that he had voluntarily provided significant funds to start the commercial vegetable garden. He made a success of the project but was taken off it suddenly by the Assistant Commissioner without consideration given to the considerable amount of money he had provided.

Another disappointed prisoner told the Commission almost on the last day of its hearings about a list of valued tools he had provided in 2007 for use in the auto mechanic shop at the request of the last Chief Gaoler.

He has been following up the matter with the senior prison officers but no one seems to know where the tools have disappeared.

Another prisoner told the Commission that he was allowed to bring a vehicle he owned to be used in the mechanic project for teaching and demonstration. Once the car arrived at Tafaigata the Assistant Commissioner took it to his house. The prisoner claimed that he never saw the car again until the Assistant Commissioner was put on his current suspension sometime in August 2013.

1.7.2 Religious Missions Programmes No criteria exist to guide the selection of religious and other programmes that the prison allows for prisoners at Tafaigta and Vaiaata prisons.

The Officers in charge of the prisons said that they accept all religious groups who wish to conduct programmes on the assumption that they would be good for the prisoner’s spiritual life.

The relevance of the programmes being offered at Tafaigata is a matter that was raised in the “ghost letter” with particular reference to the Fortress of Faith religious group and the prominence of its involvement in the Tafaigata work week.

This group runs a weekly counselling session from Monday to Thursday at Tafaigata. It has however generated a great deal of criticism and some resentment among prisoners. Prisoners testified that the mission group “counsellors” grill them on why they are in jail and on the details of their convictions. They express opinions and explanations on the causes of the predicaments prisoners find themselves in.

Such causes, prisoners were told, were broken homes, not going to church or going to the wrong church and others. Churches to which some prisoners belong were allegedly referred to by the counsellors as belonging to satan.

Some prisoners expressed the view that the weeklong counselling is used by male and female prisoners to hook up, start relationships or as meeting opportunities.

The Commission happened upon this mission group when it visited the Vaiaata prison in October 2013. When the Commission arrived at Vaiaata, the mission group had just arrived and had started their programme. The prison officers in charge of Vaiaata informed the Commission that the visit was impromptu.

It had been requested by Fortress of Faith to facilitate the wish of another religious group to evangelize and to give gifts of soap and other items for the prisoners. The programme that was in progress in the main inmate house was a service with praying, singing, testimonies and ended with evangelical dances.

The Commission took no notice of the proceedings until following its discussions with the police officers it proceeded to inspect the facilities. It was concerned at that point to see the dance item that was in progress.

The performers in colourful flowing gowns were young girls who looked to be between the ages of 16-18 dancing undeniably with grace, but also with compelling unintended sensuousness, in front of about 30 male prisoners. Common sense alone should have prescribed against the participation of such young girls in such a way, or at all, as part of a ministering group to incarcerated men in a prison without containing walls. Inadvertence of this kind conceivably can have unfortunate repercussions for neighbouring populations.

The Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) stated in his evidence that he allowed Fortress of Faith to carry out their work in prison because he saw value in the “counselling nature” of their programme.

The Commission can understand the Assistant Commissioner’s point but it is far from convinced that the usefulness of the counselling activities being carried out in Tafaigata has been properly assessed by competent authority or desired by the prisoners. The Commission did not detect any real enthusiasm among prisoners towards the programme. Those who attend are selected by prison management and simply told to go.

1.8 Physical Facilities and Staffing The neglect of the prisons over the years clearly shows in the dilapidated condition of the prison facilities and the inadequacy of its staffing in terms both of quantity and quality.

On many nights the entire male prison is in the hands of a senior constable and two other constables who would all be completing the tail end of a twenty-four hour shift.

