Tongan Minister for Fisheries Sēmisi Fakahau has died aged 74, reports say.
Former Minister of Internal Affairs Sangaster Saula has paid tribute to Fakahau on social media this morning.
His death comes after Fakahau was in Auckland for medical assistance in May. It is understood he returned to Tonga before his death.
He was the second Cabinet Minister to have died while serving the government after the former Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry Viliami Hingano died in Auckland in June.
The news comes at a tough time for Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku after three of his cabinet ministers lost their parliamentary seats after Tonga’s Supreme Court dismissed their appeals over bribery convictions.
Fakahau was a Member of the PTOA Party when he was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of Tonga at the 2014 Tongan general election. He was appointed by the then Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva as Minister for Agriculture, Food, Forestry and Fisheries.
His portfolio was split in January 2019, with another Minister taking Agriculture, Food, and Forestry and Fakahau retaining Fisheries.
Following the death of ʻAkilisi he was not appointed to the cabinet of Pōhiva Tuʻiʻonetoa.
He was re-elected in the 2021 election and in December that year he was appointed to the Cabinet of Hu’akavameiliku as Minister of Fisheries.
Meanwhiles, people from Tongatapu 4, 6 and 7 electorates will head to the polls next week to vote in by elections to replace the three Cabinet Minsters who lost their seats after their bribery convictions.
Tonga’s victory over PNG’s Kumuls rugby league team has sparked an overreaction on social media, with the Mate Ma’a Tonga (MMT) fans receiving death threats and abuse online.
Tonga had survived a scare at the hands of Papua New Guinea to claim a 24-18 Rugby League World Cup win on Wednesday.
Following the game Tongan supporters took to social media to celebrate but at the same time some received offensive messages and posts in what appeared to be from their rival fans.
Some of those posts and messages included threatening to “murder any Tongans in PNG” after the game, and a name of what appeared to be a Tongan priest in that country was mentioned.
The threats had been taken seriously by some Tongan Facebook groups which said they stopped posting anything that could further escalate the situation because they did not want any innocent Tongans in PNG to be targeted.
The 24-18 defeat in front of 10,409 fans was heartbreaking for the PNG side after its captain Rhys Martin converted to square the game at 18-18 late in the second half.
Isaiya Katoa missed the chance to put Tonga ahead with a 75th-minute penalty but, to his relief, his side didn’t need it with Keaon Koloamatangi’s late try giving Tonga the lead.
The next assignment for Mate Ma’a Tonga is against Wales at Totally Wicked Stadium in St Helens on October 25 (5.30am AEDT) while the Kumuls face Cook Islands the following day in Warrington.
Free COVID-19 antiviral medicines are available to treat eligible people with COVID-19.
The drugs are meant to be taken within five days of symptoms starting. It is estimated that up to one million people may be eligible for treatment.
Research by the Public Health Agency, found Pasifika and Māori, those with underlying health conditions and older Kiwis were among those who have a much higher risk of dying from the virus.
The Ministry of Health said that if taken early in COVID-19 illness, the drugs had proven to reduce hospitalisation and death.
People with a high risk of severe illness from COVID-19 may be eligible for treatment with COVID-19 antiviral medicines.
Eligible people must start taking COVID-19 medicines within the first five days of getting COVID-19 symptoms.
The three anti-virals available are Nirmatrelvir with ritonavir (branded as Paxlovid), Molnupiravir (branded as Lagevrio) and Rremdesivir, an infusion treatment (branded as Veklury).
Paxlovid is produced by Pfizer. A report in the New Zealand Herald claimed it had been found to reduce the risk of hospital admission or dying from the virus by up to 86 per cent.
Side effects included an impaired sense of taste, diarrhoea, increased blood pressure and muscle aches. These effects were said to be mild.
“While vaccination remains the most effective way to help prevent Covid-19, antiviral treatments provide a strong second line of defence for those most at risk,” Pfizer’s New Zealand medical director, Krishan Thiru said.
To be eligible for COVID-19 antiviral medicines, people must have symptoms and have tested positive for COVID-19 or have symptoms and be a household contact of a person with COVID-19
To be eligible, people must also be aged over 65 years, be over 50 years old if they are of Pacific or Maori descent, be over 50 and not have completed a primary course of COVID-19 vaccinations, have a severely weakened immune system, have Downs syndrome or have sickle cell disease.
