The Journalists Association of Samoa (JAWS) is demanding answers over the removal of a journalist’s camera and the deletion of photographs taken while she was covering a public event.
According to the Samoa Observer, Prime Minister La’aulialemalietoa (La’auli) Leuatea Schmidt’s son reportedly deleted photographs taken by one of the newspaper’s female reporters at a police event held at the Government Building in Apia on Tuesday morning.
According to the report, the journalist was told by one of the La’auli’s security personnel that “there is a law that prevents the Samoa Observer from taking any pictures of the Prime Minister”.
RNZ Pacific has contacted the Samoa government for comment and is yet to receive a response.
JAWS said it was “deeply disturbed” by the reported treatment of the Samoa Observer journalist by members of PM La’auli’s security detail.
The Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) reported that the group has called for the circumstances surrounding the incident to be properly established.
JAWS said journalists attending public events have a professional right and responsibility to observe, record and report what took place.
This includes when senior public officials or people connected to them are present.
Samoa’s Government on Friday issued a response, saying it respected media freedom and free expression, but that a ban on the Samoa Observer was still in place.
The Government said it was not stopping other private and independent media outlets from accessing government and public events.
However, the Association said any legitimate security concern should have been dealt with through lawful and proportionate procedures.
“Security cannot become a pretext for obstructing legitimate journalism,” it said.
The Association also said that issues or disagreements with media organisations should not be handled through physical interference with equipment or the deletion of material.
“If there are concerns about the conduct or reporting of a journalist, there are established avenues for complaint, correction and legal redress,” it said.
The Association has called for an investigation to establish who removed the camera, under whose authority it was taken, whether photographs were deleted, who authorised the deletion and the legal or procedural basis for the actions.
