The Samoa Government has released a new list of media outlets authorised to carry official government notices and announcements. There are government-owned outlets, private television and radio stations, online publications and even media organisations serving Samoan communities overseas. Yet one familiar name is missing. The Samoa Observer, the country’s only daily newspaper, which has been reporting the affairs of this nation since 1978, has not been included.
Ordinarily, a government decision about where to place its notices might attract little interest beyond the media businesses concerned. Governments have advertising budgets and must decide how best to spend them. But this decision comes at a rather interesting time, when relations between the current Government and the Samoa Observer have deteriorated to the point where the newspaper has been excluded from the Prime Minister’s press conferences, with restrictions extending to Cabinet ministers. And now, with selected private media welcomed back into the business of carrying official notices, the Observer finds itself outside the latest arrangement.
In December 1996, Pacific Islands Monthly published an article by journalist Chris Peteru under the heading Govt punishes private media. The report described how the Government of Prime Minister Tofilau Eti Alesana had directed that departmental notices and advertisements be published only in the government-owned Savali newspaper. The decision affected private media, particularly the Samoa Observer, which was already involved in a difficult relationship with the administration of the day.
Its founder and publisher, Savea Sano Malifa, spoke openly about what such a decision could mean for an independent newspaper operating in a country with a limited advertising market. Government advertising represented valuable revenue, and its withdrawal could threaten the financial survival of a publication. Sano believed that the decision was intended to weaken the independent press. The Government, on the other hand, complained that the Observer’s reporting was often opinionated and unfair.
Nearly thirty years have passed since that dispute. Governments have changed, political parties have exchanged places, newspapers have entered the digital age and Samoans can now receive their news from almost anywhere in the world. Yet here we are, once again examining a government decision about which media organisations may carry its official notices, while the Samoa Observer remains at odds with those holding office.
We ought to be careful with the comparison. The decision of 1996 directed government advertising towards Savali. The latest Cabinet announcement, dated 30 October 2026, expressly includes selected private media organisations. The policies are different, but the latest decision comes amid the Government’s well-documented hostility towards the Observer. The public release offers no explanation for the newspaper’s omission or the criteria used to select the approved outlets.
One would have thought that a newspaper which has been part of Samoa’s public life for nearly half a century would require little introduction to those responsible for government communications. The Observer has survived political arguments, legal battles, financial difficulties and the considerable expense of keeping a daily newspaper in circulation in a small island country. It has reported on governments of different political persuasions, and many who have occupied public office over the years have probably wished it would occasionally find something else to write about.
That, of course, is one of the inconveniences of an independent newspaper.
The current disagreement began well before this latest Cabinet announcement. In November 2025, Prime Minister Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Fosi Schmidt suspended the Samoa Observer from his press conferences, citing concerns over inaccurate and unfair reporting. He also directed Cabinet ministers not to respond to its inquiries. In his public explanation, the Prime Minister maintained that journalism must be responsible, factual and respectful, and that those criticised in news reports should have an opportunity to respond.
Those expectations are reasonable in themselves. Newspapers make mistakes, sometimes serious ones, and the Samoa Observer is no more exempt from criticism than any other publication. Accuracy, fairness and the opportunity to respond are essential obligations of journalism. Sano Malifa himself acknowledged this in his 2010 essay, Samoa: The Observer and threats to media freedom, published in the Pacific Journalism Review. His concern was not that journalists should be free from accountability, but that politicians possessed considerable means of protecting themselves from criticism while journalists had fewer protections against political anger.
When a newspaper publishes something inaccurate, the proper response is to challenge the evidence, request a correction, seek a right of reply or pursue an established complaints process. A government certainly has the resources to make its position known. What deserves scrutiny is the use of executive authority to exclude journalists from access to information about public affairs because their reporting has displeased those in office.
The situation has become more troubling with subsequent allegations concerning the treatment of Observer journalists. The International Federation of Journalists and the Journalists Association of Samoa raised concerns following reports that security personnel interfered with a journalist’s camera and deleted photographs taken at a public event in September 2026. The precise circumstances and responsibility for those actions require proper investigation. The Government has maintained that it respects media freedom while confirming that its restrictions on the Observer remain in place.
