EDITOR’S NOTE:This commentary was edited to reflect the fact that the response from the Deputy Clerk was meant to say that the Parliament using the circular was a normal means of communication.
COMMENTARY: It is time for the practice of using circulars to make decisions in Parliament was reviewed.
Circulars should only be used on agendas that are urgent.
They should not be used on important issues such as pay rises for Parliamentarians.
Such issues should be properly debated in the House so that they can be recorded in the minutes for the public to read and also broadcast for people to listen.
As Kaniva News reported yesterday, the government’s use of a circular to canvas MPs’ views on a pay rise has been called into question.
However, the Legislative Assembly’s Deputy Clerk, Dr Sione Vikilani, said the circular was a normal means of communication approved by the House and any information sent through it was legal.
In Tongan he said: “Ko e tohi ‘avetakai ko e founga ngāue pe ‘oku ‘ataa ke ngaue’aki pea ‘oku ‘ikai ke ta’efakalao ha tu’utu’uni ‘i hono fakahoko ‘i he founga koia”.
Dr Vikilani did not respond to a question asking why a circular was used to ballot the pay hike and not a face-to-face voting in the House.
In 2018 Tonga’s former Prime Minister, the late ‘Akilisi Pōhiva, warned that using circulars in Parliament was open to abuse.
Speaking to Kaniva News, Pōhiva said the use of circulars was normal but did not allow for discussion.
MPs, especially the Opposition, could not debate whatever agenda was being circulated.
He said that traditionally Speakers and the Noble’s representatives, who were mostly the majority in the House, used it to ballot issues they wanted to be decided in their favour.
The late Prime Minister’s comments were made during an interview in 2018 about the decision to approve an invitation from the Tonga Rugby League for a Parliament delegation to attend a match.
The decision was adopted through a circular, by collective resolution of Parliament.
Prime Minister Pōhiva’s concerns are just as relevant today as they were four years ago.
Debates and voting in the House must be open so that all citizens can see how their MPs voted and debate can be held in public.
This was illustrated in our story yesterday when Dr Vikilani would not say how MPs voted on the circular.
A Parliament with secrets is not truly democratic.
Explainer – In November, Tonga’s so-called democracy will mark 15 years—an anniversary not of progress, but of deception.
Lord Sevele (in the middle), King George V (left), and King Tupou VI—symbolising Tonga’s complex democratic journey. Sevele, once a reform advocate, later opposed the very changes initiated under King George V’s democratic vision. King Tupou VI, successor to George V, has been seen as reluctant to advance the reforms, leaving Tonga’s democratic future uncertain.
What was once heralded as a historic shift from absolute to representative governance has proven to be little more than an illusion —a meticulously crafted façade that dupes citizens into believing their votes grant true accountability, when in reality, corrupt powerholders remain entrenched beyond the reach of democratic checks.
For over 40 years, Tonga’s democratic reforms were championed by the nation’s foremost scholars and patriots—figures such as former Deputy Prime Minister Langikavaliku, Catholic Bishop Patelesio Finau, Free Wesleyan President Dr Sione ‘Amanaki Havea, Professor Futa Helu of ‘Atenisi University and democracy advocate ‘Akilisi Pōhiva.
Their movement gained undeniable momentum, with Pōhiva’s unbroken parliamentary presence from 1987 to 2019—culminating in his premiership from 2014 until his death.
This vision was ultimately realised by King George V, who relinquished his executive powers to an elected government in 2010
Democracy’s Broken Promise Exposed
Yet when Lord Tuʻivakanō’s government took office after the November 2010 general election—becoming the first to test the new democracy—it immediately encountered constitutional flaws that undermined transparency, accountability, and good governance: the very crux of any democratic system.
Rather than a functioning democracy, Tonga was left with a fractured system—its promise of reform diluted by inconsistencies that preserved the old guard’s power.
