A senior lawyer aligned to the Human Rights Protection Party, Maiava Visekota Peteru, has argued that a court judgement handed down on Monday ordering Parliament to convene was potentially a "threat".

Speaking on a live broadcast from the Human Rights Protection Party (H.R.P.P.) Headquarters a day after the decision was delivered, Maiava said that the central objective of the Attorney General in filing the case was to secure a "declaratory judgment from the court."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ordered Parliament to convene within seven days, while also declaring a purported swearing-in by the Fa’atuatua ile Atua Samoa ua Tasi (F.A.S.T.) party unlawful.

The court ordered an end to the nation's political gridlock and said that Parliament was obliged to meet.

The court said a 24 May ad-hoc swearing-in ceremony was not constitutional because of the “absence of the Head of State and others was in the circumstances that prevailed unconstitutional, unlawful land contrary to the customary practice for such matters and should therefore be deemed void and of no effect”. 

But the court also warned that it would make orders “necessary in the circumstances” if its ruling that the Legislative Assembly must meet by Monday was ignored.

Failure to convene Parliament, the court said, will require them to revisit the issue of legal necessity, on which F.A.S.T.'s swearing-in was based and if that principle needed to be invoked again in the F.A.S.T. party's favour “so that the business of lawful governance of the nation can proceed”.  

The court warned anyone who sought to stand in the way of its orders with potential charges of contempt of court. 

Maiava referred to the "main point" of the court's decision which declared the swearing-in ceremony conducted by F.A.S.T. as unconstitutional as the "head" while calling the "additional conditions" issued by the court, including the order for Parliament to convene "the tail."

"Everyone has been reading up the constitution [of Samoa] and make themselves familiar with legal concepts," Maiava said. 

"And at this point in time, the feedback we're getting is that people are messaging and ask [us] how can we declare something unconstitutional and unlawful, and then turn around and say, if Parliament cannot convene within seven days, it could become legal. 

"I think that's what is causing the confusion amongst the people of the country. 

"The point of this application [was] for a declaratory judgment from the court. 

"That was the whole point of it was to find out whether the swearing-in was constitutional or not. Now they have declared that it was indeed unconstitutional and unlawful."

Maiava said a declaratory judgment "is basically a statement of the law" and that the "other conditions" tacked onto the verdict were unnecessary. 

"So there are a lot of questions and [that is] something that our party [H.R.P.P.] should look at carefully. We had only one question and they have answered that, just as we expected," she said. 

"But they have also added other conditions which appear to be a threat to threaten [us].

"It's almost as if they are saying that if we do not do this within seven days, there will be contempt of court on all actors.

"Basically the court has added in conditions in making the declaration, saying that if parliament does not meet within seven days, then there will be consequences. 

"The consequence of that is everyone will be charged with contempt of court, or contempt of Parliament. 

"[And] That is something we should look at carefully."

Maiava also questioned who would be held in contempt if Parliament did not convene as per the court's order by this coming Monday.  

"We are all aware that the Head of State needs to make a proclamation for Parliament to convene, and if does not call a sitting within this time frame, the question then becomes, who will be held in contempt by the court? 

"It is up to the Head of State.

"But that is the biggest question? We don't know what will happen if after seven days, and Parliament still has not met."

Maiava echoed an argument advanced by the caretaker Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Dr. Sailele Malielegaoi, saying she believes that Parliament simply could not convene because it was currently incomplete. 

She made reference to Article 44 of the constitution saying that there is a need for members from all the 51 constituencies in Samoa to be present in order for Parliament to convene. 

Maiava scoffed at the claims from the F.A.S.T. party that they have a Parliamentary majority following the resignation of H.R.P.P. elected members this week. 

She said Parliament could not convene without 51 members from the 51 constituencies in Samoa. 

The final day to convene Parliament in accordance with the court's orders is tomorrow. If Parliament does not sit then the grounds are laid for a potential standoff between the Prime Minister and the court.