Letter to the Editor : An interesting week

What a week it has been. In the same week that we celebrated our 59th independence as a nation state, the saga that is our current political stalemate continues.

It was a week when we saw the Archbishop’s tirade that laid aside any semblance of honor he may have had as a respected man of the cloth and engaged himself in a shameful verbal attack on the Prime Minister and in doing so completely flying in the face of the teachings of the gospel to which is now clear he only pretends to uphold. And for what? To soothe a fleshly urge to vent his frustration especially after morning tea with his good friend the former Head of State earlier that day. Shameful.

It was a week when the Court, instead of helping to bring our political impasse closer to a conclusion, created more confusion and uncertainty. The decision included the disclaimer “We note that there are political ramifications to the outcome of our decision. But, those considerations are irrelevant to our task…” Hmmm. Ok. So, after admitting that indeed there should be 6 not 5 women in parliament to meet Article 44 of the constitution which was all they were asked to do, they go ahead and throw another spanner in the works by arbitrarily deciding that the 6th woman should wait until all of the 28 petitions and any resulting bi-elections are done. Wait what? So, what if we end up having 14 bi-elections and then after those we have another 14 petitions? …that result in another 14 bi-elections?? Do they not see the stupidity of this? The Appellate Court’s job was to settle the question of the 10% once and for all. Instead, they added another dimension which can only be seen in one light – a veiled but inconspicuous attempt to install a FAST government.

Article 44(1)(b) of the constitution unambiguously states “If, following a general election…” that is when any additional female member should be added to meet the 10% requirement. Please Mr Chief Justice – I am no lawyer but “general election” means just that! There is NO mention at all anywhere in the constitution that there should be any timing issue for enforcement of that article. You would also think that after deciding on the number of women that they would refer to precedent – which is crucial in legal decisions. The precedent for timing was the 2016 election – when Faaulusau Rosa Stowers was installed as an addition female member of parliament and sat in parliament’s swearing-in ceremony in-spite of the fact that there were still petitions pending in court at the time. She went on to be an MP for a full 5-year term unchallenged. So why didn’t the Court look at this precedent if they were so concerned about the timing? What is timing to them anyway? Is that not still the purview of the Electoral Commissioner? Who poor guy, by the way, has now been exonerated and proven to have been right all along! The reason Samoa is clear – make your own conclusion.

It was a week when the former AG continued to demean herself by spewing the nonsense that FAST now has a clear path to government as a result of the Appellate Court’s decision and continued to claim that the farcical swearing in that she and her husband orchestrated was legitimate…as if the more they repeat it over and over the more it would be true lol. A notion that is met with wide and deep acceptance at the Samoa Observer (SO) – a tabloid that has thrown reverence, respect and above all impartiality completely out the window because of their wanton almost unnatural desire to remove Tuilaepa and his government at all costs.  In one of their editorials this week the faceless editorial board had the tenacity to refer to PM Tuilaepa as thinking and acting as if he was “above the constitution” in their words. Well let’s see who is the party that think they are above the constitution…

Article 49(2) clearly states “The Speaker upon being elected and before assuming the functions of his/her office, shall take an oath and subscribe before the Head of State an Oath of Allegiance…”. Nowhere is there any exception to that article! Article 32(a) states “The Head of State shall appoint as Prime Minister to preside over Cabinet…”! Article 32(b) further states “The Head of State shall…appoint…Members of Parliament to be Ministers”! The key requirement for all these high offices to come into lawful effect is what?? To be sworn in by the Head of State! That was not what FAST did in their sham of a ceremony on the evening of 24th May. So, who is acting “above the constitution” here Samoa Observer? Turning a blind eye to something doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. All this far-fetched nonsense like this ‘principal of necessity’ is just a bold attempt at pushing through an agenda that has no basis or foundation in the constitution. Brenda and George Latu are not and will never be Head of State faamolemole! These people must think we’re all dumb and stupid.

So where to from now? Well, it all comes down to Article 44 again. Simply because Article 44 prescribes what a “parliament” should be before it can convene as a parliament that meets ALL, not just some, of the requirements of the constitution. Whether 45 days had or had not passed is irrelevant because Article 44 MUST be met in full before any parliament can convene.

Article 44 (1) and (1)(a) state that “women members of the Legislative Assembly shall consist of a minimum of 10%” of 51 members. And thanks to the Court of Appeal that can now be reworded lawfully to say, “women members of the Legislative Assembly shall consist of a minimum of 6”!

Therefore, no matter which way FAST, or the former AG or the Samoa Observer look at it – 6 women MUST be included as a prerequisite for the convening of parliament – not after! Before!

Today, because the same Court has denied Alofa to be the 6th woman as she rightfully should be following the April 9th election, we still only have 5. Therefore, any attempt by anyone to convene parliament while there are only 5 women would be unconstitutional but also unlawful acting directly in contempt of the Court of Appeal’s decision! What a dog’s breakfast isn’t it lol

2 solutions are possible but only one is viable and feasible;

1.       Follow the Court of Appeal’s logic and wait until all 28 petitions are settled and then wait for the results of any bi-elections and son on and so forth…. The glaring problem with this option is TIME. If we play this game, it is likely that this impasse will drag on for several months probably even close to Christmas and beyond. This would be a DISASTER! Because we would not have a parliament and therefore there will be no budget resulting in the government having to shutdown and all the related bad news and adverse consequences for our people and the standing of this country in the world’s eyes.

2.       A mutually agreed compromise between the 2 parties to withdraw all petitions, counter-petitions and other cases and go back to the people! Have a snap general election – the terms and conditions of which to be mutually agreed.

Uma le case. Alofa mai ia Samoa – let’s go with Option 2 now! Both parties now have nothing to lose and everything to gain! If FAST is so confident of their mandate from the people – why fear an election? Come on grow some brass!

One more lingering matter before I finish. The court decision this week vindicates the Electoral Commissioner, the Attorney General and the Head of State who were victimized and attacked repeatedly and shamefully for following precedent and appointing Alofa – the 6th woman to the point where Fiame expressed outright hostility and threatening notions toward poor Faimalo and Savalenoa who were just doing their job. Do the right thing Miss Prime Minister of Maota Samoa – apologise! or resign!.

Ua lava lena ua umi lol.

Manuia le vaiaso Samoa.

Winston Churchill

 <winstonchurchui@gmail.com>