For the past week, public servants based in the main Government building at Eleele Fou have been anticipating the arrival of the Faatuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi party to make good on their declaration that they would take over the Executive Offices of Government and remove the incumbent Human Rights Protection Party.

A sizable chunk of our population had not yet been born during the last period of political instability in the early 1980s, so many who may be scratching their heads (and being pulled in two different directions by political agendas) are now turning to the law for guidance.

The process for a vacation of office is in part four of the Constitution, and the first clause says the appointment of the caretaker Prime Minister at the first session of the Legislative Assembly (following a dissolution) shall be terminated by the Head of State on the 7^th day of that session if the P.M. has not sooner resigned.

Essentially, the caretaker Prime Minister has to resign by the 7^th day of the new Parliament session, or termination is to follow.

So the recognition of the May 24 swearing-in (19 calendar days ago) as the legitimate convening of the 17^th Parliament is absolutely key to F.A.S.T. rule.

And conversely, in our opinion, this is why the H.R.P.P. is vehemently against the recognition of the May 24 ceremony, or, for that matter, any suggestion to convene Parliament until petitions and by-elections have been completed.

The fact that F.A.S.T. won the majority of seats in the 9 April general elections, but have failed in their efforts to initiate a transition of power from incumbents H.R.P.P (who have stubbornly refused to concede with any grace) sets the bar fairly low for Samoa’s political integrity.

A 48-hour deadline given by F.A.S.T. to H.R.P.P. to vacate the government building’s executive suites was ignored; the deadline expiring Wednesday evening.

Thursday morning came with murmurings that the new party and their leadership would be at Eleelee Fou at 10 a.m. for the takeover. Media were waiting, public servants were watching and police were in attendance.

As we know now, those plans did not eventuate, with F.A.S.T. backing down and the waiting media redirected to Vaiala, to receive another vociferous denouncement of the H.R.P.P. by F.A.S.T. deputy leader Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt.

He said they decided against a physical transition “to maintain the peace” and have instead chosen “to follow a path of humility in pursuit of victory”.

“Our position from Monday is they should vacate the offices, the nation has decided at the polls and Court decisions have been made and they should exit and give way to the new Government,” said Laauli.

“You have witnessed today and confirm that Tuilaepa and H.R.P.P. do not want to leave office…”

Later on Thursday, and continuing with the deviated realities of both parties, the caretaker Prime Minister shared a completely different view, saying he was unaware of the F.A.S.T. plan to take over on Thursday.

“I thought it was a continuation of our talks that ended with a joke as they refused to do what we had suggested to come to a chiefly conclusion to withdraw our petitions,” said Tuilaepa.

The day before he claimed that the new party’s deadline is comparable to “holding them at gunpoint”.

These parties have come to vastly different conclusions in interpreting the recent Appeals Court ruling on the sixth woman.

F.A.S.T. believes they have been given the clear majority, with the voiding of Aliimalemanu’s appointment as the sixth woman (and 26^th H.R.P.P. member-elect); whereas H.R.P.P. are claiming victory after the Court agreed with the Electoral Commissioner’s interpretation of the 44(1a) amendment’s calculation of seats in Parliament for women.

The fact that there is enough room for both interpretations to exist unchecked in the court of public opinion is a worry.

What the country needed from the Court of Appeals, and still needs, is a clear decision with limited room for political maneuverings that confirms if the 17^th Parliament had indeed convened (or not) on 24 May. Although we do note that since the Appeals bench ruled on the sixth woman issue, a clarification has been sought on what it means for the current Parliamentary makeup.

Digging further in to the vacation of office clauses in the Constitution reveal that there is an extreme option available for Members of Parliament, pertaining to the Prime Minister’s role.

And that is, that the Prime Minister’s appointment shall be terminated by the Head of State if Parliament passes words of no confidence in Cabinet or, if Cabinet is defeated on any question or issue which the Prime Minister has declared to be a question or issue of confidence.

But wait, the Constitution says that in fact, a termination resulting from no confidence could end up in dissolution of Parliament. If the Prime Minister so requests, the Head of State may dissolve the Legislative Assembly instead of terminating the appointment of the Prime Minister.

Take that how you will, as we are essentially being made to do.

The differing legal interpretations of the Court of Appeal’s decision on the sixth woman’s seat (as well as the wait for the Court ruling on the legality of the May 24 swearing-in) makes any activities or loud proclamations of who is adhering to the rule of law that much more convoluted.

If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the May 24 swearing-in was legal, then the vacation of office clauses would be the fix to the instability of unrealized takeover deadlines and a stubborn caretaker government rooted in place.

However, if the Judiciary decides that the F.A.S.T. swearing-in was illegal, then we are to remain at the mercy of father time – waiting for the electoral petitions and any by-elections, before a final government makeup is decided once and for all.

That should clear the air as to which party’s message is constitutionally lawful, and make clear once and for all who should be sitting in the executive chambers of the government building.