The appointment of the seventh woman Member of Parliament, Toomata Norah Leota has been quashed by the Court of Appeal this morning. 

The Court of Appeal ruled to invalidate the appointment of Toomata made by the Supreme Court earlier this year. The outcome subsequently reduces the number of women in the Legislative Assembly to six

The matter was presided over by Acting President of Court of Appeal, Justice Rhys Harrison alongside Justice Asher, Justice Sir William Young and Justice Tafaoimalo Leilani Tuala-Warren.

Justice Harrison said the swearing-in of Toomata is invalid allowing the appeal from the Human Rights Protection Party (H.R.P.P.). The Appellant Court also ruled to dismiss the cross appeal from Toomata. 

Aliimalemanu Alofa Tuuau and Faagasealii Sapoa Feagai and the H.R.P.P. filed the initial appeal against Toomata Norah Leota seeking to disqualify her appointment.

In response Toomata filed a cross appeal alleging the Supreme Court erred in adopting the formula that qualified the two H.R.P.P. women to be legislators. 

In response Toomata filed a cross appeal alleging the Supreme Court erred in adopting the formula that qualified the two H.R.P.P. women to be legislators.

Lawyer Rodney Harrison, Aeau Tima Leavai and Ann Matalasi are representing the H.R.P.P. women Members and the party.

On the other side lawyer Benjamin Keith, Taulapapa Brenda Heather Latu, Matafeo George Latu and Muriel Lui were acting for the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (F.A.S.T.) party and Toomata.

Toomata – who contested the Anoama’a No. 2 seat – argued the Court erred when it found that there was no ambiguity in such a formula and the use of the formula led to the results which were capricious, unreasonable and unfair. 

She is referring to the formula provided for under Article 44 provision that requires a minimum 10 per cent representation of women in the Legislative Assembly. 

To’omata claimed the formula was unfair in relation to relevant factors including the size of the electorate votes and the number of competing candidates.

As for Aliimalemanu and others they claimed that the ruling that appointed To’omata was neither applied for nor was it advanced by the respondents.