The Tuʻivakanō government acted swiftly, commissioning Trinidad and Tobago’s constitutional law expert, Peters Pursglove, to review the 2010 constitution and report his findings.
Constitutional Failure Undermining Democracy
In 2014, Pursglove’s assessment of Tonga’s 2010 constitution—believed to have been primarily drafted by Lord Dalgety (now one of the king’s law lords) and enacted under Lord Sevele’s government—was unequivocal: the reforms had failed to establish genuine democracy.
Pursglove said the constitution is poorly written, promotes secrecy, has compromised the role of the judiciary and parts of it may be illegal.
Tonga’s 2010 constitution does not uphold democracy
The Privy Council lacks any democratic composition or accountability
The judiciary lacks accountability and transparency.
Changes to the judiciary are inefficient, ineffective, unaffordable and possibly illegal.
No public discussions were held regarding the reforms to the judiciary or why they were considered necessary.
“The present Constitution of Tonga can lay claim to being the most poorly structured and drafted Constitution of any Country in the Commonwealth,” the report says.
The Pursglove report also recommended transferring appointment powers for both the Attorney-General and Police Commissioner to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
King George V died in Hong Kong on March 18, 2012, before the Pursglove report was completed and submitted to both the government and Parliament in 2014. It is understood that a copy of the report was handed to King Tupou VI.
Initiators Oppose Pursglove Findings
The report’s recommendations were adopted by ʻAkilisi Pōhiva’s government after it came to power in 2015 and following its victory in the 2017 snap election. The Pursglove report’s findings were consolidated into six government bills, widely known in Tongan as “Fo’i lao ‘e Ono”, and were presented to Parliament by the Pōhiva government.
However, the six bills faced immediate resistance from the very architects of the Pursglove report.
Noble MPs and former Cabinet ministers—many of whom held dual legislative and executive roles when the Cabinet approved Pursglove’s hiring in 2011—fiercely obstructed implementation of his recommendations during parliamentary debates. Many believe the opposition from these elites was not due to the Pursglove reports themselves but rather their political malice toward Pōhiva.
This culminated in the Pōhiva government threatening to sue Chairman Lord Tuʻilakepa, accusing him of systematically and unnecessarily prolonging the parliamentary debates.
Tuʻilakepa finally apologised and allowed the report to be tabled in early September 2019, but Pōhiva passed away on the 12th before its adoption.
However, Pōhiva’s attempt to implement the report’s recommendations is widely believed to have prompted King Tupou VI’s 2017 dissolution of Parliament – revealing the monarch’s reluctance to continue his elder brother George V’s democratic reforms.
Following Pōhiva’s death, the subsequent Prime Minister, Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa, told Kaniva News that he had withdrawn the bills, citing more pressing policy priorities.
The Pursglove report remains shelved, with neither legislative nor executive branches willing to enact its proposed reforms.
The king’s democracy dream: What went wrong?
Despite King George V publicly announcing his willingness to relinquish executive powers, the political transition process relied heavily on Lord Fred Sevele, who had served as Prime Minister prior to the democratic reform transition.
Unfortunately, the relationship between Sevele and democratic leader ‘Akilisi Pōhiva had already deteriorated, transforming their former political alliance in support of democracy into outright antagonism—with Sevele now viewed as an adversary by democracy advocates.
The king’s democratic endorsement—intended to enable a smooth transition—faced immediate backlash, particularly from Lord Sevele, whose public remarks openly discouraged and dissatisfied democratic reformers.
Following the 2006 devastation of Nuku’alofa’s CBD, democracy advocate Dr Sitiveni Halapua, argued Sevele’s deliberate stalling of the reforms, which were first set to be implemented earlier than 2010, had provoked the explosive unrest.
This aligned with Sevele’s 2009 RNZ Pacific statement, just one year ahead of the power transition, opposing full relinquishment of royal powers.
Sevele vs Constitutional and Electoral Commission
Former Tongan Attorney General John Cauchi previously told Kaniva News that the kingdom’s fundamental political problems stem from its constitution.
