Commentary—Kaniva News’ report on the King’s authority over hereditary titles has triggered heated debate online.
At the heart of the debate is the interpretation of two key constitutional clauses—Section 50(2) and Section 44—and how they interact in matters of noble succession.
The controversy stems from our report last night on the court case of Lord Fielakepa and his nephew Tupou Tongaliuaki Filo‘aulo Aleamotu‘a, in which the Land Court initially ruled in favour of Tupou Tongaliuaki Filo‘aulo Aleamotu‘a as the rightful heir.
Fielakepa then appealed to the Privy Council under Section 50(2), seeking to revoke the Lands Court decision. However, the King exercised his constitutional authority under that clause to uphold that Fielakepa’s nephew Tupou Tongaliuaki Filo‘aulo Aleamotu‘a was the rightful air, issuing a final and binding decision.
The constitution clause 50 (2) says: Constitution and powers of Privy Council
If any case shall be heard in the Land Court relating to the determination of hereditary estates and titles, it shall be lawful for either party thereto to appeal to the King in Privy Council which shall determine how the appeal shall proceed and the judgment of the King in Privy Council shall be final.
The constitution clause 44 says: King may confer titles
It is the King’s prerogative to give titles of honour and to confer honourable distinctions but it shall not be lawful for him to deprive anyone who has an hereditary title of his title such as chiefs of hereditary lands and nobles of the Legislative Assembly who possess hereditary lands except in cases of treason. And if anyone shall be tried and found guilty of treason the King shall appoint a member of that family to succeed to the name and inheritance of the guilty person.
Critics argue that such royal discretion could undermine hereditary traditions, while supporters maintain that the King’s role as the ultimate arbiter ensures legal finality.
Importantly, Section 44 explicitly prohibits the King from arbitrarily stripping hereditary titles—except in cases of treason—while Section 50(2) comes into play only when disputes are formally appealed to the Privy Council.
This legal framework ensures checks and balances, meaning the King cannot act unilaterally to remove titles, but once a case reaches the Privy Council, his judgment is conclusive.
The Fielakepa case exemplifies this process, affirming that the monarchy’s powers are constitutionally defined and judicially circumscribed.
