[ad_1]
Contributor/
“I am convinced that the former attorney general’s failure to discharge her constitutional duty to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and the rule of law demonstrates that she is unfit to hold the position of attorney general.”
Apia, Samoa – July 31, 2024 – Former Attorney General Savalenoa Mareva Betham Annandale has been ordered to pay $5,000 to Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataafa after her unlawful dismissal claim was dismissed.
The ruling by presiding judge Harrison was delivered yesterday.
The former Attorney General had been appointed as Attorney General by the HRPP government in July 2020 for a three-year term.
In July 2021, less than a month after the FAST Party came to power and just over a year into her tenure, she was suspended and subsequently removed from office by the head of state on the advice of the new prime minister.
The unprecedented constitutional crisis of 2021
Her dismissal stems from the unprecedented constitutional crisis caused by the unclear results of the April 9, 2021 general election.
The crisis sparked extensive litigation between two rival political factions – the ruling Human Rights Protection Party before the election and Fa’atuatua i Le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (FAST Party) – and was further exacerbated by a series of public attacks on the impartiality and independence of Samoa’s judiciary led by former Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi and his supporters.
In a letter to the former attorney general dated August 4, 2021, the prime minister said: “A fundamental duty of any attorney general is to preserve and defend the independence of the judiciary and to protect members of the judiciary from any form of attack. Despite the exceptional nature of these attacks and the clear threat they pose to public order, I am aware that you have so far taken no steps to fulfil this duty.”
The prime minister also asked the former prosecutor to inform her of the steps she had taken to that end, including filing or preparing contempt proceedings, and what steps she would take within the next 48 hours. She asked for a written response by 4pm that day.
The former prosecutor did not respond substantively to the letter of 4 August 2021. Nor did she take any steps to prosecute the former Prime Minister or any other party responsible for the previous public attack on the judiciary and the continued attack on the judiciary over the next 14 days for contempt of court.
It was against this backdrop that the Prime Minister issued a suspension letter, received a response from the former prosecutor, and then issued a dismissal letter on September 2, 2021.
The core of the former prosecutor’s claim is that, in the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, on what grounds could the Prime Minister legally recommend to the Head of State that the former prosecutor be removed from office?
She applied for judicial review of the Prime Minister’s decision on the grounds that it was illegal, unreasonable, had an improper purpose and was a violation of natural justice.
She also claimed the decision was a malicious abuse of power or a conspiracy to harm with other cabinet ministers and demanded damages.
In his conclusionLord Justice Harrison said:
“In writing this judgment, I am aware that the serious constitutional crisis that Samoa has experienced in the three months following the April 2021 general election was far beyond what the former prosecutor could have foreseen or expected when she accepted the appointment as Attorney General in July 2020. The former prosecutor also never expected that she would be at the center of the events that have occurred.
“I accept that her experience is unlikely to equip her to respond to a crisis that has placed high demands on the skills and resources of her office. The scale of this crisis is unprecedented in Samoa’s post-independence history.
“I accepted Mr Harrison’s invitation to apply a rigorous standard that took this reality into account when reviewing the validity of the Prime Minister’s removal decision. I reviewed it carefully.
“In concluding that the decision was correct, I find that the former prosecutor failed in a number of significant respects to discharge his core constitutional duties.
“Her removal from office is therefore justified.
“The significant legal challenges faced by the former attorneys during these three critical months were all able to be resolved quickly and efficiently in two basic ways.
“The first is to apply sound legal principles and meet the standards of skill, competence and independence expected of a senior lawyer in Samoa.
“The second is to demonstrate unquestioning respect for the authority of the courts and courtesy towards judges, a requirement made all the more important by the magnitude and ferocity of the attacks on the judiciary.
“I am convinced that the former prosecutor’s serious failings in these two areas, combined with her failure to meet her constitutional obligations to uphold the dignity of the judiciary and the rule of law, demonstrate that she is incapable of maintaining the necessary degree of professional independence and that she is unfit to serve as Attorney General.”
result
The former prosecutor’s claims for judicial review and damages were dismissed. Both claims were ruled in favor of the prime minister.
The former prosecutor was ordered to pay the prime minister $5,000 in fees and usual expenses.
[ad_2]
Source link
