Court
CJ reserves decision on HRPP claim against the Speaker’s vote
By Lagi Keresoma/
Apia, Samoa – 30 April 2025 – The Chief Justice, His Honour Satiu Simativa Perese has reserved his decision on the HRPP claim against the Speakers vote cast on the Amendment Bill 2025 on 26 February 2025, that the Opposition is seeking to quash.
The constitutional amendment that impacts on Samoa’s Court structure and the three controversial bills passed in December 2020, was passed by 36 votes to 16 including the Speakers vote and Opposition MP, Maulolo Tavita.
Heard in Court today, HRPP counsels argued that the Speaker does not have a deliberative vote but only a casting vote when it comes to a tie.
Central to their argument is the Speaker casting a vote to pass the Constitutional Amendment Bill 2025 in February where a 2/3 was needed to endorse it.
Prior to passing the Bill, there was a debate on the actual number for 2/3 which came down to 35 or 36 after rounding up.
The argument is based on Section 58 of the Constitution on the sub-title Voting, provision 58(1) and 58(2).
58 (1): Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, every question before the Legislative Assembly shall be decided by a majority of the votes of the Members of Parliament present.
This provision was fulfilled when the majority of Parliament voted to endorse the Constitution Amendment Bill 2025.
However, the majority that voted included the Speaker who said then that his district has the right to voice their stance in the changes made to the Constitution and that he had sought legal advice from the Attorney General who said he can vote as a representative for his district.
HRPP counsel Dr. Harrison then said 58 (2) is very clear in identifying the vote the Speaker is eligible to and that article 58 (2) does not apply to the 2/3 equation.
58 (2) The Speaker, or the Deputy Speaker or any other Member of Parliament while presiding over a sitting of the Legislative Assembly in the absence of the Speaker, shall not have a deliberative vote but, in the case of an equality of votes, shall have a casting vote.
He said the clarity in section 58(2) simply identifies that the Speaker or anyone that substitutes the Speaker during a sitting cannot vote unless there is a tie in votes, then the Speaker can cast a deciding vote.
A deliberative vote is a vote cast by a member on behalf of a body or organisation he/she is a member, but in this case, the Speaker was the Chair so therefore was not qualified to vote.
Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese intervened and asked, “What is the point then of consulting people if their voice is not heard especially with procedures leading up to the 3rd reading of a Bill?”
Dr. Harrison said there are other avenues of consultation such as through a committee.
He also said there was no need to round up the number for 2/3 as long as it is less than 2/3, and that the scope of the case is based on the “meaning and effect of provision 58(2) and the nature of effect on provision 109(2).
Amendment Constitution Section 109 (2) A certificate under the hand of the Speaker that a bill has been passed under the provisions of clause (1) shall be conclusive and shall not be questioned in any Court.
Counsels representing the Speaker Papali’i Li’o Ta’eu Masipa’u.
Counsel Taulapapa Brenda Heather-Latu who represents the Speaker said article 58 speaks of limited chances but does not prohibit the Speaker from casting a vote.
She said the Speakers vote was not for himself but for the people he represents.
Counsel for the AG’s office wanted to know that if article 58(2) is to apply to the argument, then how can it make sense to the context of provision 109.
He said there is no debate that the Speaker occupies an important position of the State and the Constitution refers to other high-ranking positions such as the Head of State, the Chief Justice and the Speaker in the same category.
“I do not know if what Dr. Harrison said is that the speaker is legally unqualified in his constitutional function is appropriate, because the Speaker is much more than that,” he said.
The parties to the case are HRPP, Parliament Speaker Papalii Lio Taeu Masipau and the Attorney General.
The decision is reserved.