BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint about a segment of Gagaifo O Faiva that reported a Supreme Court of Samoa decision which convicted 11 men in relation to a 2023 kidnapping incident in Lefagaoali’i village, Samoa. The complaint alleged the broadcast discriminated against, denigrated, and was unfair to the 11 men sentenced. The Authority acknowledged the broadcast contributed to the distress felt by the complainant and the men’s families. However, having regard to factors including audience and cultural expectations of the presenter, the high public profile of the kidnapping, and public interest in the broadcast subject matter, the Authority found criticism of the 11 convicted was not unfair and any harm caused was not at a level to justify the Authority’s intervention. The discrimination and denigration standard did not apply, since the relevant comments were aimed at individuals as opposed to a protected section of the community.

Not Upheld: Discrimination and Denigration, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 27 March 2025 broadcast of Gagaifo O Faiva included an item about a ruling of the Supreme Court of Samoa, where 11 men from the Lefagaoali’i village were convicted (11 convicted) of kidnapping a village chief (victim) and given a range of prison sentences. Although the original broadcast was spoken in Gagana Samoa, the broadcaster provided an English translation of the broadcast, to which the complainant has expressed no objection. Relevant extracts are set out below.

[2]  The presenter introduced the segment:

The situation with the court case of the 11. When [the victim] was abducted by force. He was tied up and hung on a carrying stick then carried and paraded throughout the village.

…

No one from the 11 was liberated from the court case today when the judge gave his/her ruling.

[3]  The presenter commented on the 11 convicted and village council:

That’s what happens when walking in the dark following instructions, excuse me I respectfully acknowledge the district. For those… only people with no brains, no wisdom.

…

Now the 11 are charged to fulfil their punishment, but what about the elders who are laughing, who made the instructions and the decision. Those who have conspired to commit murder, should be penalised heavier, harshly than those who committed the crime physically.

I wonder there must have been a lot of people that filled the place [the court trial] and I believe the evil fighting spirit of Satan was there.

…

Now they are going to drink cans of oil at Tanumalala (Prison). Foolish, weak minds, not teachable, no regard to apply wisdom in order to think things through. People who have plotted together, weak minds.

[4]  The presenter then expressed his sympathies to the victim of the incident, before commenting on the 11 convicted again:

Now you go and spend rightly, you have wasted your time and days on the face of the Earth while being punished, and [may you] feel remorse and may God shine His light to the darkness of your minds. So that’s it. Go do your time, you are separated from your wives, children and families and you have to do your village penalties and [you were] stripped of your positions for the gospel in the churches.

Who will be punishing and doing whatever they want to your children, your properties and wives? That’s what happens when ganging up, that’s what happens when walking in darkness following blind guides who make bad decisions.

[5]  The presenter concluded the segment with the following remarks:

I take back any words, if the judge’s decision has been made… There should be a discussion with [the victim] since this happened in Samoa. From that discussion it will reflect that [the victim] has a big heart.

…

The Court decision and ruling is enough regarding the crime and the law that was broken to action the punishment, let’s move forward.

We can’t keep living in darkness and say we are children of God and yet our hearts and evil and not release forgiveness, we need to offer forgiveness to others, otherwise we won’t be forgiving ourselves even myself and my own rebellious attitudes, and those who are swearing towards me on the program.

The complaint

[6]  Maselina Masoe complained the broadcast breached the discrimination and denigration, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand because:

• The comments made by the presenter were ‘disrespectful’.
• The remarks reflect a ‘significant lack of sensitivity … they have caused considerable distress within our village and have fuelled division and misunderstanding.’
• ‘The comments made during the broadcast were dismissive and disparaging toward the men involved, offering a one-sided narrative that overlooks the complexities of the case and contributes to public misunderstanding.’

[7]  The complainant raised specific statements the presenter made in relation to the 11 convicted which lacked ‘sensitivity and professionalism’:

• ‘That’s what happens when walking in the dark following instructions…’
• ‘… only people with no brains, no wisdom. You should have all been locked up. Those of you who gave the instructions rather than just the ones that actioned the crime.’
• ‘Weak minds … Foolish, weak minds, not teachable, no regard to apply wisdom in order to think things through’.
• ‘… the darkness of your minds’.

The broadcaster’s response

[8]  Samoa Multimedia Group Ltd (Radio Samoa) did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

• The presenter ‘was offering personal opinion and personal view, which is free speech’.
• The presenter’s ‘program was a not a dialogue or discussion or an interview, it was his personal reaction to the finding of the courts. His commentary is usually voicing reactions from the public and listeners of Radio Samoa’.
• ‘Serious commentary, factual programmes, and legitimate drama, humour and satire, are valuable forms of speech and are unlikely to breach the standard unless they had the potential to cause harm at a level that justified restricting freedom of expression.’