The custody area in the men’s prison at Tafaigata is a very disturbing feature of the prison. The Commission took depressing note of this on a visit to Tafaigata in the first week of its hearings. On our arrival, inmates were clustered around, with some clutching at the bars, of the only large opening into the first custody cell to come into view. The clustering and jostling obviously had to do with the barred entry way being the coolest spot in a cell chamber that was holding about thirty men at that time. We mean no disrespect but from a little distance, the inhabitants of Cell No. 1 appeared to the casual onlooker sadly, little different from animals in a zoo.

There are three custody cells in the male prison at Tafaigata and one in the female compound.

For the male prisons, the three custody cells are of the same size; about 20 feet wide and 50 feet deep. Fresh air comes in only through the bars of the entry area into the cell and four small barred openings in the wall; two above the entry and two high up on the back wall. Each cell has a 44 gallon drum holding water for bathing and for the toilet that is incorporated into the back end of the chamber.

More than 20 prisoners are usually held in one of these cell chambers but the number can go up to the thirties. The maximum number of prisoners that should be held in a custody cell is 15.

Custody numbers increase dramatically in the period leading up to Christmas as a lot of people are held in custody for drunkenness and driving offences.

Prisoner E gave evidence to the Commission that the custody cells when he first entered it was the most degrading place ever. He said that ventilation was grossly inadequate as there were not enough windows. The sweating bodies of about 30 men inside coupled with the stench of the en-suite toilet did not help. He said that his experience in the custody cell was one that even he would not wish on his worst enemy.

A very sad aspect according to Prisoner E is the manner in which custodies are fed. He told the Commission that during meal times, the custodies are treated like animals. Their meals are brought in a bucket which is about 20 litres. The bucket is then taken to the corner of the room and the custodies eat out of recycled plastic ice cream containers; the same ice cream containers they eat their soup from and drink their tea in.

A number of prisoners testified that the custody cells are much worse than the cell rooms they are placed in once they are convicted. They said that not only are custody cells always overcrowded, they are unhygienic and rat-infested. They told the Commission that rats run around freely, sometimes even over sleeping men.

The custodies have no schedule of any kind.

A person brought to Tafaigata to be held in custody is locked in one of the three custody cells and not allowed to come out unless he has visitors. The rest of the time, he is packed with others in the cell chamber to await trial.

One individual, at the time of our visit had been held in custody in the miserable conditions we describe above for over a year.

The Commission wanted to know why conditions were so bad and tried to get answers from the prison officers. It became apparent that it was a non-issue to the prisons and a non-issue to general policing. Prison officers said that custody cells were a matter for the general police as the custodies are under the jurisdiction of general policing. All prison officers do, they claim, is to make sure that they are put away in the custody cells at Tafaigata.

An inspector from the general police in his evidence to the Commission stated that the handover of custodies on arrival at Tafaigata is the end of their part. It appears that the two groups within police are concerned about passing the buck to and fro for the handling of custodies and not concerned at all about the conditions in which custodies are held.

These attitudes play to ridiculous ends in situations such as the escape of the Assistant Commissioner’s son while in custody. The Commission was told that, a son of the Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) was brought to Tafaigata as a prisoner by police escort to be held in custody. While at Tafaigata, the lad apparently got away from the escort and ran off from the prison grounds. The question that apparently then arose was; who should look for him?

The question obviously weighed so heavily on all concerned that it took about a year for the escapee to be re-apprehended. When we questioned Tafaigata police on how it was possible for a prisoner to just run away from so many police in broad daylight, they said that the prisoner was still under the responsibility of the general police. This response would seem to confirm the notion that in these matters, concentration of police is not on the problem but on whose problem it should be.

Prior to 2010, all police officers, including the prison officers were recruited in one recruiting process and allocated to various duties within police. Since 2010 Tafaigata has been recruiting officers specifically for work at the prison. In response to television advertisements people apply specifically to be prison officers. There is no denying that there has been a lowering of standards.

The evidence shows that a number of mature prison officers recruited between 2010 and 2012 were unemployed before they became police officers. A number of recruits were former security guards with junior secondary school level education.

