Doctrine of Necessity Applied to Swear in Samoa’s First Woman Prime Minister

Samoa’s first woman Prime Minister, Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa is sworn in under a tent using the Doctrine of Necessity.

By Lagi Keresoma

APIA, SAMOA – 25 MAY 2021: Samoa’s first woman Prime Minister, Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa was sworn in yesterday evening in a ceremony conducted under a tent directly in front of Parliament House under lock and guarded by police.

Symbolically, the swearing in ceremony was conducted on Samoa’s sacred Tiafau malae, where parliament is located, and the burial ground of the country’s paramount chiefs and meeting ground where Samoa’s Constitution was discussed and formalized and where the first independent Pacific island nation was born in 1962.

The ceremony was attended only by the elected members of the Faatuatua ile Atua Samoa ua Tasi – FAST party, several guests, families and over 500 supporters who made a vocal contribution to the hymns.

Speaking to the media using car headlights after the ceremony, Fiame said the swearing in ceremony was legal based on several provisions of the law they looked at.

“There are legal ways to conduct such a ceremony when all other ways are blocked and that is called the principle of necessity,” she said.

Such methods have been used by countries taken over by the military, she said.

Yesterday was the last day of the 45 days prescribed under law to call Parliament after the general election.

The Head of State declared on Friday 20 May for Parliament to convene yesterday. However, late Saturday night 21 May, he cancelled that proclamation and the meeting of parliament until an unspecified time.

The court however declared last Sunday that the May 20 declaration was still valid and that the second proclamation was unlawful. So yesterday’s meeting of parliament was to proceed.

However, when the members turned up, there was a huge police presence and Parliament was locked. Despite the court order, the Legislative office was not preparing anything for the ceremony. The Speaker also put out a notice on Sunday night that the ceremony was not going ahead. The Head of State did not come.

When all were blocked yesterday, FAST and legal team then set about finding legal ways to satisfy the requirements set down by the law given yesterday was the last day of the 45 days given to call Parliament after the general election.

The Speaker, Papalii Oloipola Lio Taeu Masipau, taking his Oath of Office.

Complying with the requirement of the law
The proposed service in the morning was cancelled and by 500pm yesterday, FAST MP’s were set to be sworn in by the former Attorney General and Public Notary, Taulapapa Brenda Heather Latu.

Fiamē said that with 26 elected members, FAST had the majority to form a new Government and “we have done that today to satisfy not only the law but the Court decision on Sunday and we expect that to be challenged.”

Taulapapa explained reasons why Parliament should have convened yesterday.

• Because under Article 52 Parliament must be convened within 45 days after a general election ie by 24 May 2021;
• 12 and 16 April Warrants signed by HOS declared the 51 Members elected – those warrants were declared valid last Monday;
• Failure to do so would well have resulted in the Head of State calling for fresh elections using the normal timeframes of 7-9 months leaving the Caretaker in place over an 8 month period;
• The Caretaker plan after the illegal snap election didn’t eventuate.

Since the election on the 9 April 2021, the Caretaker Government have tried various moves to block and delay convening of Parliament which was supposed to take place yesterday.

Despite the ceremony being conducted under humble facility, Fiame said he important thing is they have done so legally and with the numbers they have compared to Jesus who was born in a much humble situation. Ironically, the parliament ground lights were only turned on after the ceremony.

Contempt of Court
When asked if FAST would ask the Court to issue a contempt of court charges on the Caretaker Government, she said “this morning (referring to yesterday) was another example of contempt of court.”

She believes the Caretaker Government and the Human Rights Protection Party have more than one issue of contempt on their hands.

The Caretaker Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi in a press conference last night called the swearing in ceremony treasonous and unconstitutional.

SNAP SHOT of Events

1. Because under Article 52 Parliament MUST be convened within 45 days after a general election i.e. by 24 May 2021;

2. 12 and 16 April Warrants signed by HOS declared the 51 Members elected – those warrants were declared valid last Monday;

3. Failure to do so would well have resulted in the Head of State calling for fresh elections using the normal timeframes of 7-9 months leaving the Caretaker in place to clean out the pantry over an 8 month period…the Caretaker plan after the illegal snap election’ didn’t eventuate;

4. The HOS made an Order to call Parliament on 20 May;

5. He purported to revoke that on 22 Ma;y

6. We had that revocation set aside as unlawful on 23 May;

7. The Court had also declared that the HOS must take notice of his obligation to call Parliament in the 17 May decision which we used to argue that his 22 May Proclamation (against a valid Proclamation he issued to convene Parliament) had no legal basis to revoke it on 22 May.

SO

1. The Constitution required (mandatory) that Parliament meet on Monday 24^th May

2. The Supreme Court determined that the Order on 20 May was valid and Parliament meet;

3. The PM ordered the HOS and the Clerk not to assist and the Speaker issuing a notice cancelling all in breach of the 17 and 23 May Orders and contempt;

4. HOS, Council of Deputy (asked and refused);

5. Clerk of House refusing to assist;

6. Parliament House locked.

SO

1. The assembled members declared elected on 12 & 16 April under warrant could meet ie 26 is the quorum;

2. They resolved to appoint an Acting Clerk to preside until the Speaker was chosen by resolution;

3. The Speaker then swore in the rest: Members, Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers;

4. Due to the refusal of the officeholders to assist the Assembly made the necessary resolutions for other persons to step in their place;

5. Those decisions justified according to the Doctrine of Necessity.