The standards

[9]  The purpose of the discrimination and denigration standard (standard 4) is to protect sections of the community from verbal and other attacks, and to foster a community commitment to equality.¹ The standard states:²

Broadcast content should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

[10]  The purpose of the fairness standard (standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.³ The standard states:⁴

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.  

Our analysis

[11]  We have reviewed the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[12]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh up the right to freedom of expression and the value and public interest in the broadcast, against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene where the level of harm means that placing a limit on the right to freedom of expression is reasonable and justified.⁴

[13]  We have been assisted in our determination by the engagement of an independent cultural advisor, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i,⁶ to provide a Fa’a Sāmoa perspective on the issues raised. We co-opted her under section 26(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and are grateful for the assistance she has provided.  

[14]  We acknowledge the broadcast has contributed to the distress and upset felt by the complainant. However, applying the standards to the broadcast content, and considering the cultural advice we received, overall we have not found potential harm warranting the Authority’s intervention or restriction of the broadcaster’s right to freedom of expression.

[15]  We explain our reasons below.

Discrimination and denigration

[16]  The discrimination and denigration standard protects against discrimination or denigration of any ‘section of the community’ on account of sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, occupational status or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.⁷ The standard does not apply to the negative treatment of individuals or organisations on grounds other than those listed here — such complaints are typically dealt with under the fairness standard.⁸

[17]  The broadcast did not refer to the 11 convicted as representative of any recognised sections of the community, but as a group of individuals who performed a kidnapping and were convicted. Therefore, we consider the complaint, which is concerned with the treatment of the 11 convicted, is better addressed under the fairness standard.

[18]  Accordingly, the discrimination and denigration standard does not apply.

Fairness

[19]  The fairness standard addresses the treatment and reputation of people or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

[20]  Individuals and organisations have the right to expect they will be dealt with justly and fairly and protected from unwarranted damage.⁹ In assessing fairness, this right is weighed against broadcasters’ right to freedom of expression and their role in disseminating information in the public interest.¹⁰

[21]  The factors identified in guideline 8.1 of the standard inform consideration of what is ‘fair’. Relevant factors are considered below in the context of advice from our cultural advisor.

The nature of the content

[22]  Radio Samoa provides Samoans in New Zealand — and across the world — with culturally relevant reports on topics such as current affairs, education, health and religion.¹¹ Gagaifo o Faiva is a daily, 4–6pm programme on Radio Samoa that discusses current affairs and public interest topics in Samoa.

[23]  Our advisor noted the presenter is known for his forthright views and is widely regarded for his expertise in law and his command of Samoan oratory.

[24]  Some of the statements, including references to ‘Satanic’ behaviour, ‘walking in the dark’, people ‘doing whatever they want’ to the families of the 11 convicted, and to the 11 convicted as having ‘no brains’ or ‘foolish, weak minds’, would undoubtedly be offensive to the families of the 11 convicted. In Samoan culture, an insult directed at an individual is received collectively by their family and village, so the criticisms of character would be felt personally by their wider community.

[25]  Our advisor acknowledged the tone and language of the broadcast would be deeply hurtful to the families of the convicted men but said a general Samoan-speaking audience would be less likely to take offence at this type of language. Such rhetoric is commonly used in Samoan settings to admonish or reprimand behaviour — it is the type of language one might expect to hear within family or village circles, particularly from elders when scolding younger members.

[26]  To a non-Samoan audience, the language may appear harsh or even malicious. Yet in the Samoan context, religious framing is not unusual. While this was not a religious broadcast, with, as noted by our advisor, approximately 98% of Samoans identifying as Christian, references to spiritual or moral concepts are often used to criticise behaviour and are widely understood across the community. These expressions are not confined to religious settings but form part of a broader cultural lexicon of admonition.

[27]  In the circumstances, we consider the broadcast commentary, while hurtful to those to which it was directed, is unlikely to be perceived by the broadcaster’s Samoan target audience as an unduly harsh admonishment of the 11 convicted. The broadcast fits within audience expectations of the presenter in providing relevant information in the Samoan language about the events, in light of his personal beliefs of religion and Samoan culture.

Source of content and consultation

[28]  Although the broadcast was locally produced and broadcast in New Zealand, the source of the content was an overseas Samoan news report of a Supreme Court of Samoa decision that same day.

[29]  Given the timing and source of the broadcast as well as the circumstances of the 11 convicted, it would have been difficult to source comments from or on behalf of the 11 convicted. The broadcaster confirmed it was not possible to contact the 11 convicted or their families prior to the broadcast. However, we understand Radio Samoa has subsequently invited the complainant and representatives of the Lefagaoali’i village to share their perspectives on his programme.

