By Staff Writer
The HRPP Opposition leader Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi and general secretary, Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi, have soundly rejected complaints of breach of Parliament privilege made against them.
The pair handed over a letter of defense to the Parliament Privileges and Ethics Committee to vehemently deny complaints by deputy Prime Minister Tuala Ponifasio based on contempt of court convictions for the HRPP members.
The deputy leader’s complaint is being spurned as “contrary to the Harmony Agreement signed by the leaders of the political parties HRPP and FAST dated 3rd February 2022.”
“ The nature of the allegations in the Complaint are NOT matters of privilege and therefore cannot be brought under Standing Orders 178 and nor are they contempt of Parliament under Standing Orders 185 and 186,” noted in the letter of defense against the complaints.
The detailed letter of defense handed by the accused to the Parliament Privileges and Ethics Committee is set out below:
DETAILED RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT BY HON. DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER
INTRODUCTION
1. We, Hon. Tuilaepa Dr Sailele Malielegaoi and Hon. Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi, deny all allegations levelled against us by Hon. Deputy Prime Minister Tuala Tevaga Iosefo Ponifasio (“Deputy PM”) dated 28th April 2022 filed with the Hon. Speaker of the Legislative Assembly(“Complaint”).
2. Our denial is based upon the following grounds:
(1) The Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter which is the subject of the Complaint;
(2) The Complaint is contrary to the Harmony Agreement signed by the leaders of the political parties HRPP and FAST dated 3rd February 2022;
(3) The nature of the allegations in the Complaint are NOT matters of privilege and therefore cannot be brought under Standing Orders 178 and nor are they contempt of Parliament under Standing Orders 185 and 186.
(1) SUPREME COURT DECISION
3. The allegations raised by the Deputy PM were carefully canvassed and assessed by the Supreme Court which resulted in its ruling of 23rd March 2022: FAST & Anon v Malielegaoi & Ors (Unreported Judgment, 23rd March 2022).
4. The Court dealt entirely with all the allegations, including taking to account the personal circumstances of those who were found guilty of contempt and broader considerations regarding peace, harmony and stability under the Harmony Agreement.
5. After careful assessment, the Court decided not to impose any penalty.
6. Even though no penalty was imposed, Tuilaepa and Lealailepule have been subject to public sanction.
7. Allowing the Complaint to be referred to the Privileges and Ethics Committee has the potential to reagitate matters dealt with by the Court in a final and considered judgment which included considerations of the broad issues of Samoa and our people.
(2) HARMONY AGREEMENT
8. After much political turmoil and resulting Court cases against each political party, the leaders of the political parties decided to settle all differences and move on for the benefit of our country and people by signing the Harmony Agreement on 3rd February 2022.
9. The Harmony Agreement recognized the need for peace, harmony and stability in all facets of life in Samoa particularly given Samoa’s limited resources and the national crisis bought about by COVID-19. The political parties therefore decided to bring to finality all difference arising from the General Elections by settling all differences, including court cases.
10. The Complaint before you Honourable Speaker is contrary to the terms and spirit of the Harmony Agreement. It also has the potential to unravel the Harmony Agreement by re-opening wounds and affording the members of the parties to re-file and re-litigate issues that have already been settled or withdrawn. This is of vital public consideration that must be taken into account to warrant dismissal of the Complaint.
(3) NO BREACH OF PRIVILEGE/CONTEMPT
11. Our last ground of denial is that the nature of the complaint does not fall under Standing Orders 178 since they are not matters of privilege. The allegations in the Complaint also do not amount to contempt of Parliament.
Breach of Privilege
12. Paragraph 2 of the Complaint specifies that the Complaint is brought under Standing Orders 178 as they are “matters of privilege”.
13. Erskine May when commenting on Parliamentary Procedure had described Parliamentary privilege as:
“…the totality of certain rights enjoyed by the Parliament and by members of Parliaments without which they could not discharge their functions. Rights and immunities such as freedom of speech or freedom from arrest are exercised primarily by individual members of each Parliament. They exist in order to allow members of each Parliament to contribute effectively to the discharge of their functions.”
14. All the allegations in the Complaint are not matters of privilege as they are not any breach of the freedom of speech or arrest that are enjoyed by Members of Parliament and nor do they affect the discharge of the functions of the individual Members of Parliament.
15. Since the allegations are not matters of privilege, the Complaint ought to be dismissed.
Contempt of Parliament
16. In addition, the allegations in the Complaint also do not amount to contempt of Parliament.
17. Under Standing Orders 185, Parliament may treat as contempt of Parliament any act or omission which:
“(a) obstructs or hinders Parliament in performance of its function;
(b) interferes with, resists or obstructs any member or officer of Parliament in the discharge of the members or officers duty; or
(c) has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result.”
18. Specific examples of contempt of Parliament are listed in Standing Orders 186.
19. It is submitted that the allegations in the Complaint do not fall under the meaning nor examples of contempt of Parliament noted in Standing Orders 185 and 186. Accordingly, such allegations ought to be dismissed.
Other Considerations
20. We also submit that the Complaint has been filed out of time to justify its dismissal. The statements complained of were made after the General Elections last year. But the Complaint was filed this year in April. This is contrary to Standing Orders 178 which states that the complaint must be filed “in writing at the earliest opportunity before the next sitting of the Assembly…”
21. In any event, the allegations levelled at Tuilaepa or Lealailepule should be dismissed as they were made when they had not been sworn in as Members of Parliament.
CONCLUSION
22. It is our submission that the Complaint has no basis in law and has the potential to threaten national peace and stability intended by the Harmony Agreement and decision of the Supreme Court.
23. Given the aforesaid reasons, it is our submission that the Complaint filed by the Deputy Prime Minister should be dismissed in its entirety.