Electoral petitions and constitutional challenges were back in the Supreme Court on Thursday with both the Human Rights Protection Party (H.R.P.P.) and the Fa’atuatua i le Atua Samoa ua Tasi (F.A.S.T.) among the aggrieved parties.

The H.R.P.P. has lodged a challenge against the Speaker for his refusal to swear in the two additional women Members to fulfil a 10 per cent constitutional requirement in the House for women representation.

When the matter was called, senior Supreme Court Justice, Vui Clarence Nelson raised questions about the grounds on which the Speaker relied on to refuse to administer the oath for the two additional women Members.

In response, lawyer Leilani Tamati, who represented the Speaker, said it was the uncertainty connected to the electoral petitions that were lodged in the Court.

But Justice Nelson told the lawyer that there are only two petitions called and none of them were lodged by a female candidate. 

He then asked how the outcome of the petitions before the Court could affect the number of women in the Legislative Assembly, given that no female candidate had lodged a petition. 

In response, Ms. Tamati said there was talk of other women candidates filing petitions, but she will now need to seek further instructions from her client on the matter. 

Lawyer Aumua Ming Leung Wai lodged the challenge on behalf of the H.R.P.P. women candidates, Aliimalemanu Alofa Tuuau and Faagasealii Sapoa Feagiai.

On the other hand, the defeated F.A.S.T. party candidate Toomata Norah Leota filed a separate challenge concerning the Article 44 1a. 

Toomata is seeking declaratory orders over the correct formula to calculate the additional women M.P. 

The activation of the Article 44 1A by the Electoral Commissioner awarded the seats to the two H.R.P.P. women. 

In that proceeding, the other respondents are Aliimalemanu, Faagasealii, the Electoral Commissioner, the Attorney General on behalf of the Head of State and the H.R.P.P. 

Toomata was an unsuccessful candidate in April’s election and is arguing the activation of Article 44 1a was premature and was unlawful and unconstitutional. 

The matter has been adjourned to next week for the respondents in the proceeding to provide response. 

In relation to petitions, an unsuccessful candidate from the recent by-election endorsed by the F.A.S.T. party, Fata Ryan Schuster also lodged a petition against winner Maulolo Tavita Amosa. 

In the Falealili No. 2 seat, H.R.P.P. candidate, Leleimalefaga Neemia Fonotia is challenging the election of Fuimaono Maiava Tito. 

The matters are all being adjourned to next week for the respondent to provide their response and possible counter petitions.