All 56 staff at Tafaigata were called to give evidence before the Commission. It was evident that there neither was proper training of new staff at Tafaigata nor continuous training of any kind for those who have been with the prison for some time.

Officers recall having received training when they were first recruited but there were huge inconsistencies in their responses. For example when asked about the duration of training, some officers testified that it took about 3 weeks and some testified that it took about 3 months, when in fact these officers would have been trained together as they were recruited together.

There is no curriculum or specific set of topics to be covered in training. The Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) and his second in command have been providing training based on their own knowledge, experience and what they think would be helpful for new recruits.

Training not based on a fixed curriculum or proper scheduling can obviously lead to inconsistencies. The Commission was made aware of the case of two new prison officer recruits who took videos of prisoners playacting in crude if not obscene fashion.

They disseminated the video filming to others through cell phone sharing. The two officers were subsequently charged. They received warnings from the Commissioner and had their probation period extended.

When asked why the newly recruited officers were not dismissed as they were still on probation, the Commissioner explained that he had checked with Tafaigata and found that the officers’ training had not included the important basic “taboo” not to take photographs of prisoners.

1.8.1 Families living in prison compound

A perhaps unusual if not unique feature of Tafaigata as a large prison is the fact that a number of prison officers and their families live in the compound, opposite and close to the prisoners’ accommodation area. Their children are free to roam around and even mingle with the prisoners at times but they are not allowed in the area where prisoners are quartered and locked up at night.

It was reported to the Commission that a prison officer’s son, who lives in the compound, comes to the men’s prison at night to sell marijuana through the bars. The prisoner who reported this stated that the prison officers were not aware of this, as the boy comes around when the prison officers are not around at night and only to the part of the cell area that cannot be seen from the office.

A senior sergeant confirmed to the Commission that grown up children of prison officers have been disorderly in the compound in the past. Some go out drinking and come back rowdy. He gives these young people no quarter and has them thrown into the pa sima for the night when they play up.

In the totality of things important benefits are derived from staff living on the compound.

It does however increase opportunity and inclination to exploit prisoners or to take the prisoners’ food after family visits on Sunday. A reliable witness testified to the Commission that she saw a whole pig on one such Sunday carried off to a prison officer’s house presumably to be later shared to resident colleagues.

The consumption of alcohol in the prison compound is absolutely forbidden, yet allegations of habitual drinking in the compound kept surfacing in statements made to the Commission. All of these allegations except in one case were vehemently denied by prison officers.

The Commission learned of drinking sessions and drunkenness at Olomanu during a period in September 2010 in full view of the prisoners.

The officers involved were permanent Tafaigata officers assigned temporarily to Olomanu during the absence on overseas leave of the Olomanu officer in charge. This would suggest that among Tafaigata based staff, drinking within prison precincts is not abnormal behaviour.

The 2nd in command when asked admitted to having no more than four bottles daily in his home in the compound. He claimed that the Commissioner had given him special permission to do so. The Commissioner of Police denied ever giving such permission. The Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) when asked about his 2nd in command’s four bottle routine told the Commission that he was not aware of such a thing.

Prison officers who live in the compound do not pay any electricity or water as this is included in the prison’s budget. They have their own plantings behind their houses. Presumably these were meant to be small in scale around the dwellings when these things were originally permitted. The size of one personal maumaga that now fronts on to the main road at Tafaigata and runs alongside the long drive into the prison office is enormous.

The disregard by prison staff of ordinary decencies and restraints with regard to prisoner food from aiga, the non-observance of strict rules against drinking and the creeping abuse of concessions allowed them as in personal crop plantings on prison land, illustrate the shocking state of professional conduct prevailing in Tafaigata and the inability of prison leadership to impose appropriate standards.

1.9 The ‘Nu’u’ in the Tafaigata Prison - A report within a report An integrated community known as the “Nu’u” (village) functions within the confines of each of the three prisons.

