CBS Bill Clears Second Reading as Government Defends Independence Safeguards

APIA, SAMOA — The Central Bank of Samoa Amendment Bill 2026 has passed its second reading in Parliament despite opposition from the HRPP, with Minister of Finance Mulipola Anarosa Ale Molioʻo giving a detailed defence of the reforms and insisting they will not diminish the independence of the Central Bank of Samoa.

Opposition Leader Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi confirmed his party's rejection of the proposed changes following three days of parliamentary debate.

“We do not support this change in law,” Tuilaepa told Parliament.

Speaker of the House Auuapaau Mulipola Aloitafua Mulipola acknowledged the Opposition's position before declaring that the Bill had passed its second reading and would continue through the normal parliamentary process.

The legislation will now proceed to the relevant parliamentary committee for further scrutiny before returning to Parliament.

Finance Minister: CBS independence will remain

Responding to concerns raised throughout the debate, Mulipola said the central purpose of the amendments was not to change the fundamental responsibilities or independence of the Central Bank.

Instead, she said the changes were designed to strengthen good governance, clarify responsibilities and improve accountability in the performance of statutory duties.

The Minister stressed that CBS would continue to retain its independence, arguing that independence and accountability should work alongside each other rather than being treated as opposing principles.

Mulipola said the ultimate objective was to strengthen public confidence in the management of Samoa's financial system and economy.

She also acknowledged that much of the concern surrounding the Bill had focused on the possibility of political interference or “undue influence”, but rejected suggestions that the amendments would expose CBS to political control.

Governor removal provisions clarified

A significant part of the debate has centred on provisions relating to the Governor of the Central Bank.

Mulipola rejected suggestions that the Government was simply creating a new mechanism allowing it to dismiss a Governor.

She explained that provisions for removing a Governor already existed, but argued the amendments would provide clearer procedures, grounds and safeguards around how such a serious decision could be made.

Importantly, the Minister said differences in judgement, management approaches or views relating to Central Bank matters would not, by themselves, justify removing a Governor.

In practical terms, her explanation was that a Government could not simply remove a Governor because it was unhappy with, or disagreed with, that person.

Mulipola said those clearer distinctions and protections were among matters being addressed through the amendments.

Prime Minister Laaulialemalietoa Leuatea Schmidt also told Parliament that the changes were not being introduced because of current CBS Governor Maiava Atalina Ainuu-Enari.

He said the legislation was intended to establish a stronger framework for future governments.

IMF concerns raised during debate

Several MPs raised concerns about the proposed changes and their potential implications for the Central Bank.

Faleata No.3 MP Lealailepule Rimoni Aiafi urged the Government to carefully consider concerns reportedly associated with the International Monetary Fund, pointing to the IMF's role in providing guidance and safeguards relating to central banking.

Former Prime Minister Fiame Naomi Mataʻafa also raised the importance of checks and balances and warned about the potential for conflicts of interest and undue influence.

Falealupo MP Aeau Tima Leavaiseeta questioned why changes were necessary to legislation that she argued had not caused harm to Samoa.

Mulipola, however, questioned whether enough of the debate had been grounded in Samoa's own circumstances.

She said that from her observation, much of the commentary had focused on reports and views from outside Samoa, particularly those associated with the IMF, while comparatively little evidence had been presented from Samoa's domestic context.

The Minister's position was not that international advice should be ignored, but that Samoa's own circumstances must also form part of decisions about its laws and institutions.

Government argues Samoa must be proactive

Mulipola also placed the amendments within a wider argument about preparing Samoa's financial system for emerging threats.

She said Samoa should not have to wait until scams and new financial threats have already reached the country before introducing preventative measures and regulatory safeguards.

Instead, laws, guidelines and penalties should be strong enough to anticipate emerging risks and protect the country before problems become established.

The Government argues that modernising the Central Bank framework is therefore about more than the current Governor or Government.

Financial technology, digital transactions, cross-border financial activity and increasingly sophisticated scams are changing the environment in which central banks and financial regulators operate.

For Mulipola, Samoa's legislation must be capable of responding to those changes while maintaining the institutional independence of CBS.

Opposition recorded, Bill moves forward

The Opposition's rejection of the amendments has now been formally recorded in Parliament, but it does not end scrutiny of the legislation.

Passing the second reading allows the Bill to proceed to the committee stage, where its provisions can undergo further examination before it returns to Parliament.

The debate has exposed genuine differences over how Samoa should balance Central Bank independence, Government accountability and modernisation of the country's financial laws.

But the Government's central assurance remains unchanged: the proposed reforms are intended to strengthen the governance framework surrounding CBS, not place monetary or Central Bank decision-making under political control.

The next stage of the parliamentary process will provide another opportunity to test whether the final wording of the legislation delivers those safeguards.