The celebrations following ʻEpalahame Lingikoni Taukeiʻaho’s court victory in the Liahona/Saineha Alumni Association dispute have taken another turn after he instructed his lawyer to pursue legal action against a Facebook commenter who accused him of failing to pay workers in Vavaʻu.
As Kaniva News reported this week, the Supreme Court ruled in Taukeiʻaho’s favour on 26 October 2026 in a leadership dispute that began after an emergency board meeting in October 2023 purportedly suspended him as president of the Liahona-Sainehā Alumni Association and appointed Pita Foliaki Hopoate as interim president.
Lord Chief Justice Malcolm Bishop KC found that constitutional amendments used to justify the leadership change had not been lawfully adopted, leaving the association’s 2018 constitution in force. The Court also dismissed the defendants’ counterclaim and awarded Taukeiʻaho legal costs.
Taukeiʻaho told Kaniva News that a Facebook user identifying himself as Tevita Ngoue posted the allegation in the comments section of a news report about the court ruling.
The comment, posted in Tongan on Kaniva News’ Facebook page, initially congratulated Taukeiʻaho on his court victory before urging him to come to Vavaʻu and pay workers he allegedly owed money, saying they had families to feed.
Taukeiʻaho, who owns Fusilau Landscape, a company contracted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to provide services, including landscaping, at its churches and schools throughout Tonga, strongly denied the allegations.
He said he contacted Ngoue directly, who responded that the comment was merely a “fakanāfala”, a Tongan expression which, in this context, suggested it was intended to provoke a reaction rather than make a serious allegation.
However, a screenshot of their message exchange, seen by Kaniva News, showed Taukeiʻaho informing Ngoue that he had referred the matter to his lawyer for legal action.
Kaniva News contacted Ngoue for comment.
Taukeiʻaho described the allegation as defamatory and said he believed it was part of an effort by his opponents to damage his reputation following the court decision.
It remains unclear whether formal defamation proceedings have been filed.