The entity and community known as the “Nuu” in Tafaigata is a physical and social reality that co-exists with the formal prison institution itself. It embraces all persons who have legitimate presence within the confines of Tafaigata be they officials or inmates. All of these people recognize and subscribe to the legitimate aims and goals of the Nuu.

They recognize also obligation upon them to uphold and advance these aims. It is taken for granted however that the Nuu and what it stands for would never be in contradiction to or counterproductive of the prison institution itself whose official objectives, authority, powers and hierarchies are ever paramount.

The Nuu functions for itself to derive value in its own way for its adherents. In doing so it serves at the same time both the short and long term interests of the official prison institution.

In interesting respects the Nuu does things in much the same way as traditional Samoan village communities. It accumulates its own collective wealth under the watchful eye of established leadership. For Tafaigata, the Nuu funds are generated by the activities of inmates as explained elsewhere in this report. Custody of these funds is entrusted to the chief gaoler who accounts for them in his own way. These funds are kept separate from official funds and are not submitted for audit by the Government Audit Office.

The Nuu has embarked on projects of its own, the most notable of which has been the construction of a new chapel. Here again the Nuu proceeded as if it was a real nuu or traditional village in spite of it being located on government land and within a state prison. It put up $60,000 of its own accumulated funds and negotiated with builders to construct the building. Government or government tendering processes were not asked to be involved.

Government was however later asked to help with funds when its own funds ran out.

This also is not unlike traditional community behavior.

Very importantly, the functional reality of the “nuu” dissipates any tendency for potentially destructive “us versus them” mentality to emerge and develop in Samoan prisons.

A special study by the Commission of Inquiry of the ‘nu’u’ operating in Tafaigata Prison is attached as a report within this report; Appendix A.

1.10 Future Prisons– Change for the better or for the sake of change?

It is obvious that the Prisons System has been a badly neglected part of the Ministry of Police and Prisons. Dilapidated prison facilities, atrociously poor staffing, lack of specialized staff training and lack of forward looking planning show that the prisons have been treated as a low priority nuisance annex of Samoa Police.

The prisons budget resources and staffing have never been properly viewed and planned as they should have been done from a comprehensive perspective embracing both detention and rehabilitation objectives. It is no wonder that plans have been recently put in place for the separation of a Prisons Service from the Police, the assumption presumably being that only separation will get done what was not done in the past. A simple fact however is that these things were not done because there was no will to do them in the past.

It cannot be denied that with all its faults and in spite of atrociously poor resourcing and neglect the prisons division of Police have been remarkably successful in the only objective set for them to achieve; which has been to incarcerate convicted persons. They certainly must no longer be allowed to continue having this as their only mission, and conceivably it can simply be a matter of empowering them to envisage other roles and objectives and of giving them the proper means to pursue such targets.

There has always been cooperation as a matter of necessity and common sense between village authorities and the police in law enforcement and escaped prisoner apprehension. We alluded earlier to the positive impact of this and the part it plays in the overall non-visible mechanism of control within Samoa’s prison system, a system that has minimal reliance on the containing walls and the multiplicity of cells one finds in prisons everywhere else.

This cooperation has been further fostered and developed of late through Law and Justice Sector activities in rural interaction and community policing. We sense that it is with Police that the rural authorities are willing to work and cooperate. We wonder whether a complete break of Prisons Services away from Police would not take Prison Services out of the loop, such that it would no longer benefit from the strengthening links between official law enforcement and the village communities.

We suspect that the population would not perceive a separated prison service with the same respect nor would it identify as easily with its work as the population currently does with the police. This could result in slowly disappearing community support and cooperation with the detention institutions.

Such an adverse consequence would be highly undesirable. We urge careful consideration be given to proposals to separate Prison Services from Police.

CHAPTER 2: GENERAL POLICING 2.1 Overview

The considerable aid resources devoted in recent years to general policing have visibly transformed the police force. The basic facilities and equipment of yesteryear have been quickly abandoned and replaced.

