It has been a big week in Samoan politics. The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled the Legislative Assembly’s two-year suspension of two veteran Opposition Members of Parliament was unconstitutional and ruled it null and void. 

Consequently, the Lepa M.P. and former prime minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi and the M.P. for Faleata No. 3, Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi are now free to return to the House when it reconvenes next month.

But what are the main takeaways from these historical proceedings other than its landmark judgement that nullified the two-year suspension of the two Members of Parliament and the Human Rights Protection Party (HRPP) members? 

Well, for starters, this proceeding ensured that the First Applicant (Tuilaepa) and Second Applicant (Leala) had to revisit the decision of the 22nd March 2022, the Supreme Court in the Fa’atuatua i le Atua ua tasi (FAST) Incorp v Malielegaoi [2022] WSSC 7 (“the Contempt Decision”) which found the applicants guilty of contempt of court.

Presided over by the Chief Justice, His Honour, Satiu Sativa Perese and Justice Leiataualesa Daryl Clarke, the court said on Tuesday that the background of the case is rooted in the above-mentioned proceeding, though it emphasised that it didn’t want to repeat in full the contemptuous statements made by the two leaders at the height of Samoa’s 2021 Constitutional Crisis that followed the general election.  

However, brief excerpts of the contemptuous statements, which the court said on Tuesday were relevant to this proceedings, were included in the judgement: 

“We set out some of the most egregiously denigrating and insulting extracts from these statements: (a) Public statement made on 28 July by First Respondent: “But the power of FAST and the Judiciary have been combined. So we only come in and go under….come in and go under as the decisions favour that side.”

(b) Statement of First Respondent in panel discussion on ‘Good Morning Samoa on 30 July 2021: “Is this what Fiame and La’auli want? The Chief Justice comes and becomes King of Samoa? These are very shameful.”

The above statements are just two out of the 10 contemptuous statements that the court included in its judgement. But it gives you a picture of how low the two HRPP leaders went in their attack on the court during the crisis. In fact, it was an attack on the Judiciary and the Rule of Law in Samoa and represents a dark chapter of the country’s political and judicial history that should not be repeated. It wouldn't hurt for us, as an evolving democratic nation, to revisit those dark days to remind ourselves of how vulnerable our democracy is and why we should continue to be vigilant.

Another takeaway from Tuesday’s historical Supreme Court judgement was the court’s analysis of the “freedom of speech and expression” and how it is a “key feature of democratic societies, the importance of which cannot be overstated”.

To point out the significance of those rights for a democratic society like Samoa’s, the court made reference to an Australian High Court matter in Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [1997] and its place in Australia’s Constitution.

“Freedom of communication on matters of government and politics is an indispensable incident of that system of representative government which the Constitution creates by directing that the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be ‘directly chosen by the people’ of the Commonwealth and the States, respectively.”

The court also cited British case law in R (Prolife Alliance) v British Broadcasting Corporation [2004] 1 AC 185, [6], Lord Nichols with whom Lord Millett and Lord Scott concurred (at least on the law), stated: “Freedom of political speech is a freedom of the very highest importance in any country which lays claim to being a democracy. Restrictions on this freedom needs to be examined rigorously by all concerned, not least the Courts.”

We commend the Supreme Court for taking a stand on these rights i.e. freedom of speech and expression. The court is correct in saying that they [Supreme Court] “have an important role to play to ensure that these rights are not undermined”.

The court also found that the imposition of Standing Orders 187(iii) - 187(v) on Tuilaepa and Leala “significantly restrict the freedom of speech and expression of suspended MPs on matters of governance and politics, a freedom enjoyed by the rest of the population and which forms an indispensable part of representative government.”

How are the two elected leaders expected to exercise their mandate as the elected representatives for Lepa and Faleata No. 3 when their two-year suspension also invoked Standing Orders 187(iii) - 187(v) which meant they couldn’t many any representations on behalf of their people and their constituencies?

The penalties that were meted out under the suspension were draconian, to say the least, and could have dangerously set a precedent for future parliaments to go down the same path to the detriment of elected representatives’ rights to exercise their mandate on behalf of their people and their constituencies.

On the whole, the Supreme Court’s judgement on Tuesday has lessons for everyone, not just the leaders and our current Members of Parliament or the HRPP leadership, but for citizens as well to appreciate these freedoms that the framers of Samoa’s Constitution back in the day gave a lot of thought to when drafting the law. These freedoms form the foundation of this democracy, let’s exercise them and protect them.