People may also be eligible if they have any combination of three high risk medical conditions. These include cancer, chronic lung or airways disease, serious heart conditions such as congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, rheumatic heart disease, congenital heart disease, diabetes or chronic kidney disease, or if they have previously been admitted to critical care or high dependency care as a result of COVID-19 and have tested positive again.
If eligible, people may be able to get a prescription from their usual healthcare provider, or the medicine may be supplied without a prescription from some pharmacies.
If people are at risk of severe illness from COVID-19, they may be able to get a prescription for an antiviral medicine from their usual general practice before they get sick. This means the pharmacy will have the prescription ready to use if they become unwell. If people test positive and develop symptoms, they can then arrange to have the medicine delivered by friends or family. Some pharmacies will deliver.
The Ministry of Health has warned that the medicines may not be suitable for everyone, even if they met eligibility criteria.
New cases
Last week the Ministry of Health announced 11,205 new community cases of Covid-19 in the country in the past week, up from under 10,000 new cases the prior weeks.
New Zealand has also recorded its first case of the new Omicron subvariant BQ.1.1
The BQ.1.1 variant is already causing cases to surge in Europe.
You can find more detailed information here about the anti-viral treatment on the Ministry of Health website
FAKAMATALA FAKATONGA
‘Oku lava ke ma’u ‘a e fo’i’akau ‘enitivailolo ki he Koviti ki he kakai ‘oku nau puke he vailasi.
Ko e fo’i’akau ko eni ke folo ia ‘i loto ‘i he ‘aho nima ‘o ‘ene kamata ‘asi’. ‘Oku fakafuofua ‘e a’u ki he taha miliona e kakai ‘e lava ken au faito’o heni’.
Mei lahi foki e kakai Pasifiki mo Mauli ‘oku ‘i ai honau ngaahi mahaki tauhi kau ki heni mo e kau Kiwi matu’otu’a ange’ pea ‘e lava ke lahi ange faingamalie ken au mate mei he Koviti’.
Fakatatau ki he Potungaue Mo’ui kuo ‘osi fakamo’oni’i ‘a e tokoni ‘a e faito’o kona fakangofua (drugs) ke ne fakasi’isi’i ‘a e tokoto fale mahaki mo e mate’.
The three anti-virals available are Nirmatrelvir with ritonavir (branded as Paxlovid), Molnupiravir (branded as Lagevrio) and Rremdesivir, an infusion treatment (branded as Veklury).
Ko e Paxlovid ‘oku fa’u ia ‘e he Faisa. Na’e pehe ‘e ha lipooti ‘a e New Zealand Herald na’e fa’u ‘eni ke ne fakasi’isi’i ‘a e fakatu’utāmaki ‘e ala fakatokoto ai ‘i fale mahaki pe mate ‘i he vailasi ‘e ala a’u ki he pēseti ‘e 86.
Ko e tafa’aki kovi ‘o e faito’o’ ni ‘e kau ai ‘a e ongo’i mamatea, fakalele, lahi ange ‘a e toto mā’olunga mo e langa ‘a e uoua’. Ko e ngaahi ola ‘eni kuo taku ‘o pehē ‘oku tō lotoloto pe.
Lolotonga ‘a e hoko ‘a e huhu malu’i ko e to’omotafi taha ia ke ne malu’i ‘a e Koviti 19, ‘oku fakaai ‘e he antivirual ha ngaahi faito’o malu’i hono ua kia kinautolu ‘oku tu’u he tu’unga fakatu’utanaki.
Kuopau ke ma’u ‘e he kakai ‘a e faka’ilonga ‘o e Koviti pe tesi positive he Koviti pe ‘i ai ha taha honau fale’ ne ma’u ‘e he Koviti’ kae lava ke toki ma’u ha’ane fo’i’akau ‘enitivailolo.
‘E lava ke ma’u foki ‘e he kakai ‘a e ‘enitīvailolo ko ‘eni’ kapau kuo ma’u ‘a e mahaki tauhi hangē ko e kanisā, mahaki’ia ‘a e ma’ama’a pe halanga mānava’, mafu hangē ko e mahaki ki he halanga toto mo e lumetiki, konisenitolo, suka pe mahaki’ia ‘a e kofuua’, ne ‘osi ‘ave kinautolu ki ha tokangaeikina’anga mahaki tuunga ‘i hano tesi positive kinautolu ‘i he Koviti’.
