Whistleblower vindicated, Cabinet urged to re-instate her

“It would appear that uneasiness about things at Tafaigata came to a head for her when her husband, also a police officer at Tafaigata with the rank of Senior Sergeant at the time was dismissed. She believed that her husband’s dismissal was unreasonable”

The woman who wrote the so-called “ghost letter” that prompted a Commission of Inquiry into allegations of mismanagement and misadministration at the Prison has been identified and vindicated.

A copy of the Commission’s report obtained by the Sunday Samoan identifies the writer as Ms Adeline Sa'u Godinet.

“The Commission has found that while this investigation was triggered by a ‘ghost letter’, the writer of this letter, Ms Adeline Sa'u Godinet Sa’u is a genuine whistleblower

who was concerned about the sub standard state of the prison services,” the report reads.

“The Commission has found much of substance in her concerns and revelations. Indeed, the Inquiry has fully vindicated her.

“The Commission moreover has grave doubts as discussed in this report that justice and reasonableness were properly served by her dismissal considering the substantive aspects, the manner and the circumstances of her charging.

“The Commission recommends that she be re-instated as a prison officer.”

This was among recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry in its report to Cabinet.

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 Ms Godinet’s 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, as well as confirmed the shocking state of the Tafa’igata Prison.

Below is the continuation of the Commission of Inquiry’s report. The first part was published in the Sunday Samoan.

2.3.2 Attempted Intercourse with Junior Officer at Faleata Police Post

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 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.

She told no one because she was embarrassed and ashamed. She thought that she had best just somehow cope with things on her own. She took private solace in the knowledge that he hadn’t succeeded in his attempt to have his way with her.

After the two attacks, he pestered and verbally harassed her from time to time. On one occasion about three months from the first attack he got violent again and slapped her around when she repulsed a physical advance when they were again alone in the police post. She felt after this that she could no longer cope. Her father had been unwell so she did not want to burden him with her problem. She determined to see the Superintendent in charge of the Police Post about a transfer or resignation on his return from a trip he was on at the time.

The troubled young officer unburdened herself to the Superintendent soon after and showed him her bruises from the most recent attack. She was instructed to write a full report. This she did and submitted it to the Superintendent.

The report was given to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) and criminal charges were actively pursued. After some time the witness and her alleged assailant were summoned before the Commissioner of Police to discuss the matter.

Things are not very clear from here on. We understand that the Commissioner explained why a rape charge could not be sustained. We understand also that there was some suggestion of possible charges against the police woman for submitting false information. Nothing came of this. Matters also apparently came to an end with respect to the young officer’s complaint against her superior officer.

We were not able to look further into the matter because police were not able to produce the file for examination. We did learn however that while the complaint was under investigation two police officers visited the complainant’s father to apologize for what had happened to his daughter. One of these officers testified before the Commission of Inquiry to that effect.

In the absence of the file, legitimate questions remain unanswered.

We gather that rape was the sole charge investigated. This however on the information available appears the most inappropriate offense to even consider and therefore the easiest investigation once commenced to set aside. There are several other lesser criminal offenses to which the information appears relevant. Why were these not considered and pursued? Furthermore leaving aside criminal offenses, why were sexual harassment and inappropriate conduct not pursued with a view to disciplinary charges?

2.3.3 Yet another Police Vehicle Write-off

It was submitted to us in evidence that a police vehicle had been written off in a crash in 2012. A senior officer, across whose desk information on the incident passed at the time, testified that the matter was uncomplicated and should have been easily pursued to charges. He testified that the consumption of liquour by the officer involved was a clear issue and that he had suggested to the Commissioner that the officer not proceed on a planned overseas mission.

The matter went ultimately to the Commissioner where it apparently fizzled out. The Commissioner told the Commission of Inquiry that the officer was merely tired and that liquor consumption was not an issue.

On this matter also like the matter immediately above, police were not able to make the file available. It happens also that the officer involved in that previous matter is also the subject officer in this matter. Curiously, these are the only two files sought by the Commission of Inquiry that police were not able to produce.

The officer implicated in these two matters is presently serving an overseas mission assignment. Presumably he is now safe from any charges because of s67 (1) of the Police Service Act 2009.

2.3.4 Ghost Letter allegations of special treatment
(Immunity sweet immunity)

Ghost Letter correspondence named a certain serving officer as a recipient of favoured treatment from the police. The basis of the accusation is the fact that a 2008 Commission of Inquiry into the Illegal Importation of Guns from American

Samoa had identified that particular officer along with the then Commissioner to be penalized for their involvement in the matter examined by that Commission. The ghost letter reasoned that the officer continues to be immune from penalty because he is a “drinking buddy” of the Commissioner.

The officer certainly does not seem to have been penalized and appears to have come through the earlier matter unscathed to be later promoted. The blame for this apparent lapse put at the door of the current Commissioner by the ghost letter may however not be fully justified. This is because the Commissioner of Police with the power to act on that matter at the time was not the current Commissioner but his predecessor who as indicated above was himself implicated in the matter.

