The Speaker of the House will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision, particularly the judgment that concerns the period of suspension and the Standing Orders.
Last night, this was confirmed in a statement released by the Speaker, Li’o Papalii Taeu Masipa’u.
The statement was released following a decision by the Supreme Court on the challenges made by Tuilaepa Dr Sailele Malielegaoi and Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi after they were found guilty of Contempt of Parliament.
The Speaker said the power of suspension was exercised by the Parliament and the penalty of two years’ suspension without pay was imposed on those two Members; and to Standing Orders that govern suspended members.
Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese handed down the court decision, declaring the suspension “breaches article 44(1) of the Constitution and the framework of Samoa’s Constitution of responsible and representative government.”
According to the Speaker, the Court has held the penalty of two years suspension for the two Members of Parliament who were found guilty of Contempt of Parliament was unconstitutional and, for that reason, void.
The Court accepted, against the challenges made by the two Members, that:
They had committed Contempt and could not challenge that. The Court repeated that the two Members’ actions following the 2021 General Election were “reprehensible”.
The Parliament has the power to suspend members who are guilty of Contempt.
The Speaker said that Parliament is entitled to suspend members who have committed Contempt without pay.
But the Court has held that the two year suspension would deprive the Constituents of Lepa and Faleata No 3 of a voice for too long a period, though it has not said what period could or should be imposed or how any such period is to be determined.
It has also partly upheld the Standing Orders restrictions upon suspended members but found others unconstitutional.
Last October, Parliament voted to uphold the Privileges and Ethics Committee’s recommendations to suspend senior HRPP members for 24 months.
That decision was rendered in a secret ballot vote of 29 MPs supporting the recommendation by the Committee while 19 voted against it; this is for contempt of Parliament after they were found guilty of contempt of court.
According to the Chief Justice, the unprecedented duration of the long suspension is a material breach of Article 44(1) and Samoa’s system of representative and responsible government enshrined in the Constitution because it denies the Parliament of representation from these two constituencies and the people of those constituencies with their voice in Parliament.
There is in their respectful view no question that the actions of the First and Second Applicants condemned in the Contempt decision, and by Parliament by these suspensions were reprehensible. That much has been made clear by both the Courts and Parliament.
However, the Court is being asked to determine whether these long unprecedented suspensions are consistent with the Constitution and Samoa’s representative and responsible government system. On that footing, they say that the two-year suspension is inconsistent and therefore void from the outset.
“Does, this mean that a member can never be suspended? Not, each case turns on its merits.
“However, suspensions must not deny Parliament of effective representation from electoral constituencies, and or the voice of the people of those electoral constituencies.
“Such denial is also a denial of the democratic system of representative and responsible government established in the Constitution.
“In other words, intramural decisions concerning the penalty for contempt of Parliament are limited by the requirements of the Constitution.”
Furthermore, Standing Orders 187(iii) – 187(v) prohibit suspended MPs from questioning any Parliamentary matter, making any public announcements “through any medium which aim to denigrate the Legislative Assembly, Speaker or Committees” and extend to prohibiting suspended MPs from writing to the Speaker or any MP regarding any Parliamentary matter.
“The standing orders extend well beyond the walls of Parliament and are all-encompassing, prohibiting the questioning of “any Parliamentary matter” by suspended MPs.
“These standing orders significantly restrict the freedom of speech and expression of suspended MPs on matters of governance and politics, the freedom enjoyed by the rest of the population and which forms an indispensable part of representative government.
“Taken to its logical conclusion, the standing orders would extend, for example, to prohibit suspended MPs from questioning their own suspensions from Parliament in any forum to writing to the Speaker or other MPs on that very question,” according to the ruling.
The Speaker, who was the defendant to the case as Parliament’s representative before the Supreme Court, has after careful consideration decided to appeal the parts of the judgment that concern the period of suspension and the Standing Orders.
Our Judicial system provides another avenue where parts of a judgment can be reconsidered, such as the following:
- The elected Members of the Parliament and its Privilege and Ethics Committee, guided by the 2022 decision of the Supreme Court, undertook a robust and fair assessment of the penalty to be imposed upon the two Members, including hearing what the two Members had to say against that penalty.
- The period of suspension was settled by the Committee and the Parliament in light of the reprehensible actions of the two Members. Other Parliaments have suspended Members for similar and even longer periods.
The challenged Standing Orders, similarly, were the result of careful consideration by the elected Members.
The Speaker understands, and respects, that the Supreme Court was faced, here, with those exceptional circumstances and with questions of law that the Courts of Samoa have not previously considered. The Speaker welcomes the Court’s confirmation that — despite the arguments made by the two Members — the Parliament is entitled to act firmly in the face of Contempt.
The Speaker considers, however, that the other parts of the Court’s decision — and, in particular, the rejection of the decision made by the Committee and the Parliament, without guidance as to how they should have responded to the
Members’ reprehensible actions or could act in any future case — raise important questions under the Constitution.