‘E lava ke ma’u ‘a e pelesikulipisini ko ‘eni mei he toketā fakafamili’ pe ‘e lava pe ma’u ‘ikai ha pelesikulipisini.
Mutated versions of the Covid-19 virus that have appeared in New Zealand this year do not appear to have increased the severity of the disease.
Covid-19
According to the Ministry of Health public health precautions already in place to manage the Omicron variant are still working.
The latest version was detected in July.
A total of six mutations have been identified so far this year. Omicron was first detected in New Zealand in an international traveller who arrived in the country on 10 December 2021. Managed isolation was still being used at that time, so community spread of Omicron was not detected until mid-January.
Two Omicron sub-variants, BA.1 and BA.2, were introduced into New Zealand around the same time. BA.2 became dominant during the first three months of 2022.
BA.2 is the dominant version of the disease circulating in New Zealand at the moment.
New Omicron sub-variants BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 were identified in travellers to New Zealand in late April 2022. These sub-variants were common overseas and likely to gradually replace BA.2, the Ministry said.
The Omicron subvariant BA.2.75 was detected in New Zealand for the first time on July 1, 2022 in two people who arrived in New Zealand.
Experts are still working out how it is transmitted, how it responds to immunisation and how severe it is.
There is no current evidence that it leads to more severe disease.
Because of the changes to the virus, the Omicron variant is more resistant to the protection provided by the original Pfizer vaccine, which was developed against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus.
However, the Ministry said the Pfizer vaccine still provided good protection from infection from the Omicron variant. Vaccination provided very good protection against developing severe disease if a person was infected.
Newer vaccines were being produced specifically for the Omicron variant, but had not yet been approved and were not in commercial production at this stage.
The Ministry said using public health precautions remained important to continue to protect New Zealand communities against Omicron. As well as vaccination, early detection of cases and isolation, staying home if you are sick, washing your hands, wearing a mask, improving ventilation and physical distancing remained important.
Vaccination figures
According to the Ministry’s latest report, the total number of vaccine doses administered nationally is 11,795,062.
The latest national vaccination figures show 596,464 second boosters have been administered.
A total of 2,732,622 first booster shots have been administered.
A total of 90.2% of people over 12 have completed a primary course.
A total of 39.4% of people over 50 eligible for a second booster have received one.
A total of 73.2% of people aged over 18 eligible for a first booster have received one.
Pacific Peoples
According to the Ministry’s latest report, 1123 Pacific Peoples aged between 16 and 7 have had their first booster. A total of 151,445 Pacific Peoples over 18 have received their first booster. A total of 18, 30 Pacific Peoples aged over 50 have received a second booster.
FAKAMATALA FAKATONGA
‘I ai e tui ko e vesini ‘o e vailasi Koviti 19 kuo ‘asi ‘i Nu’u Sila ni he ta’u ni ‘e ‘ikai ke ne tafunaki ‘e ia ‘a e kakaha e tupulaki ‘a e mahaki.
Fakatatau eni ki he fakatokanga mei he Potungaue Mo’ui ke tokangaekina’aki ‘a e Omikoloni.
Ko e e fotunga maliuliungofua pe muteisini ‘e ono ‘o e ‘Omikoloni kuo lava tala he ta’u ni . Ne ‘uluaki ‘ilo ‘a e ‘Omikoloni ‘i Nu’u Sila ‘i ha’ane hū mai ‘i ha taha folau fakavaha’apule’anga ‘o tu’uta mai ‘i Tisema ‘aho 10 2021. Na’e kei ngaue’aki ‘i he taimi ko ia ‘a hono fakamavahe’i ha taha ‘e puke, ko ia ai ne toki a’u mai ki he konga loto ‘o Sanuali kuo ‘ilo kuo ‘osi ma’u ‘a e ‘Omikoloni ‘i he komiunitii’.
