By Staff Writer
“A ‘Desirable Constitution’ for Samoa is already in place and to meddle with it in any drastic way could result in throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.”
This is the heart of the submission by the Office of the Ombudsman and National Human Rights (NHRI), to the Parliamentary Select Committee review of the controversial changes proposed in the Constitution.
The submission concluded that it ‘does not support the drastic amendment of the Constitution’ as ‘necessary to remedy the problems experienced in the past’.
The NHRI mounted a strong defence of the individual rights against criticisms that they overrule the collective rights of the village authority.
But it accepts that the Supreme Court favours the individual rights under Article 11(1) on religious freedom, when it “found itself simply compelled to rule in favour of an individual fundamental right without needing to consider arguments a Village Fono may have against it.”
The collective rights complaint is when the ‘resolve of a Village Fono’ against adding a new church is overruled by the individual right to freedom of religion.
The NHRI Samoa , however, suggests that the remedy is for Parliament to consider legislation under Article 11(2) of the Constitution.
The submission believes this section of the Constitution holds the answer to the “problem that has taxed rural Samoa for so long, by legislating ‘reasonable restriction’ on the exercise of religious freedom in villages.”
“The law would need to show objective justification for the restriction it authorises and Village Fono can resume the performance of their traditional responsibilities in these matters” the submission pointed out.
The submission supported ‘in general the proposals made in the Amendment Bills for the operational expansion and deepening of the Lands and Titles judicial mandate.”
What it does not agree with is ‘the removal of any part of the judicial mandate from lawful surveillance currently in place under the Constitution.’
The NHRI strongly objected to claims for changes in the constitution to ‘reflect more of the Samoan context inside Samoa’s supreme law in light of today’s context’ and ‘to give more recognition of our customs in our Constitution.”
“What the Bills appear to do is to merely stick the entirety of the Land and Titles Courts structure in the body of the Constitution and to place that structure and its deliberations outside of regular Constitutional surveillance provided for under the Constitution.”
The submission made it simple for better understanding their definition of a ‘Samoan Constitution’ that is desirable for Samoans.
“In layman’s terms, a desirable Constitution is simply a Supreme Law that requires people to live in freedom and to conduct their affairs as they wish in accordance with law; whereunder we can do all the Samoan things in strictly Samoan ways and whereunder no Authority may impose any gross injustice or atrocity upon any of us.
“ It is the contention of this submission that we have such a Constitution now. To meddle with it in any drastic way could, in our humble view, result in throwing the proverbial baby out with the bath water.”