On Tuesday, parliament met for the first time this year with Fiame's leadership the central question.
The 67-year-old has been prime minister since 2021, when she led the breakaway FAST party to an election win over long-term governing party HRPP.
However, last month she was expelled from her party after dismissing FAST chairman La'auli Leuatea Polataivao from his post of agricultural and fisheries minister after he faced criminal charges.
Fiame's decision led to a tense stand-off with some in her party who urged her to resign, backed by opposition leader and former prime minister Tuila'epa Sa'ilele Malielegaoi.
Defying those calls for more than a month, Fiame insisted the constitutionally valid place for her leadership to be tested was parliament.
That showdown vote arrived on Tuesday morning, when the FAST bloc opted to support Fiame to continue in the role, rather than face the consequences of a fallen government.
Pacific analyst Richard Herr said the vote carried high stakes not just for the government, but for the opposition.
"This vote was an attempt by the opposition basically to embarrass the FAST party over its internal divisions," he told AAP.
"The question was, 'would the FAST party be willing to bring down the government without being certain that they would provide a successor to Fiame?'
"However, the vote today showed the legitimacy of the government, as it had the numbers on the floor to support the prime minister."
Having fended off the challenge, attention will now turn to the "fundamental issue" as to whether Fiame can repair the rift between her faction and the FAST party and progress the government's agenda.
"Can they work together in an effective way, given how this has strengthened Fiame's position in the parliament?" Dr Herr asked.
The stand-off will continue until FAST reunifies or withdraws its support from Fiame, with an election not due until next year.
The HRPP - which under Tuila'epa refused to leave office in 2021, sparking a tense constitutional crisis - has also brought a court challenge to whether it is legal to have a minority government.
Dr Herr questioned the constitutional appropriateness for a court to rule on the matter.
"There's nothing in the constitution that prevents a minority government or allows the court to rule on a minority government ... I would question the right of the court to hear such a challenge," he said.
34°C