Ko e ‘Omikoloni sub-variants ‘e ua ‘a ia ko e BA.1 and BA.2, ne hu mai ia ki Nu’u Sila ‘i he mei taimi tatau pe. Kae lahi ange ‘asi ‘a e BA.2 ‘i he ‘uluaki māhina ‘e tolu ‘o e 2022.
Ko e BA.2 ‘oku lolotonga malohi ‘ene fakaaoaao ‘i Nu’u Sila he taimi ni.
Na’e fuofua ‘ilo ‘a e fotunga subvariant BA.2.75 o e ‘Omikoloni ‘i Nu’u Sila ‘i Siulai ‘aho 2022 ‘i ha toko ua ne na tu’uta mai.
Oku kei ngaue ‘a e kau mataotao ke ‘ilo pe na’e anga fefe ‘ene mafola, angafefe ‘ene fute ki he huhu malu’i pea ‘oku kakaha fefe ‘ene fakatu’utamaki’.
Oku te’eki ai ha fakamooni ‘e hoko ‘eni ko ha mahaki kakaha.
Koeuhi ko e ngaahi liliu ki he vaalasi ‘oku mākalo ange ‘a e Omikoloni taimi ‘oku na fetakai ai mo e huhu malu’i ‘olisinolo Faisa, ‘a ia na’e fa’u ia ke malu’i ‘a e vailasi SARS-CoV-2.
Neongo ia kuo pehē ‘e Potungāue Mo’ui ‘oku kei lelei pe malu’i ‘a e huhu malu’i Faisā.
Ko e ngaahi vekisini fo’ou ange ko e fa’u ia ki he fotunga fo’ou ‘o e ‘Omikoloni, ka ‘oku te’eki ‘apuluvu ia pea ‘oku te’eki fakatau atu foki.
Pehe foki ‘e he Potungaue ‘oku kei mahuinga ‘a e ngaahi fakatokanga kuo tuku mai ke malu’i ‘a e ngaahi komiuniti Nu’u Sila mei he ‘Omikoloni’. Fakataha pe huhu malu’i, ko hono ‘uluaki ‘ilo ha ngaahi keisi ke fakamavahe’i, nofo ‘i ‘api kapau ‘oku ke puke, fanofano ho nima, tui ‘a e masaki, fakalahilahi ‘a e hū’anga ‘ea ki he feitu’u ‘oku ke nofo ai ‘oku kei fu’u mahu’inga ia.
Fakatatau ki he lipooti fakamuimui ‘a e Potungaue ko e fo’i huhu malu’i kuo huhu’i fakafonua ‘eni ‘e 11,795,062.
Ko e fika fakamuimui ko ia ‘oku ‘i ai ‘a e fo’i huhu pusita hono ua ‘e 596,464 mo e huhu malu’i pusitā ‘uluaki ‘e 2,732,622. Ko e fakakatoa ko e peseti ‘e 90.2% o e fanau ta’u ‘ova he 12 kuo lava fakakakato.
Peseti e 39.4% ‘ova he ta’u 50 kuo nau ‘osi huhu pusita.
Pea peseti ‘e 73.2 kakai ‘ova he ta’u 18 kuo ‘osi lava honau ‘uluaki huhu pusita.
Fakatatau ki he lipooti fakamuimui ‘a e Potungaue Mo’ui ko e kakai Pasifiki ‘e toko 1123 vaha’a ta’u 16 mo e 7 kuo ‘osi lava honau huhu pusitā. Ko e toko 151,445 ‘a e kakai Pasifiki ‘ova ‘i he ta’u 18 kuo ‘osi lava honau huhu pusitā ‘uluaki pea toko 1830 ‘ova he ta’u 50 kuo pusitā ua.
Tongan sports hero Dame Valerie Adams is the subject of a new biopic opening in New Zealand this Thursday, October 20.
Dame Tongi Tupe oe Funga Taua Valerie Adams
Directed by Briar March, the 90 minute film traces the story of the two-time Olympic gold medallist from her beginnings in South Auckland to become one of New Zealand’s most celebrated athletes.
She competed in the shotput in her fifth Olympic games in Tokyo where she won bronze, after a best throw of 19.62 metres.
“I just hope to continue to inspire female athletes all around the world,” she said at the time.
“If you want to have a kid and you want to come back and be at the top of the world, you can … you can absolutely do that.”