In important specialist areas also such as in forensics, state of the art equipment has made Samoa the envy of regional police forces.

The Samoa Police Force of today by these obvious features and the visibly large number of commissioned officers in its ranks give an impression of comfortable adequacy consistent with its now habitual practice of contributing to international peace keeping.

How the noticeably expanded and modernized police force fits into the actual maintenance of law and order in Samoa is however not readily apparent. Law and order in Samoa has and still is the result of the combined work of the formal police and the practical effectiveness of Alii and Faipule traditional control in the villages.

As far as we can gather almost total reliance continues to be placed on the village authorities for law and order in the major part of the country, the rural areas. The urban area falls more directly upon the police to control.

Certainly the urban population has greatly expanded in recent years and presumably this is justification for the expansion and modernization we have seen in the police.

The Samoa Police Force now comprise of the Commissioner, 5 Assistant Commissioners, 3 former high ranking officers serving as consultants, 16 Superintendents, 4 Civilian managers 18 Inspectors, 31 Senior Sergeants, ? 54 Sergeants, 47 Corporals, 423 Constables and 35 Civilians.

The issue of central interest is whether there is any substance to the very impressive visible transformation of the Samoa Police Force and whether the institutional strengthening it has undergone is reflected in police performance.

There are questions that ought legitimately to be explored but it was not possible for this Commission of Inquiry to do so. Many pertinent questions ought to be asked; what additional policing is being delivered by the newly created police capability and does the Police Force exist for policing in Samoa or are secondary focuses encroaching upon the raison d-être for Samoa Police?

It was said to us that some police officers have enthusiasm for little beyond the opportunity for overseas missions to come up. What real benefits accrue to Samoa from sending police contingents overseas? Is exposure of Samoan police personnel to trouble spots policing proving to be professionally enhancing or personally enriching? Common perception after all is that in trouble spots, security concerns are of necessity foremost.

Accountability and normal notions of due care in the personal actions of emergency forces personnel tend by exigency to be relegated to irrelevance. Do we want Samoan police officers exposed to such situations and to circumstances in which armaments play prominent roles?

Publicity of passing out ceremonies for intakes of new recruits and of promotions parades feature regularly in local news. There is little public understanding however of additional police service delivery from it all.

There are puzzling anomalies. The Commission notes for instance that an officer serving temporarily as a secretary to a Superintendent was of sergeant rank, while the entire Tafaigata male detention facility can be left to the charge of a senior constable.

The Commission notes also that while as part of the modernization exercise performance assessment mechanisms were put in place in 2010 they have not been implemented.

There has been whole scale resistance to this from within police but we were told by the Commissioner that a clear order has now gone out to implement these measures.

The police in upholding and enforcing the law strive to keep the community safe and secure. This is an immense responsibility which falls directly on the Commissioner of Police. There have been situations in recent months and years when the police have had to act decisively under pressing circumstances.

The Commissioner clearly has not shirked his duty to make the difficult decisions. It is not our task here to analyse or assess the exercise of his best judgment on these occasions. It is noteworthy that the Commissioner for the most part had found it necessary, or perhaps simply chose, to personally execute the necessary measures.

It is in the broad front of mundane situations that the citizen comes face to face with the police and from whence criticism of the police comes. There is certainly basis for public concern about the exercise of police powers.

It is well accepted that the police must be vested with adequate power to deal with exigencies that arise in the line of duty. It is also in the nature of the job that these powers have to be exercisable by even the lowliest sworn policeman. Indications are that within the rank and file of police there is either inadequate appreciation of police duty to be accountable in the exercise of power, or little inclination to so act. The Commission of Inquiry has the clear impression from evidence presented that prevailing police attitude in these matters fall well short of what would be appropriate.

