We are indeed living in interesting times – if the recent developments within Samoa’s oldest political party is any indication.

On Thursday two senior members of the Human Rights Protection Party (H.R.R.P.) and the M.P.s for Faleata No. 4 and Siumu tendered their resignations and announced that they were severing ties from the party.

At the heart of the discontentment expressed by Ale Vena Ale and Tu’u’u Anasii Leota was the leadership style of the former prime minister and current H.R.P.P. leader, Tuilaepa Dr. Sa'ilele Malielegaoi and their loss of confidence in the veteran politician.

The two Members – who were staunch H.R.P.P. supporters prior to their resignation from the party last Thursday – didn’t leave any stone unturned in their assessment of Tuilaepa’s leadership of the party.

Tu’u’u, while considered quiet in demeanour, always had the party’s interest at heart, but his questioning of Tuilepa in his explosive resignation letter unveiled last Thursday showed just how much had changed since the party’s defeat in last year’s polls.

"This is a clear reflection of your arrogance and refusal to acknowledge that the party needs a breath of fresh air through new leadership,” he said. 

“This is a toxic environment in the H.R.P.P. that needs to be overhauled otherwise it will not move forward. 

“It also signals you do not trust the leadership, expertise and knowledge of other members of the party, as well as a failure to put in place a leadership succession plan for the good of the party in the past couple of years. 

“I can no longer support H.R.P.P. under this type of leadership and environment.” 

The rebuking of Tuilaepa’s leadership publicly by a staunch H.R.P.P. member is unprecedented, not only in the party’s history but in Samoan politics. They would be unthinkable in the period prior to the 2021 General Election.

But nothing has changed for the M.P. at the centre of the scrutiny – as far Tuilaepa is concerned, it is business as usual, as attested in the front page article (who will trigger the by-election process) of the Weekend Observer.

Tuilaepa, in a press conference on Friday a day after his two senior party members resigned, revealed that he has written to the Speaker of the House to query when their by-elections will be held as he was of the view their seats are now vacant due to their resignations.

Yet again, the veteran politician showed that he didn’t care about the views of his H.R.P.P. members who questioned his leadership. His course of action – through his correspondence  to the Speaker – confirmed that there is no room for in-house party consultation and reconciliation to address what political scientists call “leadership spills”. And Ale and Tu’u’u were right about the current state of affairs within the party itself: democracy is as good as dead.

The other twist to this whole saga is the current status of the Faleata No. 4 and Siumu Members, and whether their resignations from the Opposition-aligned party triggered vacancies in their constituency seats under Samoa’s electoral laws.

Tuilaepa is adamant their exit from his party last Thursday meant their seats are now vacant. But the Speaker Papalii Lio Masipau is of the view that the two politicians resigned from the party and not from the House, therefore they remain legislators in the VII Legislative Assembly.

Papalii briefly added that only the Supreme Court can determine the membership of a representative of a Legislative Assembly, though he indicated that an official statement will be released next week to clarify his position.

Having only recently celebrated the country’s 60th Independence celebration, it would not hurt going back to the Courts for its interpretation of these political events, and whether they are in compliance with the relevant laws of Samoa including the Constitution.

While Tuilaepa could be right that the resignations of Ale and Tu’u’u triggered provisions within Samoa’s electoral laws for the seats to now become vacant, M.P.s as elected representatives of their people should not be held to ransom by a parliamentary leader, who has been suspended from the House and found guilty of contempt of Court and continues to run the show with an iron grip.

Perhaps, with the Speaker also studying these developments at the former ruling party before releasing a statement next week, he should also look at the position of Tuilaepa and whether he can continue to hold himself out as the Opposition Leader in light of his contempt of Court conviction and suspension from the House for two years?

Does the Speaker have the powers to recognise the deputy leader of the H.R.P.P. Fonote Luafesili Pierre Lauofo as the legitimate Opposition Leader due to his “unblemished record” as a current parliamentarian and deputy leader of the party? 

These are important questions that the Speaker might want to raise in Court in order to get guidance from the Judiciary. 

And we must add too that there is nothing wrong with going to Court. No democracy is perfect. It is always a work in progress.  

While our systems and processes will continue to evolve over time, we must not hesitate calling out the actions and decisions of leaders today, which go against the democratic ideals that our forefathers stood for and promoted, over the last six decades of our journey as an independent nation.