Another Lawyer’s Concerns

Letter to the Editor/

Subject: Concerns Regarding the Recent Statement by the President of the Samoa Law Society on Hon Prime Minister Ministerial Appointments

Talofa lava,

As a fellow member of the legal profession and someone deeply committed to the rule of law, constitutional integrity, and the sovereignty of the Independent State of Samoa, I write to express my concern about the recent letter issued by the President of the Samoa Law Society regarding the Hon Prime Minister’s Cabinet appointment, after his inauguration.

1. Constitutional Authority Must Be Respected

The appointment of Cabinet Ministers is a matter clearly governed by Article 32 of the Constitution of Samoa, which grants the Prime Minister the exclusive authority to advise the Head of State on ministerial appointments. This constitutional function is not subject to approval or interference by any individual or body outside the framework of Samoa’s Executive and Head of State.

The suggestion, implied or otherwise, that the Prime Minister has acted improperly by exercising this lawful function is both constitutionally baseless and politically irresponsible.

The moment Hon Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Polataivao Fosi Schmidt took the oath of office as Prime Minister, he was vested with that constitutional mandate. Just as every Prime Minister before him, including Hon. Tuilaepa Dr. Sa’ilele Malielegaoi and Hon. Fiame Naomi Mataafa herself during their respective terms.

The Prime Minister’s right to appoint Ministers is not negotiable, nor is it discretionary in the hands of third parties, including legal professional associations.

2. Inconsistency and perceived bias of the Samoa Law Society

It is particularly troubling that the Samoa Law Society did not issue similar statements in the past when previous Prime Ministers held both the Attorney General and Police portfolios under their direct ministerial oversight. If the concern now is about the “appearance” of influence over criminal matters before the courts, why was this not equally raised under past administrations?

Such selective concern appears inconsistent with the objective standards expected of the legal profession. If the Samoa Law Society is to preserve its credibility as an independent legal body, it must avoid political partiality or the appearance thereof.

Unfortunately, this recent public commentary appears to stray from the Society’s expected neutrality and legal objectivity and enters the realm of politically motivated interference.

3. Presumption of innocence and the Rule of Law

The Samoa Law Society should be the foremost defender of the presumption of innocence, a cornerstone of any democratic legal system. The fact that the Prime Minister is a defendant in a pending legal matter does not strip him of constitutional rights or dimmish his legal ability to fulfil his ministerial duties unless and until a Court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.

To infer that the Prime Minister’s appointment to the Police Ministry raises an automatic conflict undermines not only the Court’s independence but also presumes guilt before any judicial finding. Such assertions, whether intentional or not, damage the very principle the Law Society claims to protect.

4. Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) Involvement

The intervention of the Commonwealth Lawyers Association (CLA) adds little clarity and raises further questions. The CLA is a membership-based organisation that does not regulate the practice of law in Samoa or anywhere else. Many lawyers across the Commonwealth are not members, and its opinions are non-binding and often subjective.

Moreover, given the fact that Fiona Ey, the current President of the Samoa Law Society is also the national representative to the CLA in Samoa, there appears to be a conflict of interest. This undermines the independence of CLA’s statement and may suggest an internal agenda rather than a balanced legal view.

5. Professional responsibility and constructive engagement

While it is the right of legal professionals to speak out on matters of constitutional significance, the President’s letter and legal opinions must always reflect consistency, neutrality, and fidelity to the law, not selective outrage or personal vendettas.

When the Law Society’s leadership uses the Society’s platform to take what appears to be a politically motivated stance, it compromises the trust placed in that institution by both its members and the public.

Legal bodies are not political commentators. They are custodians of legal ethics, defenders of due process, and must speak from a foundation of fact, law, and equal treatment. Anything less is an insult to the very rule of law they are sworn to uphold.

6. Conclusion

Samoa is a Sovereign State governed by its own Constitution and Laws. Decisions lawfully made under that Constitution must be respected. If concerns exist about the conduct of any public official, those matters must be left to the appropriate legal processes, not trial by press release.

I urge the leadership of the Samoa Law Society to reflect on the contents and implications of their recent correspondence and to re-centre their position on the core principles of consistency, neutrality, and the rule of law.

Anything less risks undermining the dignity and independence of the legal profession in Samoa.

God bless Samoa.

Soifua ma ia Manuia.

Sauni Seleni
Barrister and Solicitor of New Zealand High Court