“New Year’s Day: Now is the accepted time to make regular annual good resolutions. Next week you can begin paving hell with them as usual.” ― Mark Twain.

It's a new year, but it's the old us. It's a new year but as the insightful Mark Twain concluded, on the second week of the new year, we start ignoring the good intentions we voiced in the first week.

After the turmoil of the locked parliament by the caretaker HRPP government in 2021, followed by the contempt of court convictions of the HRPP leader and secretary and their suspension from the House. there were clear expectations and certain resolutions that the country's leaders would do all they could to avoid another such disgraceful episode.

Yet, here we are, at the beginning of a new year we have a cabinet minister being criminally charged and another MP just recently convicted of a contempt of court offence.

We will not comment further on the charges against the Minister of Agriculture as those are yet to be tried in court. But we think the conviction of the Sagaga No.2 MP for deliberate interference with the administration of justice necessitates a rethink of the offence and its penalties.

When Tuilaepa and Lealailepule were convicted of contempt of court the Supreme Court said this:

1. This case is about the rule of law in Samoa. The rule of law means that all are subject to the law; that no one is above the law; and that interpretation and application of the law are left to the Courts. Contempt of court is an important aspect of the rule of law. A person is guilty of contempt of court if they act in a way that is calculated to undermine public confidence in the Courts. To undermine confidence in the Courts is to undermine the rule of law.

2. The Samoan general election of 9 April 2021 was followed by political turmoil. The courts gave a series of decisions clarifying the legal position. The legal position was that the current Prime Minister and the FAST party had won the election.

3. The former Prime Minister and HRRP could not accept that. They publicly denigrated the judges and declined to follow their decisions. By rejecting the judges, they invited legal anarchy. Many others accepted the invitation. It was a troubling time for Samoa. The root of the problem was rejection of judicial decisions. The rejection of judicial decisions was the basis for these contempt proceedings against the eight respondents thought to be responsible.

4. We have found that some of the respondents were guilty of the gravest possible examples of contempt of court. The contempts were committed repeatedly over a sustained period. They damaged the fabric of Samoa. This judgment is intended to help in overcoming the damage. We also think it important to set a precedent. The precedent is intended to clarify aspects of the law of contempt that may not have been obvious to those involved.

5. Appropriate statements to this Court have now been made by all the respondents. Those respondents who committed contempts have largely retracted their damaging remarks, admitted their wrongdoing, and apologised. We were urged to discontinue these proceedings to allow Samoa to move on. Although we did not think it right to accept the discontinuance, we have listened to the wishes of the parties and imposed no penalties.

6. In this decision we refer to contempt by abusive and false allegations against judges and courts as “scandalising the Court”. We recognise that this is a phrase from a past era which is falling into disuse elsewhere; it remains in use in Samoa, and is a useful label for this aspect of contempt in this country.

Our TAKE this week is to stress the above statement: Contempt of court is an important aspect of the rule of law. A person is guilty of contempt of court if they act in a way that is calculated to undermine public confidence in the Courts. To undermine confidence in the Courts is to undermine the rule of law.

The two HRPP leaders escaped punishment by the Court only because of an agreement by all the MPs to let bygones be bygones and asked that the charges of contempt be withdrawn. The Court, rightly, we think, noted the agreement but refused to withdraw the charges againt the HRPP leaders and others.

The Court also added that "the contempts were committed repeatedly over a sustained period. They damaged the fabric of Samoa. This judgment is intended to help in overcoming the damage."

 The Sagaga No.2 MP's conviction is obvious proof that the "damage" to "the fabric of Samoa" has not been overcome; it has been made worse.

In the past, an MP was dismissed when his wife complained that he was having an affair with another woman.

Did that undermine the public's confidence in the courts? It must have undermined the wife's confidence in her husband and raised her confidence in the Court's power over an MP's sex life, but it did not undermine the public's confidence in the Courts and, therefore, could not undermine the Rule of Law.   

Manuia tele le amataga o le vaiaso fou o le Tausaga Fou.