Lack of concern about the adverse consequences of police action or inaction upon members of the public can be seen in the casual attitude of police to the safe keeping of private property taken into police custody. Evidence show that it is not beyond police officers to lay improper charges against individuals to divert legitimate attention from themselves or from favoured acquaintances. The Commission received further insight into this problem from the Office of the Ombudsman.

Police indifference extends even to negative impact of police action and inaction upon the state. The award against Government in excess of $1/4 million in 2011 for police failures and mistreatment of an individual held in custody awaiting deportation is a case in point.

In fairness to Police it should be noted that the detainee in that case was thrust upon them in a manner similar to the mentally troubled man who died in prison on the early morning of Boxing Day 2012. Both men fell outside the normal categories of detainees regularly held by Police and Prisons. Neither man was being held under criminal statute and should not have been subjected to detention conditions regularly encountered by those who are so held.

This is not to say that the said conditions are suitable for these latter or anybody else nor can anything excuse callousness and dishonesty displayed by police for the world to see.

There must be many good and capable officers in the Police Force. The nature of substandard performance revealed in studied cases however, reflect badly on the overall quality of police personnel. We certainly cannot assert with any element of confidence that basic honesty and truthfulness are strong points of Samoa Police. We learned during our inquiry that out of forty candidates from our Police who were tested by outsiders for overseas mission duty, only ten passed. This did not help our state of confidence in the quality of police personnel.

The crucial and most urgent need for police is to lift the calibre and integrity level of personnel above its present low level. This has implications for training as well as recruiting policies and practice.

A concomitant requirement is to address elements in police culture that protect substandard performance and conduct.

This is reflected in PSU early reluctance to diligently investigate complaints other than those brought by the higher levels of police itself. Most noticeably, is neglect of complaints lodged by members of the public with PSU. Clear determined leadership in a campaign against these ills must come from the top and pushed energetically through the PSU. In this connection it is essential for PSU to be strengthened and housed in premises that engender respect. At the moment they share an old half blown away building with the Samoa Victims Support Groups (SVSG).

It is vital for police morale that there is no perception of preferred or differential treatment of individual officers. This cannot be said to be the situation at the present time. The free recruitment in the past of the descendents of senior personnel and the inevitable rising of these people in police ranks naturally generate suspicions which exacerbate the situation. In addition, cases such as the few that were brought to our attention and studied in this report have not helped matters either.

2.2 Submissions and Complaints to COI Submissions to the Commission of Inquiry about general policing fell into two categories:

(a) Concerns expressed from within the ranks of police and terminated officers about perceived nepotism, differential treatment and the impact these and associated problems are having on professionalism, staff morale and the efficient functioning of the police as a cohesive force; and (b) Public concern about abuse, misuse and perceived lack of accountability for the use of police power within the ranks of police.

A complaint given to us against the management of the maritime wing of Police was found not to have substance.

2.3 Allegations of Nepotism and differential Treatment It may not always be expressed as policy but organizations, more often than not, guard against employing too many people of close kin. Some organizations apply very strict restrictions. In the Samoa Public Service for example, section 39 of the Public Service Regulation 2008 makes reference to the employment of near relatives in Ministries. It states that an employee who has a near relative working in the same Ministry must immediately notify the Public Service Commission whose duty it is to consider whether it would be in the interests of the Public Service to take action on such notification.

People of course have a right to follow in the footsteps of their forebears. This is applauded without question in any occupation particularly where individuals have to be successful in stringent entry requirements or lengthy study in order to do so. This cannot be said of entry into the police. A sense of calling, dedication, personal integrity and good character are desirable attributes in police recruits. They are just as important also in recruits into other occupations.

It appears to the casual eye that Samoa Police after many years of unrestrained openness to the employment of close kin now looks like a fraternity of older generation personnel facilitating the employment and advancement of descendents in the force. We were told in evidence that the degree of kin and in-law connection in the police force is today quite extensive. In such circumstances loyalties along kin lines tend naturally to emerge.