“I am just so grateful for the opportunity again to compete for New Zealand, have this flag draped around my back.”
She won gold at the Olympics in 2008 in Beijing and 2012 in London and silver in Rio in 2016.
She had an unbeaten streak across more than 100 competitions at all levels and was consistently one of the world’s greatest shot putters for a decade or more.
Adams was appointed to High Performance Sport New Zealand when she retired. She was made a Dame in 2017.
Adams is one of 18 children, all of whom have done well at sport, and grew up in poverty in South Auckland.
Over the course of 25 years Dame Valerie has conquered adversity time and time again. She was bullied at school and competed barefoot at her first shotput competition because she could not afford shoes. At 15 she nursed her dying mother while watching the Sydney 2000 Olympics on TV, the moment that inspired her Olympic dream. She competed in Tokyo when she was 36.
She has been married twice and has two children with her second husband, Gabriel Price. She suffered a number of severe health problems including ruptured discs and a Caesarean that nearly killed her.
A sea incident where two fishermen had no means of communication with them, and the boat had no life jackets and beacon prompted reminder from Tonga Police.
Tonga Police
It said Police in ‘Eua around 5pm on Saturday, October 15, 2022 responded to a report of an overdue fishing boat with two fishermen on board.
At around 6am on Saturday, October 15, 2022, two men, aged 32 and 38 of Tufuvai, ‘Eua departed ‘Ohonua coastline on an 8ft fiber boat with a 30-horsepower outboard motor engine to Kalau Island (3.7km from the Southwest of ‘Eua) for fishing, and was due to return at 9 – 10am that same morning.
When they failed to return three hours after their expected arrival time, the boat owner reported the matter to Police.
It was clear from his report that the two men had no means of communication with them, and the boat had no life jackets and beacon.
The Police at ‘Eua promptly launched a search and rescue operation by using a local fishing boat, which transported police with a couple of fishermen, heading to Kalau Island. Fortunately, they located the missing boat at around 7pm near Ha’aluma Beach with both passengers alive and well.
The two fishermen confirmed that they came across an engine failure at around 10am. Because the boat anchor rope broke, they had to use the engine instead as an anchor to slow down drifting.
Tonga Police would like to strongly remind the public and all seafarers, especially fishermen, boat operators, and swimmers, to make sure that basic safety precautions and measures are considered and are in place before embarking on your sea trip.
This should include confirming weather forecasts and the boat to be appropriately equipped with means of communication, life jackets, a beacon, and enough food supplies. We urge that all seafarers take their responsibility for individual safety seriously. Some of these situations are avoidable, so we need seafarers to do their part.
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Lord Fohe has no right to evict a family who have been living on land granted to them by the late Lord Fohe.
And the late Noble’s daughter, who represented his interests for seven years, has described the current title holder’s behaviour as shocking. Lord Fohe is now the government’s Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (MAFF).
The Court of Appeal accepted that the late Lord Fohe had granted the land on his hereditary estate of Puke, that money and traditional gifts had been paid in recognition of the grant and that subsequently the land had been developed and a house built.
The appeal was heard before Judges Whitten, de Jersey, Harrison and Heath.
In his summary of the hearing, Judge Harrison said that until his death in 2009, Samiu Fohe held the hereditary title of Fohe and the hereditary estate of Puke in Tongatapu. After his death, the present title holder was appointed as successor by King Tupou VI in 2016.
In the latter stages of the late Fohe’s life, his daughter, Lupe, acted as his representative. That role afforded her the status of a “landholder” or “holder” of the estate. She continued in that role in the period between the late Fohe’s death and the installation of the current Lord Fohe in 2016.
Before the late Fohe’s death, Ve’etutu Mahe, asked him for an allotment on the hereditary estate. Mr Mahe said he had taken possession of part of the estate and had made customary gifts to the late Fohe, as well as carrying out some repairs and maintenance to the late Fohe’s house without charge.
In the period between the late Fohe’s death and the appointment of Lord Fohe in 2016, Mr Mahe built a house on the land, in which he and his family now live. Mr Mahe said the late Fohe had promised to arrange a grant of the allotment and registration in his name, but that was not completed before his death.
