By Staff Writer
The Contempt of Court ruling handed down this week against the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) leader and 8 others, lavished ‘great significance’ on the Prime Minister and the FAST party for their views expressed in what the court referred to as ‘The Harmony Agreement.”
HRPP leader and former Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, party Secretary MP Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi and Solicitor Maiava Visekota Peteru, were let off without penalty after being ruled guilty of Contempt, while all the others were found innocent.
Presiding New Zealand judges, Justice Fisher and Justice Asher, placed a lot of importance in their ruling on ‘The Harmony Agreement’ for’ overshadowing all other penalty considerations.
The document of agreement came out of discussions between the leaders of both political parties who agreed to withdraw contempt of court proceedings. (see other story)
The final court judgement on the signed agreement reads :
“The agreement was in fact no more than a proposal which was never adopted by the Court. However we have attached great significance to the views expressed in it by the current Prime Minister and the FAST party.
They feel strongly that it is time for Samoa to put these election arguments behind them. That would allow Samoa to unite in addressing greater challenges that lie ahead such as Covid and climate change. To that end they were prepared to discontinue the contempt proceedings altogether.
If we had accepted the discontinuance it would have left the respondents without penalty.
Given that the respondents were the ones at risk in the proceedings, they were hardly about to disagree.
But the Prime Minister and her party had nothing personal or political to gain by discontinuing. We accept that as the Government elected by the people of Samoa, they know what is best for the country.
Although it is important to publicly record and condemn these contempts of court, we see no need to go further.
The precedent now stands. It should now be plain how the Court would deal with repetitions. On this occasion penalties would simply inflame disruptions and conflicts that have done enough harm already. The current Prime Minister and FAST party are anxious to put them to bed. It is not our place to disagree.
Result :
We find the first, fifth and sixth respondents guilty of contempt of court. In the very special circumstances we impose no penalty.
We find the other respondents not guilty of contempt of court.
There will be no order as to costs”