With regard to the present Commission of Inquiry, the officer pointed out by the ghost letter happens to be the Superintendent who features in the “simple matter of a blown tyre” case above. He is also the Superintendent who features in the case of the trussed up deportee discussed below under the heading “Costly Inaction/Derelict Accountability”.

When the Commission of Inquiry called for a list of police officers for purposes of this report, we found the particular Superintendent listed in the Commissioner’s Office and the only one of the unit without a described function.
(A fast rising unusual recruit)

A female officer called by the Commission in connection with allegations against her in the ghost letter which were not employment related, could not be stopped from telling the Commission about her skills and her employment in the police.

Ghost letter correspondence had created suspicion by innuendo on this officer with allegations that she was treated in an unusually indulgent manner by the Commissioner. Apart from allegedly being able to have transport home arranged easily for herself she was reportedly allowed to join the Commissioner and senior colleagues at after hours relaxation sessions at bars. Furthermore, she reportedly was able on those occasions to address the Commissioner in manner and unrestrained speech that normally would never be tolerated from junior ranks.

There was nothing of moment in the officer’s evidence on the matters for which she was called. The Commission became very interested however in the evidence she thrust upon it about her employment and work with the police.
It appears that the woman had wanted to be a police officer but was not accepted in the normal recruitment process because she was over the allowable age. After talking to the Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) she applied and was recruited into the police for Tafaigata, supposedly because her degree in applied psychology would be useful. The officer said that she had worked only 1/2 a day in Tafaigata when she was required on orders from the Commissioner to report to general policing. Shortly afterwards as a constable she was put through the normal 3 month recruit course at headquarters from October to December 2010. She was transferred to the Domestic Violence Unit in 2011.

When a non sworn civilian position in the Policy and Planning Division was advertised in 2011 the officer applied and was successful after the job was advertised a second time. The job in the police system apparently was classified as equivalent to senior sergeant level for appointees qualified to hold that rank.

The constable applicant was appointed a senior planning and policy officer about September 2011. Shortly afterwards she was confirmed as a senior sergeant in a promotion parade. She had thereby shot up three ranks in one step without sitting or passing a single qualifying examination for higher rank as normally required for advancement in the uniformed ranks.

The Commissioner told the Commission of Inquiry that he had used his discretion to promote the officer to senior sergeant rank because of her qualifications. The Commission suggested to the Commissioner that the officer’s

The statements obtained in the course of the investigation from the two other officers present were however in unequivocal vindication of Adelaine’s conduct of the entire matter as the ranking officer on duty.

It was revealed that the initial reports filed by the two officers on the incident had been prepared by Adeline on her computer with the full knowledge of the officers concerned. One officer had read the statement prepared in her name and had signed it. The other did not disagree with the content of the statement prepared in her name but had not signed the document. Adeline had obliged with a signature.

It was this aspect and not the original complaint of substantive fabrication and inappropriate treatment of prisoners that was later submitted to headquarters for investigation. Adelaine admitted guilt. She was reprimanded by the

Commissioner and black marked on her file.

It is our general impression that the prison is careful about upholding the disciplining authority of the police officers vis-a-vis prisoners. The Assistant Commissioner’s ready disregard of this unspoken rule is puzzling and the circumstances of his intervention somewhat strange.

The speed with which the Assistant Commissioner was able from his lofty position in the prison hierarchy to personally release the two female prisoners early the following morning and to initiate the investigation is curious. Furthermore the original complaint was so wide of the mark as to make ludicrous the certainty within which the Assistant Commissioner had framed it. Very likely the whole thing was prisoner inspired and shows that a prisoner had had the ear of the

Assistant Commissioner on this occasion more so than had one of his prison officers.

Ironically, the central issue raised by Adeline Godinet in her conversation with the volunteer leader was the undermining of warden effectiveness by informal alliances and connectedness between police and inmates. A junior female police officer was very clear on this phenomenon in her evidence before the Commission of Inquiry. Prisoners also are on file testifying to the influence prisoners are able to have on wardens through material benefits made available to the latter and the consequences of these on wardens’ performance of duties and treatment of prisoners. A Report filed by Adeline Godinet on 24 September 2011 attached as Annex B also explains further.

Recorded black marks against a police officer in his or her file establish the risk of dismissal on further appearances before the Commissioner. When Adelaine was put foward for investigation following the report to the Assistant

Commissioner of her conversation with the volunteer group leader it was with this background knowledge in mind and consequently also with termination in sight. The closing sentence of the Assistant Commissioner’s complaint to the

Commissioner makes this clear: “ O lea e tuuina atu ai lenei lipoti mo le silafia e Lau Afioga ma talosagaina le suesueina o lenei mataupu e le Professional Standard ma molia ai le tamaitai leoleo ini moliaga talafeagai ma faate’a atu ai.”