Following his installation, Lord Fohe indicated he was not prepared to honour any promise of the type that Mr Mahe alleged had been made and issued a claim in the Land Court before Judge Niu to evict Mr Mahe from the area that he occupied. At the time the proceeding was issued, there were four defendants, but Mr Mahe was the only one who actively defended the claim.
Judge Niu ruled that Lord Fohe ought to have taken charge of his father’s estate and inheritance. He appointed the town officer as his representative only after he assumed the title.
By that time Mr Mahe and his wife and children had already been residents of the estate for two years. This meant they has already become “lawfully resident” in Puke.
Judge Niu further ruled that the newly appointed Lord Fohe could not evict Mr Mahe and his family or seek damages from them. However, he rejected Mr Mahe’s counterclaim for a grant of the allotment. Lord Fohe appealed Judge Niu’s decision.
The Court of appeal supported Judge Niu’s finding that Lord Fohe could not evict Mr Mahe because he had acquiesced in Mr Mahe’s occupation of the property.
Judge Harrison said that in appreciation for the grant of the land Mr Mahe had given Lord Fohe a total of TP$5500 over the years, as well as customary gifts of yams and pigs.
The late Lord Fohe’s daughter Lupe, who took care of his interests for several years, said she had asked the land surveyor to sub-divide the whole area of land (of 14 acres) so that the piece of land allocated to Mr Mahe could be registered, but that her father died before that could be done.
Mahe began building his house on the land in 2012.The town officer, Malolo Tupou, was aware of the construction of the house, but he did not stop it or question the right of the defendant to build it and to live in it with his family.
“The late Fohe indicated to Mr Mahe the allotment on which he subsequently built, and his daughter Lupe, while the late Fohe’s representative, set in train the process for subdivision and registration, although that was not accomplished prior to the late Fohe’s death,” Judge Harrison said.
“Lupe also encouraged Mr Mahe to build on the land after the death of late Fohe.”
Judge Harrison said Lupe had acted as the de facto representative of the late Fohe’s eventual successor before he took up the title.
Given Mr Mahe’s occupation and development of the land the late Fohe would have been stopped in law from evicting Mr Mahe and so was Lord Fohe, who raised no issue until the Notice to Vacate was issued in May 2017.
In her evidence to the Court of Appeal, Lupe said she was shocked by Lord Fohe’s behaviour in the case.
“I didn’t anticipate that he would treat the people this way” she told the court.
“I thought that he would continue with good grace the work my father did and that is why I was shocked.”
Mutated versions of the Covid-19 virus that have appeared in New Zealand this year do not appear to have increased the severity of the disease.
According to the Ministry of Health public health precautions already in place to manage the Omicron variant are still working.
The latest version was detected in July.
A total of six mutations have been identified so far this year. Omicron was first detected in New Zealand in an international traveller who arrived in the country on 10 December 2021. Managed isolation was still being used at that time, so community spread of Omicron was not detected until mid-January.
Two Omicron sub-variants, BA.1 and BA.2, were introduced into New Zealand around the same time. BA.2 became dominant during the first three months of 2022.
BA.2 is the dominant version of the disease circulating in New Zealand at the moment.
New Omicron sub-variants BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 were identified in travellers to New Zealand in late April 2022. These sub-variants were common overseas and likely to gradually replace BA.2, the Ministry said.
The Omicron subvariant BA.2.75 was detected in New Zealand for the first time on July 1, 2022 in two people who arrived in New Zealand.
Experts are still working out how it is transmitted, how it responds to immunisation and how severe it is.
There is no current evidence that it leads to more severe disease.
Because of the changes to the virus, the Omicron variant is more resistant to the protection provided by the original Pfizer vaccine, which was developed against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus.
However, the Ministry said the Pfizer vaccine still provided good protection from infection from the Omicron variant. Vaccination provided very good protection against developing severe disease if a person was infected.
Newer vaccines were being produced specifically for the Omicron variant, but had not yet been approved and were not in commercial production at this stage.
The Ministry said using public health precautions remained important to continue to protect New Zealand communities against Omicron. As well as vaccination, early detection of cases and isolation, staying home if you are sick, washing your hands, wearing a mask, improving ventilation and physical distancing remained important.
Vaccination figures
According to the Ministry’s latest report, the total number of vaccine doses administered nationally is 11,795,062.
