My response to outcome of courtcase PASS vs PM
Meripa Weir
to samoaobserver
A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION
Dear Editor,
The courtcase between People Against Switching Sides (PASS) and the government regarding the switching of sides to drive vehicles appears to have boiled down to 'a matter of interpretation' of the word "intentionally" in the Constitution in section 5(1). Hence the interpretation of the Supreme Court Justice i has given the green light to the PM and his government's plan for the switch to go ahead on September 7. Good thing for the PM and his political party that Supreme Court Justice Vui took this one interpretation instead of the interpretation of the wording by the PASS side which a different judge may have adopted.
My point is, like many constitutions that were thought up and written many decades ago, no one really knows the intention of the original writers. So we end up with words or phrases which can be interpreted in many different ways in court.
My concern is that whilst the PM and his government's plan is found constitutional in one sense based on one interpretation, the claim that it is unconstitutional in that the Bill was passed through parliament without seeking the consent of 2/3 of matai voters remains. I support therefore the move by the group Tu ma Aga Fa'amatai Fa'aSamoa (TUMAS) mentioned by Alan Ah Mu in, 'Matai group calls for consultation on switch' (Samoa Observer 30/08/09) to pursue the unresolved issue.
So as far as I see it, the case is not over yet, as 'a matter of interpretation' approach will never fully addressed the grievances and genuine concerns that have been democratically voiced as published by this newspaper.
My prayer is for justice to be done.
Ma le fa'aaloalo lava,
Meripa Weir
(Keen Samoan Watcher from Abroad)
to samoaobserver
A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION
Dear Editor,
The courtcase between People Against Switching Sides (PASS) and the government regarding the switching of sides to drive vehicles appears to have boiled down to 'a matter of interpretation' of the word "intentionally" in the Constitution in section 5(1). Hence the interpretation of the Supreme Court Justice i has given the green light to the PM and his government's plan for the switch to go ahead on September 7. Good thing for the PM and his political party that Supreme Court Justice Vui took this one interpretation instead of the interpretation of the wording by the PASS side which a different judge may have adopted.
My point is, like many constitutions that were thought up and written many decades ago, no one really knows the intention of the original writers. So we end up with words or phrases which can be interpreted in many different ways in court.
My concern is that whilst the PM and his government's plan is found constitutional in one sense based on one interpretation, the claim that it is unconstitutional in that the Bill was passed through parliament without seeking the consent of 2/3 of matai voters remains. I support therefore the move by the group Tu ma Aga Fa'amatai Fa'aSamoa (TUMAS) mentioned by Alan Ah Mu in, 'Matai group calls for consultation on switch' (Samoa Observer 30/08/09) to pursue the unresolved issue.
So as far as I see it, the case is not over yet, as 'a matter of interpretation' approach will never fully addressed the grievances and genuine concerns that have been democratically voiced as published by this newspaper.
My prayer is for justice to be done.
Ma le fa'aaloalo lava,
Meripa Weir
(Keen Samoan Watcher from Abroad)
posted by Meripa Weir at 9:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home