It was reported to us that kin based groupings or alliances, real or imagined cause officers to be so guarded and cautious around one another that an unhealthy restraint pervades in the force. This must have a negative effect on the free flow of information and on the level of general basic trust of one another that members of the force ought to be able to take for granted for maximum functional efficiency.

Greater potential arises in these circumstances for allegations of nepotism and favouritism to emerge. Negative perceptions of this kind, criticism and suspicions directed at the Commissioner in particular, are heightened by the fact that in the disciplined force that is the Police, the Commissioner is vested with extensive authority and discretion.

The exercise of discretion is a personal responsibility entrusted to the Commissioner.

The heavy responsibilities falling on the Commissioner of Police because of the nature and demands of his job deserve sober consideration and respect. It would be untenable undermining of the Commissioner to subject willy-nilly the exercise of his legal discretion to microscopic examination. We have not done that.

On the other hand, while recognizing the necessity of discretion so extensive that sworn police men and women serve at the Commissioner’s will, it is incumbent upon the Commissioner to base the exercise of discretionary powers in the treatment of officers on good grounds and not on whim. We do not doubt that this has been the Commissioner’s general approach.

Particular cases and incidents were represented to us as reflecting favoured treatment of individual officers by the Commissioner. Ghost letter correspondence also made specific allegations in this regard. To the extent possible in an exercise such as ours with its time constraints, we examined these matters and the actions of the Commissioner in them for consistency with regular practice and reasonableness. The involvement of any one officer in multiple suspect events naturally calls for the closest examination of such events.

2.3.1 A Simple Matter of a Blow-out Inspector X crashed a Samoa Australia Police Partnership vehicle he was using to go home to Siumu on Thursday 28 February 2012. He was almost to Siumu when the right front tyre burst at about 8.40 – 9.00 p.m. causing the vehicle to swerve off the road to the left. This is how Inspector X explained the event in a report to the Commissioner on the next day 1 March 2013.

The same account was in a second report to the Traffic Section also dated 1 March 2013.

An investigation carried out by a senior sergeant of Traffic Division did not find anything unusual or at variance with Inspector X’s account of events. This report was sent to the Commissioner who asked in return for a recommendation on action to be taken from the Superintendent in charge of Traffic division.

On 12 March 2013 in a brief report that did not accord in important respects with the thrust of the investigation report earlier submitted by his subordinate officer, the Superintendent, Traffic Division recommended to the Commissioner a charge of careless driving against Inspector X.

The Assistant Commissioner did not buy the burst tyre story, concluding instead that Inspector X had fallen asleep and that the punctured tyre and broken steering bars were caused by the vehicle going off the road. He pointed out that Inspector X had told the first person to arrive on the scene immediately after the crash that he had fallen asleep. The Assistant Commissioner stressed that Inspector X had been driving the vehicle for too long that day to be still driving at the time of the accident.

One could infer from this that the Assistant Commissioner believed the accident to have happened later than Inspector X claimed.

The Assistant Commissioner pointed out also that the Inspector should not have driven the Partnership Project vehicle home.

The Commissioner by return minute dated 19 March 2013 directed that Inspector X be charged as recommended but this never happened and the case file does not explain why.

Inspector X told the Commission of Inquiry that things did not proceed because the Australian Federal Police Officer in charge of the Partnership Project had intervened to his benefit.

The Commissioner in sworn evidence to the Commission of Inquiry confirmed that the AFP Project Officer in charge did not press objection to Inspector X taking the vehicle home. It had been explained by a Superintendent Y in his report to the Commissioner that Inspector X had taken the vehicle home because he, the Superintendent had given permission. Superintendent Y apparently had the run of the vehicle on the day in question and Inspector X was driving for the Superintendent’s convenience. The two officers had been using the vehicle after hours to attend to private business of the Superintendent.

