Suspended MPs claim denying them their salaries is unlawful

By Lagi Keresoma

APIA, SAMOA–02 MAY 2023: The two suspended Members of Parliament, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi and Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi have made a legal claim that denying them their salaries was an unlawful decision by Parliament.

Through their lawyer, Kings Counsel Justice Rodney Harrison, they claimed that it is every MPs right to be paid even in suspension.

They believe the decision to stop their salary was based only on one “source” which is a provision in the Standing Orders, but Parliament should have considered a provision in the Constitution as another source to draw their decision on.

They cited the Remuneration Tribunal Act 2003 which makes general provisions for remuneration of MPs but does not refer to the suspension of an MP.

Section 3(3) of the Act (a) 15 stated that salaries and allowances for MPs are paid on receipt of their warrants as MPs until the end of their membership.

Standing Order 187(5) provides that remuneration is not paid on suspension under that provision. 

The contrast between the Act and Standing Order prompted the Applicants’ argument that Parliament resorted to one “source” the Standing Order rather than an open view of the Constitution. The question then was whether the Standing Order conflicts the Act.

Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Taulapapa Brenda Heather-Latu said argued no and that withholding of salary is part of suspension.

The case heard before Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese last week was the second claim filed by Tuilaepa and Lealailepule against a Parliament decision.

This time around they raised four issues they believed Parliament had erred on in its decision.

One is the reconciliation between the jurisdiction of the Court and the principle of the non-intervention in the Assembly dealings.

Second is the extent the Court has already determined relevant matters in its first decision of Malielegaoi vs Speaker 2022.

Third claim is the unlawful findings on the Contempt of Parliament which both Applicants were found guilty of. The applicants believe that the contempt findings were without legal or merit aspects and were made in bad faith.

They also claim their two year suspension is unlawful because it was based on the contempt findings which they believe was unlawful.

The Chief Justice has reserved his decision.