There are moments in a nation’s history that test the strength of its legal spine. This was one of them. And the Supreme Court, draped in robes, armed with precedent, and entrusted with the Constitution, buckled.
In Malielegaoi & Anor v Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Chief Justice Satiu Simativa Perese ruled that the Speaker had every right to cast a deliberative vote during the third reading of the Constitutional Amendment Act 2025. That vote tipped the scales, allowing the two-thirds requirement under Article 109 to be met by a single hand raised in breach of Article 58(2).
Here’s the thing. The law was clear. The violation was public. The math was obvious. And yet the court sided not with the Constitution but with convenience.
Let’s begin with what the Constitution actually says.
Article 58(2)
“The Speaker… shall not have a deliberative vote but, in the case of an equality of votes, shall have a casting vote.”
Was there a tie?
No.
Did the Speaker vote anyway?
Yes.
Was that vote decisive?
Absolutely.
Is that a breach of the Constitution?
Undeniably.
And yet Chief Justice Perese, in 16 pages of intellectual gymnastics, blessed it.
A Biased Brushstroke
From the very start, the tone of Perese’s ruling reveals an ugly undercurrent, one laced with quiet disdain for the Applicants. In paragraph 9, he sneaks this in:
“The CAA amends and repeals the constitutional amendments made by the former Government led by the Applicants, just before their party lost the General Election…”
Not just “the former Government.” Not just “the HRPP.” No — he inserts the phrase “just before they lost” like a dagger. That’s not law. That’s bias wearing a wig. A judge’s job is to interpret the law, not editorialize history.
Twisting Interpretation Into Excuse
Perese turns to the holy trinity of constitutional interpretation: Olomalu, Pita, and Lord Wilberforce’s call for a “generous reading” of constitutional texts.
But that principle applies only when the law is ambiguous. Article 58(2) is not.
There is nothing generous or cultural about pretending a Speaker can vote when the Constitution says he cannot. This is not a matter of Samoan custom or evolving norms. This is a procedural safeguard, and Perese bulldozed it.
The Constitutional Context Scam
Perese argues that Article 109 sets out a special voting threshold, two-thirds of all MPs, and that this threshold somehow overrides Article 58.
But Article 109 says nothing about voting entitlements. It simply defines how many votes are needed.
The Speaker can be counted in the total and still not be allowed to vote. That’s not contradiction. That’s constitutional structure. But Perese takes silence as permission, and just like that, a constitutional prohibition is erased by omission.
The Punctuation Trick
In one of the most laughable stretches of logic, the Chief Justice even analyzes comma placement in Article 58(2) to justify the Speaker’s vote. He argues the clause:
“shall not have a deliberative vote but, in the case of equality…”
means the entire sentence should be seen as a single flowing allowance.
Let’s be blunt. You don’t override constitutional bans with a grammar lesson. The text could be written backwards in pig Latin and it would still prohibit the Speaker from voting except to break a tie.
The NZ Smokescreen
The Chief Justice then plays his ace-in-the-hole: New Zealand. He tells us that in NZ’s MMP system, the Speaker is included in the party vote tally.
So what?
Samoa is not New Zealand. Our Constitution does not permit the Speaker to vote except in the case of equality, no matter what they do in Wellington. You don’t import foreign loopholes to rewrite domestic law. That’s legal colonization disguised as logic.
Heather-Latu’s Crown of Immunity
The Chief Justice leans heavily on the opinion of Brenda Heather-Latu, saying her submission “deserves great respect” as Samoa’s longest-serving Attorney General.
Again, with respect, this isn’t a retirement dinner. This is the Constitution. No amount of public service grants one the authority to override it. The law is supreme. Not the CV of the lawyer interpreting it.
The Certification Cop-Out
Perese hides behind Article 109(2), which says that once the Speaker certifies the vote, it can’t be questioned in court.
But certification assumes legality.
You can’t legalize a broken process by putting it in an envelope. If the vote was unlawful, the certification is void, not sacred.
What’s Really at Stake
This ruling doesn’t just excuse one vote. It redefines the Speaker’s role.
From here forward, a partisan Speaker can –
• Cast the deciding vote in constitutional amendments
• Tip the scale in removal proceedings for Presidents, Chief Justices, or Heads of State
• And do so under the protection of a judicial precedent that chose power over principle
This is no longer just about a vote. It’s about the erosion of neutrality. The weaponization of silence. The slow assassination of the Constitution by those who swore to protect it.
The Verdict
Perese did not interpret the Constitution. He outmaneuvered it.
• He ignored Article 58(2)
• He misread Article 109
• He rewrote the Speaker’s function
• He politicized the judiciary
• And worst of all, he set fire to the last line of defense we had against legislative manipulation
The Constitution didn’t fail us. The Court did.
And while some may nod respectfully and move on, I won’t. Not while the ink is still wet and the damage is still fresh.
Because if we don’t call this out now, we risk watching our highest court become a silent enabler of the very abuses the Constitution was written to prevent.
