It will be the court that has the final say in allowing a Samoan parliamentarian facing a pending court case to fly out to a parliamentary gathering in Wellington, New Zealand this week.

The MP in question, former Associate Minister of Police and MP for Salega No.1, Fepuleai Faimata Sua, faces 18 individual and joint charges, including perverting the course of justice and conspiracy to commit an offence.

The Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Papali'i Li'o Taeu-Masipau nominated Fepuleai saying he was innocent until proven guilty and other MPs had commitments.

He explained that Fepuleai had applied to the courts for permission to leave the jurisdiction to attend the meeting, with a hearing for his bail variation scheduled for Monday.

Papalii further clarified the process of selecting MPs for the delegation, stating that efforts were made to ensure representation from both the ruling party and the opposition. However, he noted that some MPs were unavailable to travel during the meeting, leading to Fepuleai's inclusion in the delegation.

This newspaper understands that the Speaker and his delegation flew out of Samoa on Sunday evening. Fepulea'i would join them in Wellington after the hearing of his application on Monday.

This is worrying because this suggests that the courts which belong to an independent arm of the government, the judiciary have somewhat been instructed to allow this MP to travel. The Speaker seems very confident that the variation in the bail conditions would be granted. His airfares seem to have been paid and surely his accommodation and allowance have already been provided.

The law should be equal for everyone. If the parliament can do that and expect the MP to get a bail variation then everyone charged with the MP for similar crimes should also be able to pay their airfares, get their visas done, and then show up in court seeking bail variation and expecting the court to grant them.

It may not be the case, but from the outside looking in, the layman would think that the legislature has sent a directive to the judiciary.

Fepuleai is innocent until proven but he has shown in the past to have disregard for the law, just like the time he travelled to Pago Pago without documents and then tried to use his diplomatic passport to throw his weight around in another jurisdiction.

Last month, Fepuleai, through his lawyer, asked the court to vary his bail conditions. He was asked to surrender his travel documents and sign at the Apia police station twice a week.

If this was the case, and his travel documents are with the court, how would he travel to New Zealand on such short notice? According to New Zealand immigration law, if a country does not have a visa waiver agreement with New Zealand, even holders of diplomatic passports have to apply for a visa.

Samoa is not on the list of countries that New Zealand has a visa waiver agreement with. This makes this situation quite perplexing because if he had surrendered his travel documents, then how has Fepuleai become so ready to travel? How did he obtain his visa?

Did the MP have two passports including a diplomatic one and he surrendered one and kept the other? This does sound like he did not comply with the bail conditions that were set for him. The courts must treat everyone equally.

We do not need to remind the courts or advise them to take action when someone violates a bail condition. It has been documented that if a person does not sign at a police station without a valid reason, bail is revoked or if he does not appear for an appearance, again bail is revoked.

Hopefully, the MP has kept true to his bail conditions and surrendered all his travel documents when he was supposed to do so.

Ironically, Fepuleai is headed to a country where the MPs stand down in the blink of an eye when they do something that tarnishes them, their party, and their country. We still believe that was the action he should have taken when American Samoa fined Samoa Airways for allowing the MP to travel without proper documentation.

That would be the accountable thing to do. And if the MP could explain how he got a visa when his travel documents were with the court?