Court orders the Mageo matai title case back to the family for further discussions

Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — The Land and Titles Division of the High Court of American Samoa has ordered that the matter of a successor to the vacant ‘Mageo’ matai title for Pago Pago village be remanded back to the Mageo family for a meaningful family meeting in accordance with family traditions.

A 9-page decision signed by Chief Justice Michael Kruse, Associate Judges Mamea Sala Jr., Fa’amausili Pomele, Muasau Tofili, and Tunupopo Alalafaga, further notes that the succession claims before the court are premature and are dismissed without prejudice; and the Territorial Registrar is directed to cancel all pending registration offers for the Mageo matai title.

BACKGROUND

On Apr. 11, 2011, claimant Patolo Mageo offered to register the vacant Mageo title. On his verified petition filed with the Territorial Registrar's Office, Patolo states that a family meeting was called and held for the purpose of selecting a successor to the title, and he was chosen accordingly.

On May 3, 2011, Mao Mageo Maaele Uele, the counter-claimant, filed her timely objection to Patolo’s petition.

A second objection was also timely filed by Ierenimo Jerome Laupapa; however, he withdrew his counterclaim on August 12, 2014, following his new appointment as a catechist assigned to the Catholic Church in Pago Pago.

The factual background to the registration offer by Patolo Mageo, as disclosed in the evidence, is that after the conclusion of traditional funeral proceedings for the last titleholder, Mageo Malu, the family members who were at the funeral took up the issue of matai succession for discussion immediately after the matai’s interment.

Those who attended this meeting, which took place around January 11, 2011, apparently arrived at a consensus in favor of Patolo becoming the next Mageo titleholder.

The evidence indicates that Patolo was the only nomination considered at the meeting and he was thus presented the titleholder’s ‘ava cup.

The ensuing objection to his registration offer, filed with the Territorial Registrar, gave rise to a number of further family discussions. The dispute however, remained and a mandated meeting before the Secretary of Samoan Affairs happened, which also led to another series of family discussions.

All proved to be of no avail.

Consequently, the Secretary of Samoan Affairs certified an irreconcilable dispute for judicial determination. The matter eventually was set for trial April 14, 2015, and after two days of testimony the matter was continued for further family attempts to resolve the impasse. But the matter was returned to court, after a lengthy hiatus that saw no family resolution.

According to the court's decision, the dispute appears to have little to do with the respective merits of each party’s candidacy. “Rather, debate reflects a clearly evolving factional rivalry that pits one side, represented by claimant, against others, championed by counter-claimant.”

The court notes, “while claimant’s side of the family has featured prominently in recent titleholders, counter-claimant and her supporters are beginning to see themselves with decreasing relevance in family matters, owing to the dominant role that has been asserted by claimant’s side.”

The counter-claimant, Mao, argues the abrupt scheduling of the post-funeral meeting of Jan. 3, 2011 gave notice only to those family members who participated in the funeral to the exclusion of all else who could not attend. As such, the meeting failed to provide any meaningful family opportunity to discuss matai succession, prior to Patolo's attempt to register the title.

DISCUSSION

According to the decision, the court has repeatedly ruled that in the absence of any meaningful opportunity for family discussion, the Lands and Titles Division lacks subject jurisdiction over matai succession disputes.

"The Lands and Titles Division really has no business entertaining matai title cases,” it says.

According to the decision, evidence reveals that Mao had no notice of the Jan. 3, 2011 meeting, as she was not present for Mageo Malu’s funeral proceedings and burial.

“Among other things, Mao’s opposition to Patolo’s candidacy, as revealed in her testimony, was her concern for Patolo’s unyielding insistence to serve the family as its titular head, while actively remaining in his ongoing vocation as an ordained minister,” the decision says.

This concern was also strongly voiced by family elder Sua Carl Schuster, who testified as a representative of the female clan Tuna/ Nuti.

Finally, the court found from Mao’s final argument her underlying concern that her descent line from Mageo Maaele together with the female clans of the family — was becoming increasingly marginalized to the fringe of family influence.

According to Mao, the other clans of the family were not adequately notified in order to be properly prepared, with appropriate nominations, to meaningfully participate in the selection process. The meeting’s outcome, therefore, appeared mainly driven by Patolo’s side of family.

The court states that they are not convinced on the evidence. "That the last four successive titleholders were selected in this manner does not necessarily make a relatively nascent practice an established and well-known fact rising to the level of family tradition," the court noted. “If anything, the fact that this post-funeral selection process has given rise to the selection of successive titleholders from Patolo’s descent line, equally bespeaks a biased practice favoring Patolo’s side of the family,” the court continued.

“In that notice of Jan. 3, 2011 meeting was restricted only to a select gathering of the family assembled for the purpose of burying a matai as opposed to selecting a successor matai, the decision reached in support of claimant as successor to the Mageo title 'was not and could not have been, the result of truly meaningful discussions among all members of the family'."

The order concluded, “We decline therefore to assert subject matter jurisdiction since there is no disputed claim before us.”