The allegations should not be treated as established findings before they have been properly examined. Equally, they should not be dismissed simply because those involved were carrying out security duties. Public officials require protection, but security arrangements ought to operate within lawful and reasonable boundaries. A journalist attending a public event in the ordinary course of reporting should be able to expect that any disagreement over access or conduct will be handled through proper procedures.
The dispute has now attracted international attention. Australia’s ABC Media Watch examined the treatment of the Samoa Observer in a programme broadcast on 26 October 2026, drawing attention to the restrictions on the newspaper and the experiences reported by its journalists. What began as a disagreement over particular news reports has developed into a broader discussion about the relationship between Samoa’s Government and its independent press.
Which brings us back to Cabinet’s media list.
Samoa Newshub has not sought government advertising, nor have we been waiting for Cabinet to discover our existence. We are quite content to leave the publication of official notices to those whose business it is to carry them. Nevertheless, the selection of media outlets for government expenditure is a legitimate matter of public interest. The Government should be able to explain how those outlets were chosen, whether audience reach and cost were considered, and what opportunity exists for other publications to be assessed on the same terms.
There is no obligation upon the Government to purchase advertising from every newspaper. There is, however, an obligation to administer public resources fairly and accountably. Government funds belong to the public, and decisions about their expenditure should be capable of explanation without regard to whether a particular newspaper has been friendly or critical towards the administration.
The Samoa Observer has served this country through many years in which the political climate was not always favourable to an independent press. Sano Malifa and those who worked alongside him helped establish a newspaper at a time when openly questioning the powerful could carry considerable personal and financial consequences. Its history does not place the paper beyond criticism. But neither should that history be forgotten merely because its present relationship with the Government has become uncomfortable.
We should also remember that no government, regardless of the size of its parliamentary majority or the confidence of its leaders, is entitled to consider itself beyond public examination. Elections provide governments with authority to govern. They do not confer ownership of the public conversation. The people who elect a government remain entitled to question its decisions, and journalists have a responsibility to pursue those questions even when the answers are not readily forthcoming.
Nor does the independent press exist to provide opposition for the sake of opposition. Its responsibility is to investigate, report and examine matters of public importance. Sometimes its findings will support a government’s position. At other times, they will expose shortcomings, challenge official explanations or cause considerable embarrassment. Such consequences are part of public accountability and ought not, by themselves, to be regarded as misconduct.
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this continuing disagreement is how much attention has been devoted to the relationship between the Government and the newspaper, rather than to the matters the newspaper is trying to report. Samoa has enough public business requiring careful examination without journalists and ministers spending their time disputing who may attend a press conference or take photographs at a public event.
The Government has every opportunity to answer the Observer’s reporting with facts of its own. It may challenge inaccuracies, reject unfair conclusions and demand adherence to professional standards. The newspaper, in turn, must be prepared to defend its work and correct mistakes where they are established. Neither responsibility requires the exclusion of journalists from the ordinary business of informing the public.
As for the latest media list, Cabinet may yet provide an explanation that answers the questions surrounding its selection. We would welcome such an explanation. It would be useful, particularly after the events of the past year, to understand the principles upon which these decisions have been made.
In the meantime, the Samoa Observer continues the work begun by Sano Malifa and his colleagues nearly forty-eight years ago. That work has never depended upon the approval of every government it has reported on. Indeed, a glance through its history suggests that such approval has sometimes been rather difficult to obtain.
Thirty years ago, government advertising and an independent newspaper became the subject of a public argument. Today, another administration finds itself answering similar questions. We have the benefit of that history, and it would be unfortunate if we learned nothing from it.
The Government and the Observer need not agree with one another. They may continue to disagree for many years to come. But whatever differences exist between them, the public should not be deprived of independent reporting, nor should government decisions affecting the press be left unexplained.
There are, after all, more important things for a government to do than quarrel with a newspaper.