The nature of the individuals

[30]  The subjects of the broadcast are 11 men from the Lefagaoali’i village in Savai’i, Samoa who were all convicted by the Supreme Court of Samoa of kidnapping, following a 2023 incident. According to the Court judgment, the 11 men, directed by the village council, restricted the victim’s escape, assaulted the victim and tied the victim’s hands and feet to opposite ends of a pole to be carried through the village. The victim was hospitalised for three days.

[31]  The 2023 incident was recorded and posted on various online platforms, which garnered mass virality beyond Samoa.¹² Our advisor noted the video of the Lefagaoali’i incident sent shock waves throughout Samoa and its diaspora and was already a high-profile case at the time of the presenter’s public criticism of the 11 convicted, with the facts of the case already on public record.

[32]  In light of the high public interest in the case, it is reasonable to assume the 11 convicted would have attracted a substantial degree of public attention and criticism from the incident in 2023 through to the trial in 2025. As we have previously recognised, it is common for offenders to be discussed in the news as part of an open system of justice.¹³

Whether the programme would have left the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the individuals

[33]  The complainant’s main concern was that the broadcast was disrespectful and unfair to the 11 convicted. For a majority of the broadcast, the presenter discussed his opinions of the 2023 incident and reprimanded the 11 convicted and the Lefagaoali’i village council.

[34]  To conclude the segment the presenter said, ‘I take back any words, if the [judge’s] decision has been made’ and ‘we need to offer forgiveness to others’ prompting reconciliation. However, the programme host also referred to the Samoan proverb ‘E pala le ma’a, ae le pala le tala,’ which means ‘Stones decay, however, words do not.’ Our cultural advisor noted this proverb means that once words are spoken out loud, their impact is permanent.

[35]  Our advisor highlighted some additional context around the offending that was not included in the broadcast, but which was considered by the judge in sentencing the 11 convicted. It was noted in the decision that the victim had not followed the village cultural protocols of a Saofa’i (bestowal of matai/chief titles) before the incident, and that the 11 convicted’s families had performed an Ifoga (Samoan ceremony of apology) after the incident. The Supreme Court of Samoa considered these factors, which led to a reduction in sentencing.

[36]  Inclusion of this context may have altered the impression Radio Samoa’s audience were left with regarding the 11 convicted. However, given the men were convicted of the high-profile kidnapping discussed, the broadcast — even without this extra detail — was unlikely to leave the audience with an unfairly negative impression of the men.

The public significance of the broadcast and its value in terms of free speech

[37]  The broadcast was of significant public interest, reporting on the outcome of a high-profile crime which, as our advisor noted, had ‘sent shock waves throughout Samoa and its diaspora abroad’.

Our decision

[38]  In light of the factors considered above, and the external cultural advice provided, the Authority finds the broadcast’s criticism of the 11 convicted was not unfair and any harm caused was not at a level justifying the Authority’s intervention.

[39]  Accordingly, we do not uphold this complaint under the fairness standard.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint. 

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Susie Staley
Chair
4 November 2025

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Masoe’s original complaint – 4 April 2025

2  Radio Samoa’s decision – 27 May 2025

3  Masoe’s referral to the Authority – 13 June 2025

4  Masoe’s confirmation of standards – 24 June 2025

5  Radio Samoa’s response to the referral (including translation of broadcast) – 26 June 2025

6  Masoe’s further comments – 3 July 2025

7  Radio Samoa’s confirmation of no further comments – 4 July 2025

8  Radio Samoa’s further comments – 11 August 2025

9  Radio Samoa Presenter’s letter to the complainant – 12 August 2025

10  Advice from independent cultural adviser – 15 September 2025

¹ Commentary, Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 12
² Standard 4, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
³ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁴ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
⁶ Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoa’i has worked as a legal professional, is a former board member of the Broadcasting Standards Authority I Te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho and is the co-founder of Poporazzi Productions, a platform which produces Pacific stories. In 2024, she was bestowed the chiefly title of ‘Pulotu’ by her father’s village, Malaemalu, Falealili in Samoa.
⁷ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁸ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁹ As above
¹⁰ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
¹¹ Radio Samoa “About Us” <radiosamoa.co.nz>
¹² For more information, see: “The act is barbaric and inhumane” Samoa Observer (online ed, 20 September 2023); Agnes Tupou “Samoa’s customary law questioned after 72-year-old man is bashed and hogtied” ABC Pacific (online ed, 26 September 2023); and Lagi Keresoma “Lefagaoali’i Village Defendants Dispute Police Summary of Facts” Talamua Online News (online ed, 13 December 2024)
¹³ Winchcombe and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2022-126 at [29]