Prime Minister, Fiame Naomi Mata’afa testified in the Supreme Court on Monday to respond to a lawsuit by the former Attorney General alleging unfair dismissal. 

Former Attorney General, Savalenoa Mareva Betham–Annandale is seeking $650,000 for the Prime Minister dismissing her as the leader of the bar in September 2021. 

Kings Counsel Dr. Rodney Harrison and Fuimaono Sefo Ainuu represented Savalenoa, while Taulapapa Brenda Heather–Latu and Benjamin Keith acted for the Attorney General’s Office for the Prime Minister. 

Justice Rhys Harrison presided over the matter. 

Dr. Harrison drilled into grounds provided by the Prime Minister in a letter and a press release outlining Savalenoa’s dismissal in September 2021 immediately after her suspension. 

He queried Fiame that in some of the scenarios; the Head of State and the caretaker Prime Minister could have gone ahead and made a decision (to revoke 2021 election results) and would have been too late for the A.G. to give advice. 

Fiame replied, “The Attorney General is silent on those particular issues”. 

“If that is what you are proposing that she wasn’t involved when she found out about it, she was silent.”

Dr. Harrison raised with Fiame three assumptions (in the letter) about advice given or not given by Savalenoa noting that if they were incorrect then the criticism against her cannot stand. 

Fiame asked who decided such things if the court were to decide. 

She added in her position these were grounds and the core line of questioning was about trust and confidence. 

Another issue raised was a legal challenge pursued by the FAST party against a proclamation from the Head of State to revoke the 2021 election results. 

Dr. Harrison said the former A.G. was a respondent in that case where she was sued on behalf of the H.O.S. and the Government and her position was to argue the validity of the proclamation. 

Fiame said this is probably what they were not sure of, what advice she gave for this action to be taken, and if it was on her advice that the proclamation was made. 

“I do question the rightfulness of those actions taken and of course, we took it to court,” she continued. 

“The A.G. is not there just to do what she is told, she is there as the legal advisor of the government, what we were going through at that time was a very difficult period. 

“To agree to revoking a national election and to prevent parliament from meeting after the court determined that, is not a light matter.” 

Dr. Harrison insisted to Fiame that she assumed that advice was given or not and had no foundation. 

In reply, she said she would’ve thought the former A.G. would respond but she never did and only said her advice was privileged. 

Fiame was queried about the activation of Article 44(1A) concerning women's representation in Parliament being another ground for Savalenoa’s dismissal. 

Dr. Harrison put it to the leader why the former A.G.'s conduct was questioned over the activation of the Constitutional provision, a decision made by the Electoral Commissioner. 

Fiame replied that she stood for the Office of the Electoral Commission (O.E.C.). 

“We took the position that she gave a different advice, his (Electoral Commissioner) initial response to the question whether that part of the Constitution has been met as a result of the national election,” she told the Court. 

“And then later changed his position to say it was not five but six (women). 

“The point I would like to make is that the country was in a situation, essentially we had a hung parliament initially, and then there was an addition to the FAST party, and bringing in a new position under this provision of the Constitution was in fact, six not five would’ve brought the government again to the situation of a hung parliament. It wasn’t a light matter.”  

Dr. Harrison pressed on to say that it was entirely appropriate that despite winning or losing, the O.E.C. was entitled to be represented which they were through the A.G’s office. 

Fiame said "Yes." 

Dr. Harrison questioned the assessment from the Prime Minister referring to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal decision noting unsound advice from the A.G. 

He asked if Fiame had factored that advice could have represented outside counsel. 

Fiame insisted outside advice would have gone through the A.G. and “the result speaks for itself”. 

At the start of the hearing Savalenoa, 55, gave her evidence and the financial effect of her dismissal on her and her family. 

As a result of her employment termination, her husband had to take up a job in the Cook Islands as Solicitor General while she returned to take over the law firm to meet financial demands. 

Savalenoa said her dismissal affected the firm and its ability to provide service in Samoa and she had to resort to regional work. 

She told the court her name was tainted and people perceived her as someone who did unlawful things and a contempt of court case she was a respondent in impacted her clientele. 

During cross examination from Taulapapa, she asked about the A.G.’s role in protecting the judiciary and what constitutes the the protection of the court. 

Savalenoa said to stand up for the judiciary when attacked publicly, the judiciary cannot talk or engage in public discourse. 

In event where judges are attacked or scandalised, she said, it was the duty of A.G. to take steps and clarify the situation.

Taulapapa continued to raise matters about comments made during the political crisis describing the court decisions as being crooked, the judiciary was crooked and the judges were crooked. 

She referred to a letter from the Prime Minister to Savalenoa querying her of what steps she has taken including but not limited to warnings in response to criticisms against the judiciary and to respond within 48 hours. 

Savalenoa said her response to the Prime Minister at the time was that people were exercising what they believed to be freedom of speech. 

She added she sought a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss the many matters she raised in her letter. 

Taulapapa put it to Savalenoa that if someone had asked her for an opinion, would she just toss a one-page reply and ask for a meeting? 

In reply, she said that was unreasonable denying her preliminary response was flawed. 

Taulapapa cited decisions from the Supreme Court that ruled contempt of court overrides freedom of expression where criticism of the court is healthy but attacks on judges are not. 

In response, Savalenoa agreed with the decision from the court and noted that there was a requirement for her to assess the assessment made and she was not in a position to do that at the time. 

Taulapapa queried that even if the P.M. was the Minister of her office that is telling her about the things that were being said she would still need to check. 

She replied yes it would be irresponsible of her to take it as is and sought a meeting to discuss and clarify the matters raised. 

It was also put to Savalenoa that the P.M. asked for written advice, not sitting down and not talking just clear written advice.

In reply, she said the words of the P.M.’s letter were to direct her to give written advice and not legal advice. 

Taulapapa pressed on to say that when the A.G. was asked for a response unless she said legal, did this mean she didn’t give legal advice. 

Dr. Harrison interrupted that it was unfair to put to Savalenoa that the request was for advice arguing it was requested that she advise on certain matters. 

Savalenoa said she took the instruction was in respect to sharing information in a written response. 

“They were queries, they were not to give legal advice on these matters,” she added. 

Savalenoa was supported by her family and friends in court and members of cabinet were also present in the proceeding to back up their leader.