The gist of allegations by the Assistant Commissioner against Adeline Godinet on this final occasion was “revealing confidential information to the public”. The PSU concluded that she had indeed violated regulations in this regard and furthermore had brought disrepute upon Police and Prisons. As indicated above the officer accepted guilt and was dismissed from the Police.

Technically and procedurally speaking, things fall neatly into place. Pertinent questions however remain. We quote below the substance of the Assistant Commissioner’s complaint of “revealing confidential information to the public by

Wardress Adeline S Godinet”:

“I le aso ananafi 20/2/2013, sa oo mai ai le tina o ---- --- o loo taitaia le Fortress of Faith ma faailoa mai ia te au le oo atu o le tamaitai leoleo o Adelaine Sa’u Godinet ma talosagaina se fesoasoani mai le latou ministry. Sa faamatala e Adeline ia ___ le faafitauli tele o loo gafa ma leoleo i le le usitai o pagota ma le faikegi o leoleo ma pagota. Sa talosaga la e Adeline pe mafai ona o atu i le falepuipui o teine mo se latou faatalatalanoaga ma teine leoleo. Sa faamatala uma e Adeline faaletonu o loo tupu i le va o teine leoleo ma tamaitai pagota.

Na faailoa iai e ---- pe aisea ua le sau ai e logo a’u ae fai i ai ua fiu e logo a’u e leai se mea o fai iai.

O lenei lava tamaitai leoleo ua avea ma lago mate i le aufaigaluega. E le faia lelei lana galuega ae vaavaai masei ma faasalalau solo. E pei foi ona faailoa atu le tusi sa ia faia ma ave i le Victim Support e faaleaga ai a’u.”

We pose the following questions:

Is the above the kind of information that should be protected by confidential classification?

Should fault be attributed to the officer for any disrepute the revelations may have brought upon Police and Prisons?

Was information revealed by Adeline as confidential, or did it bring as much disrepute as the revelations of the video film that found its way into the inter-net?

Did it bring as much disrepute or cause as much harm as the actions of the officers who were implicated in the deportation fiasco that cost the Government $258,528.00?

There is no doubt in our minds that the officer Adeline Godinet was acting in the spirit of a whistle-blower. The officer had earlier addressed two letters dated 14 February 2010 and 16 December 2011 to the Samoa Victims Support Group on the problems in the prison that were worrying her. The essence of these problems were succinctly described (and obviously well understood) by the Assistant Commissioner (Prisons) himself in his letter to the Commissioner noted above requesting the investigation of Adeline. Interestingly, the prison boss, in that letter, does not challenge the correctness of Adeline’s account of these matters. What he is incensed about seemingly is Adeline daring to be openly truthful about these matters to an outsider in her appeal for help.

In enlightened countries she would have been protected, not severely punished as she was by the Samoa Police and Prisons Service for her revelations.

2.5 Misuse of Police Power/Indifferent Accountability

A Samoan woman who lives abroad flew to Samoa from New Zealand for one day to appear before the Commission of Inquiry. Ms Woodroffe, a lawyer was keen to explain to the Commission how she was intimidated in October 2008 by the Samoa Police into real fear for her and her daughter’s safety while alone in the assumed security of her fenced in private property.

Background to her experience was highly publicised alleged mistreatment by the police of another woman lawyer a few weeks earlier. Ms Woodroffe’s story too received extensive newspaper coverage at the time of the events. She had also submitted sworn affidavits concerning the incident to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s office had apparently formed the view early in their exploratory inquiries that, come hell or high water, the police were set on maintaining a version of events that did not accord in critical areas with the story told by the complainant.

Be that as it may, elements in Ms Woodroffe’s story feature consistently and with similar effect in other incidents that have come to the attention of the Commission of Inquiry. One element is the arrival of the police in numbers so disproportionately large as to be unquestionably intimidating for the person who is target of police attention.

The Commission is familiar with another publicised incident in which the police acted in very similar manner to that claimed by Ms Woodroffe. In that other incident, the case of the ‘Green Ridge Motel’ investigated by the Ombudsman in

December 2012, the police arrived without identification and demanded to be accommodated in their quest simply because they were police and had so stated.

They deployed officers in larger numbers than necessary for the task at hand and even resorted to the disingenuous use of a search warrant to prevail over a citizen and her legitimate rights under law.

The Ombudsman in his publicised report on that case said: “In this, police lost their way and rode roughshod over the legitimate rights and interests of an innocent affected party as between that party and [another]. Police treatment of the

Green Ridge motel and its owner was unreasonable because it was unfair. It was oppressive. It was wrong. Rather than the police acting reasonably within police powers as claimed, police in this instance misused power”.

The following cases give some insight into the exercise of power by the police:

2.5.1 Lotu Tamaiti in the Lock-up

Mrs L and her husband told the Commission of Inquiry that the Police disturbed their household on the eve of the Lotu Tamaiti 13 October 2012 and proceeded to treat L (49) and son M (27) atrociously.

The incident began with the arrival of a double cab pick-up carrying seven (7) policemen.