The Speaker of the former Parliament has responded to a contempt of court citation sought against him, saying he had democratic obligations obliging him to cancel a key Parliamentary sitting. 

The Fa’atuatua file Atua Samoa ua Tasi (party) last Friday sought a contempt of court citation against caretaker Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Dr. Sailele Malielegaoi and caretaker Speaker Leaupepe Toleafoa Fa’afisi. (The Attorney-General and the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly were also cited). 

Court registrars have confirmed the basis for the citation being sought is an allegation that Leaupepe obstructed justice by issuing an order on Sunday May 23 cancelling the convening of Parliament. 

That came hours after the Supreme Court had ordered Parliament to convene after striking down an order from the Head of State suspending the Legislative Assembly from convening for unstated reasons he said would be made public “in due course”. 

But the following day the Parliamentary complex was entirely locked down. The F.A.S.T. party held its own ad-hoc swearing-in ceremony under a canopy on the lawns of Parliament. 

In a statement provided to the Samoa Observer last Saturday, the Office of the Speaker vehemently denied the claims that he had acted in contradiction to a Supreme Court ruling. 

“I did not [overturn] the ruling by the Court,” Leaupepe’s statement said.

“My Notice published on Sunday was to adhere to the Head of State’s Proclamation to ‘suspend’ the convening of Parliament, to await the outcome of the Court of Appeal Case to be heard [Monday].”

On Monday the Court of Appeal sat in judgement of a case concerning whether Aliimalemanu Alofa Tuuau, an H.R.P.P.-aligned candidate in April’s election, should be deemed elected to Parliament on the grounds that it would fulfil a constitutional quota promoting women’s representation. 

Earlier in May the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the case and ordered Parliament to convene on Monday 24 May. 

Arguments on the case are being heard this week by the Appeal Court; a judgement is expected by the week’s end. 

If the court approves her installation - the warrant for her election was signed in late April - the XVII Parliament’s balance of power will be radically shifted. The F.A.S.T. party’s current one-seat majority would be erased as the size of Parliament is enlarged and neither major party could lay claim to commanding a governing majority on the floor of Parliament, holding 26 seats each. 

Regarding allegations he had breached his authority and claims that Leaupepe instructed other officials such as the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to prevent access to the building by elected M.P.s, Leaupepe said he was simply holding ground while the nation underwent a period of uncertainty. 

“I was informed by the Clerk that the F.A.S.T. Party still [insisted on] the Swearing in ceremony to go ahead on Monday despite the Head of State’s proclamation and my instructions to put everything on hold till further notice,” Leaupepe said in his statement. 

“[I] witnessed that afternoon was the intention for the Clerk of the House to perform the role of the Head of State. 

“In the absence of the Head of State or member of the Council of Deputies, and if the [Chief Justice] is unwilling to conduct the Swearing-In, a resolution [was] being proposed which allows the Clerk of the House to undertake the functions of the Head of State.

“This is unlawful and unconstitutional.

“It’s more or less asking the Registrar of Courts to undertake the Oath of the Chief Justice or the Cabinet Secretary to undertake the Oath of the Prime Minister.

“[The] Clerk being advised to undertake the Oath of Mr Speaker is unlawful and disrespectful. Above all, it breaches the Integrity of Parliament. I have to remind you that the Mace or the Symbol of Authority still lies with the Head of State who is the Crown of Parliament.

“It hasn’t been conferred upon the nominated Speaker unless the Head of State undertakes his Oath and confers his authority upon him.  That is the Westminster process and usual practice which governs all Commonwealth Parliaments in performing their State Opening Ceremonies.”

Leaupepe said he still retains his powers as Speaker following the dissolution of Parliament until a new Speaker is sworn in, citing the 1960 Legislative Assembly Powers and Privileges Ordinance Act. 

“The actions of the Speaker, in the exercise of his power, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court as prescribed under section 31 of the Legislative Powers and Privilege Ordinance. Those powers include the authority to grant, or refuse, entry to the Chambers or Precinct of the Legislative Assembly: (sections 14 and 15 of the Ordinance).

“I have obligations to Inter-Parliamentary Unions such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, CPA Small Branches States and CPA Regional Members, and other International Institutions such as the ACP-EU (African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and European Union Parliamentary Assembly and the I.P.U. (Inter-Parliamentary Union) World World Presiding Officers.”

Leaupepe concluded by wishing for everyone to pray for the judiciary “and for their Judgement not to be fair-minded and impartial.”

Fiame Naomi Mataafa announced that F.A.S.T. had sought the contempt of court citations at a press conference on Saturday afternoon. 

“The people who are supposed to protect and uphold the law are breaking the law,” Fiame said. 

“I think that there have been many words said and things done that have shown a lot of disregard for the law, court orders. It cannot continue especially by those who have been appointed and are trusted servants of the people who have taken an oath to uphold the law.”

Attempts to seek comment from Tuilaepa have been unsuccessful; a request for comment from the Attorney General, Savalenoa Mareva Betham Annandale, did not meet with an immediate response. 

A court registrar who spoke to the Samoa Observer on the condition of anonymity said that the application by F.A.S.T. related to the Human Rights Protection Party’s (H.R.P.P.) failure to respect court orders to convene Parliament and for abusive language towards judges.

Tuilaepa called the courts, among other things “dishonest”, and alleged judges were in a conspiracy against the H.R.P.P. 

“Their actions [on Monday] clearly question their independence, because they came to Parliament knowing it has been suspended,” he said.

It is not known whether the Supreme Court has decided to proceed with the citations and if Tuilaepe, Leaupepe and the others named have been served following the citations.