The latest national vaccination figures show 596,464 second boosters have been administered.
A total of 2,732,622 first booster shots have been administered.
A total of 90.2% of people over 12 have completed a primary course.
A total of 39.4% of people over 50 eligible for a second booster have received one.
A total of 73.2% of people aged over 18 eligible for a first booster have received one.
Pacific Peoples
According to the Ministry’s latest report, 1123 Pacific Peoples aged between 16 and 7 have had their first booster. A total of 151,445 Pacific Peoples over 18 have received their first booster. A total of 18, 30 Pacific Peoples aged over 50 have received a second booster.
‘Etuate and Akosita Lavulavu have been granted a retrial.
Minister of Infrastructure ‘Akosita Lavulavu and husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu. Photo/Akosita Lavulavu (Facebook)
In their report on the hearing in the Court of Appeal, Judges Hansen, de Jersey, Harrison and Heath said the original trial under Judge Cooper had gone “badly awry” and that he had acted outside the bounds of his role.
However, the panel of four judges who heard the appeal said sufficient evidence had been presented at the original trial to have gained a conviction on a correct application of relevant legal principles. A retrial was therefore necessary.
The former politicians were convicted by Judge Cooper of three joint charges of obtaining TP$553,800 by false pretences for the private education body, the the ‘Unuaki ‘O Tonga Royal Institute. They were both sentenced to six years’ in prison.
The last 12 months of Mrs Lavulavu’s sentence was suspended in for two years on condition that she comply with the directions of her probation officer, satisfactorily complete a life skills course and commit no offence punishable by imprisonment.
Both Mrs Lavulavu and her husband appeal against conviction and sentence. Their appeal was based on claims that Judge Cooper erred in his analysis of the elements of the offence; that he erred in holding that the principles of agency could be invoked for the purpose of proving the offences, that he erred in finding there was evidence sufficient to establish guilt and that he was biased and/or that the conduct of the trial was unfair.
The four judges who heard the Lavulavus’ appeal found that Judge Cooper had erred in the first count by not considering all elements of the defence.
They found in favour of the second claim, saying that Judge Cooper should not have relied on the principle of agency to determine the case.
“The rules of agency with their particular requirements relating to knowledge and authority have no place in a case such as this,” they said.
“”We see no reason why the evidence should not be analysed in the usual way by considering whether the elements of the offence have been established, if necessary by reference to the statutory provisions for establishing guilt as a party.”
However, they dismissed the argument that Judge Cooper had not found sufficient evidence of guilt. They said there was ample evidence to support the judge’s findings.
The Lavulavus claimed the trial was unfair. They accused Judge Cooper of “excessive judicial interventions and conduct which conveyed a predetermined and adverse view of their case.” During the trial they asked for the judge to step down, which he refused to do.
The four judges said the trial threatened to involve up to 100 witness and Judge Cooper had a right to try to manage it so that it flowed smoothly. This meant that he had to ask more questions and intervene more often than usual. They said the situation was not helped by the fact that Mr Lavulavu represented himself, which added greatly to the judge’s workload.
However, the judges found that Judge Cooper’s questions and interventions took him beyond the boundaries of his role as a judge and that at times he effectively became a second prosecutor. They said there was also evidence that the judge held strong views on certain issues. Quoting the UK Privy Council, they said: “”The need for the judge to steer clear of advocacy is more acute still in criminal cases. It is imperative that a party to litigation, above all a convicted defendant, will leave court feeling that he has had a fair trial, or at least that a reasonable observer having attended the proceedings would so regard it.”
“Having regard to these principles and to the aspects of the trial earlier set out, we are left in no doubt that the appellants are fully justified in feeling that they did not have a fair trial and that a fair minded observer would agree with them.”
“The irregularities have referred to resulted in a trial that went badly awry. In what we assume to have been a well-intentioned attempt to expedite the trial, the Judge persistently and, in some cases, egregiously exceeded his proper function. It was understandable that the appellants should feel the Judge was not acting impartially and inevitable that a fair minded observer would share that view.
“There is accordingly ample evidence to support findings of apparent bias on the part of the Judge and that the trial was unfair. The verdicts cannot stand.
“We are satisfied, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support convictions on a correct application of relevant legal principles. A retrial must accordingly follow.”
