Two Committee Members wanted to remove their signatures from Report

By Lagi Keresoma

APIA, SAMOA – 26 MAY 2022: Two members of the Privileges and Ethics Committee that found the Human Rights Protection Party Leader Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi and Secretary Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi in contempt of Parliament, changed their minds at the last minute.

The report was finalised just before 12.00 on Monday night and signed by all the nine members to be tabled for debate in Parliament the following morning.

However, early Tuesday morning, the Committee’s Chairman, Valasi Luapitofanua Tafito Selesele was informed that two of the Committee members have asked to withdraw their signatures from the report.

Valasi was surprised when informed about the request by two of the four HRPP members in the committee Lautafi Fio Selafi Purcell and Faimalotoa Kika Stowers Ah Kau as they had already signed and the timing of their request.

The Speaker Papali’i Li’o Ta’eu Masipa’u was also informed of the request by the two committee members.

He told Parliament the two agreed and endorsed the report as evident in their signatures and referred the Standing Orders section 166 (6) – Committee Shall Report From Time to Time:

(6) Where a member does not agree with part or all of the Report, the Chairperson may exercise discretion to allow for one (1) or both of the following:

 (a) permit a member to submit a minority report to attach to the Committee Report; or

(b) permit that the Committee footnotes the members opposing views in the Report.

He said their objection was noted but in accordance with the Standing Orders it cannot be done.

The Privileges & Ethics Committee members consisted of:

Valasi Luapitofanua Tafito Selesele – Chairman
Ale Vena Ale – Deputy Chairman
Lautafi Fio Selafi Purcell
Faimalotoa Kika Stowers Ah Kau
Tu’u’u Anasi’i Leota
Agaseata Valelio Tanuvasa Peto
Seuamuli Fasi Toma
Magele Sekati Fiaui
Masinalupe Makesi Masinalupe

Chairman content with decision
Speaking to the media after Parliament, Valasi convey his contentment with the Parliament’s decision.

He hoped the decision had set precedence for future instances where Parliamentarians breach Parliament privileges and ethics.