Opinion Editorial: HEAD OF STATE : REALITY CHECK

26 July 2019

Amidst the fallout of the Court of Appeal decision last Friday and the recognition of the FAST government, the Head of State has taken to radio, tv and social media to strike a blow.

With all due respect, his timing could be considered inappropriate given that once again he chose Sunday evening to deliver his address. This is a day given to church, to family and to rest. There was nothing so important to warrant interruption of the holy day for such a press release.

As well as giving the new Prime Minister and the FAST Party his blessing the HoS took the opportunity to criticise the judiciary and attempted to reassure himself, if not others of his powers.

The HoS made several "observations" including his difficulty in finding unity for the nation post election. The question is whether he sought to find unity or whether he sought to promote the losing party at all costs.

The decision of the Court has made it very clear that the HoS role is purely a figurehead. His presence was not required for the swearing in of parliament - a fact which appeared to come as a surprise to the HoS.

He along with others made a deliberate choice not to attend or facilitate the ceremony which he had in fact called. Yet his absence did not prevent parliament being called.

The Court did not " remove" any powers or duties which he swore to uphold. Rather, he close not to fulfil his duties as HoS and as required under the Constitution.

Regardless the Constitution enabled parliament to meet without its figurehead being present. If it is only now that the HoS is finding humility and feels " hurt" by the decisions of the Court there is only one person to blame.

One of the most ceremonial functions of any HoS is to welcome, swear in and bless a new parliament yet he abrogatated this responsibility for reasons we have yet to fully understand. This and other behaviour would indicate that he was complicit in disrupting or at least delaying the installation of a FAST lead government.

The sudden realisation as to his limited powers seems to have come as a shock. Given the HoS's experience, qualifications and years of service, he of all people should have been aware of what the Court has finally prescribed.

The HoS mistakenly believed that the Court had no jurisdiction to order the convening of parliament. Again it appears he was misdirected or ill-advised.

The decision of the Court makes it abundantly clear that the HoS derives his power (as a non elected, Cabinet appointee) exclusively from the Consitution. He is a servant of the Constitution not its master. Further in swearing allegiance, it is an oath to God, not to the HoS.

Regrettably the status, respect and sanctity of Samoa's Head of State has been tarnished but not by the courts. The independence and commanding presence of the office of the HoS in Samoa's democracy has been eroded by political motivation. Only one person needs to reflect on this.