The Faʻatuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST) party’s grab for power with the hopes of making their leader La’auli Leuatea Schmidt the prime minister comes as no surprise. That is the motive behind their motion for a vote of no confidence.

It is not because they think Fiame Naomi Mataafa continuing as prime minister is unconstitutional and unlawful. If that was the case, then the same FAST party members would not have asked Fiame to intervene when Laauli was being charged by the police. FAST would have also supported the initial motion of no-confidence by the Human Rights Protection Party.

FAST had made its intention known long before parliament started. Laauli was quick and abrupt in pointing out that they were going to fulfil election promises by bringing about constitutional amendments. The first one was passed last week. Laauli and his supporters thought they would file the motion now and the debate on the bills before the House will continue and end with the vote of no-confidence.

This move by FAST is hypocritical of what they keep on saying during the media briefings. This is not to help the people of the nation. If the needs of the people were on the minds of politicians, Laauli would have stepped down voluntarily when he was charged. Laauli being charged by the police on 3 January was not the beginning of the political drama we are witnessing. It was his failure to accept that he was charged and his stubbornness to hold onto power.

After he was terminated as a minister, he still chose to ignore the law and do what was best for the nation. It was his decision backed by his chosen members that led to the expulsion of Fiame and five other cabinet ministers. FAST thought they could have the promised electoral laws passed, force Fiame to resign and then appoint Laauli as prime minister.

Has FAST forgotten what is entailed in the law about the removal of the prime minister? They are either ill-advised or have no understanding of the Constitution. Even if a vote of no-confidence is successful, Fiame still has the last say to advise the Head of State to dissolve parliament.

This also looks like a move by Laauli to avoid facing the court. He is to face the court in two separate trials and a conviction in any of the cases could mean the end of his political career. He does not want that. Perhaps, he is of the assumption, that he could somehow avoid court if he became the leader of the government. Again, the executive, legislative and judiciary are independent of each other. The FAST members have shown that they are ready to use their influence to force any change and interference with the judiciary is something they could be capable of.

On Monday morning, the Speaker Papalii Lio Masipau was forced to adjourn parliament. HRPP said they would walk out of parliament and Fiame called for the vote of no motion before any debate could continue while the Laauli-led FAST wanted to debate. The Speaker had no choice but to adjourn the matter.

The Speaker’s impartiality also comes into question. This also shows that the Speaker was part of the FAST plan. He had initially said he would not entertain any motions of no-confidence, then he entertained one, and then he made a ruling on the what two-thirds majority was saying that Attorney General Sua Hellene Wallwork had advised him that it was 35, this was later dispelled when the AG herself clarified to the Samoa Observer it was 36.

As the Speaker, he needs to be impartial and ensure he is not deviating from the law and the lawful process. His role as the Speaker is questioned when he does not do that.

The HRPP may want to remove Fiame but their intention is the dissolution of parliament. It would be a far-fetched assumption that HRPP would support the move to make Laauli prime minister.

If the motion of no-confidence is pushed, a simple majority would be required to remove Fiame. However, it is quite possible that FAST may not get that. That will be seen. The one obvious thing is that Fiame dissolves parliament and then the nation will get ready for a snap election within 90 days after the parliament is dissolved.

This is not a good scenario for the nation. We go into a snap election, with an unready voters list and unchanged election laws. The impact of this includes delays in much-needed development for the people. This will push the cost of living up, and create economic uncertainty, hospitals and the health system will continue to suffer, and infrastructure development and projects could be halted. At the end of the day, it will not help the people.

We are seeing the true colours of our elected leaders. Who is serving the people and who is serving themselves?