The issue of Inspector X taking the project vehicle home as raised by the Assistant Commissioner in his report to the Commissioner was relevant to possible disciplinary charges but irrelevant to the careless driving charge he had recommended. What did turn out to be relevant to that matter was the Commissioner’s acceptance, as indicated to the Commission of Inquiry, of the burst tyre as the cause of the accident thus sufficiently ruling out carelessness on the part of the driver. He told the Commission of Inquiry that the tyre did not show piercing but rather bursting damage.

Nothing of these explanations is recorded on file and as far as the final outcome of the matter is concerned, it would appear that no one had been in the “know” except for the Commissioner and a presumably much relieved Inspector X.

There are curious aspects to this case that close examination of the file reveals.

An oddity that jumps at the reader is the apparent avoidance of the Traffic Division of Police in the initial stages by Inspector X when it ought to have been instinctive for him to contact the division at the first opportunity in a situation where there was nothing to hide.

Inspector X ostensibly reported to the Commissioner and to the Traffic Division on the very next day 1 March in two separate reports according to the file. If these reports were intended separately to inform the Commissioner and the Traffic Division straight away about the accident, then quite clearly they did not succeed.

The record reflects that the Commissioner first learned of the matter from a report to him from the Superintendent who had authorized Inspector X to take the car home when the two of them had finished the Superintendent’s private chores. The Superintendent’s report was prepared four days after the accident on 4 March and was received in the Commissioner’s office on 5 March. The Commissioner directed Traffic Division to investigate the matter by written minute dated 5 March on the Superintendent’s report.

The Traffic Division supposedly commenced investigating the matter on 4 March on which date the investigating officer claims to have been given the report of Inspector X. Meanwhile the damaged police vehicle had been sitting at Asco Motors where Inspector X presumably had arranged for it to be brought by tow truck at about 9.00 a.m. on the morning of the accident 1 March. The driver of the tow truck was not interviewed by Police until just before 5.00 p.m. on 5 March 2013.

Inspector X in his report of the accident placed the time at 8.40 to 9.00 in the evening. The villager who was first on the scene says in his statement to Police that he, his wife and family were asleep when the crash awakened him. As stated earlier, reading between the lines, the Assistant Commissioner who had recommended the careless driving charge did not believe that the crash had happened as early as claimed.

There are statements in the investigation file dated 6 March 2013 by two police officers who state that on 28 February 2013 they were at a red traffic light in town at “6.00 p.m. going on to 7.00 p.m.” when they saw Superintendent Y and Inspector X “in a white land cruiser” alongside them. One officer states that they had been stationery for “about 20 minutes” when the other vehicle drew alongside. This seems an awfully long time to be stuck at a traffic light.

The statements by the two officers containing common phraseology appear gratuitously out of the blue seemingly with the sole purpose of establishing that the two senior officers had been back in town from attending to the Superintendent’s personal affairs early enough to make possible a subsequent crash at Siumu as early as 8.40 -9.00 p.m.

The whole investigation file smacks of pretence and concoction. The only credible document of police origin in it appears to be the Superintendent in charge of Traffic’s report to the Commissioner recommending a charge of careless driving against Inspector X. This recommended charge as stated earlier was quashed at the Commissioner’s discretion when he became satisfied that the crash had been caused by a burst tyre and not carelessness.

The Commissioner’s exercise of discretion to quash the charge against Inspector X was in our view not at all well based. He had before him the clear report of the most senior officer who had handled the case, the Superintendent, Traffic. If the right tyre had burst as claimed by Inspector X and accepted by the Commissioner, it virtually would have been physically impossible for the vehicle to veer left as it in fact did. It would have had to veer right.

The tyre must have been damaged along with the steering bars when the vehicle went off the road to the left. This conclusion accords with the Superintendent, Traffic’s summation of events in his report of 12 March 2013 wherein he recommended that Inspector X be charged with careless driving.