Cauchi argued that the government’s efforts to amend laws and revise the constitution shortly after the Pursglove report was released would be unnecessary had the kingdom’s democratic reforms originally followed the recommendations of the Constitutional and Electoral Commission (CEC), chaired by former Chief Justice Gordon Ward.
The CEC was established to gather public input on the desired form of a democratic constitution, present its findings to Parliament, and oversee the 2010 constitutional and electoral reforms.
Cauchi’s comment revealed how Sevele’s unwillingness to support King George V’s relinquishment of his executive powers to the people became not just a matter of public debate but would later be enshrined in a constitution that could jeopardise the democratic transition.
Even before the CEC’s final report was submitted, the Commissioners were concerned that they would be ignored and that Lord Sevele’s government would proceed independently.
The CEC’s recommendations were not adopted, and Lord Sevele’s government proceeded with its own submission, which led to the controversial 2010 constitution.
Recommendations
The main recommendations of the 2009 Constitutional and Electoral Commission were:
That the King and Privy Council should no longer be part of the Executive Government and
the Executive Government should be the Cabinet answerable to the Legislative Assembly .
Government was to be a Constitutional Monarchy rather than a Constitutional Government.
The Government of this Kingdom was to be divided into three bodies: Cabinet, the Legislative Assembly and the judiciary.
The Monarch would appoint as Prime Minister the elected member of the Assembly recommended by the Assembly under a selection procedure provided in the Constitution and the Monarch would appoint as Ministers those individuals nominated by the Prime Minister.
The Privy Council, of which Cabinet used to be part, would be an advisory body.
Cabinet was now limited to the Prime Minister and 11 Ministers nominated by him.
There would be no unelected ministers or cabinet members.
The Parliamentary term should be three years. The Commission observed that “the longer the term, the less effective will be the power of voters” to control an ineffective or poor government.
The right of every representative to introduce a Bill should be enshrined in the Constitution.
There should be provision to secure sufficient time for proper consideration of all Bills of public interest by the members of the general public.
All members of the public, including the media, should have full access to the Journal of the proceedings of the Assembly and to all the records of the public meetings of the Assembly.
Explainer – The Eke government’s newly passed Bill—handing full control of Foreign Affairs back to the monarchy—threatens to unravel Tonga’s fragile democratic progress.
The Late King George V announced the relinquishment of his executive powers in 2010, declaring the constitution should be kept alive with changes to suit Tonga’s progress. The late monarch’s historic compromise paved the way for democratic reforms—a legacy now challenged by the Eke government’s recent rollback of parliamentary authority. (AP Photo/New Zealand Herald)
This move directly undermines the 2010 reforms that sought to transfer executive power from the palace to Parliament, a hard-won compromise championed by the late King George V himself.
By restoring royal authority over a key ministry, the legislation risks reviving the very “mistakes” the king once warned against: a retreat from accountable governance toward unchecked monarchy.
During a 2010 ABC News interview, King George V revealed that his nobles had strongly opposed the reforms, arguing Tonga might have prospered better under its previous absolute monarchy when the king held complete executive control.
The king countered this view by stating, “You can’t expect to keep repeating the same mistakes and expect a different result because that would be totally unreasonable.”
From Reform To Reversal
Tonga’s 2010 democratic reforms emerged from years of systemic corruption and abuse of power within the monarchy. The movement gained urgency following multiple high-profile scandals:
The passport sale debacle: Over 8,000 passports illegally sold to foreigners, with US$92 million in proceeds disappearing from U.S. bank accounts. Following legal action against the unlawful sales of the passports, the king amended the constitution to retroactively legitimise the practice. The sales let hundreds of Chinese legally immigrate to Tonga, where they now dominate and control many local businesses.
Royal Tongan Airlines’ collapse: The national carrier failed during King Tupou VI’s tenure as Prime Minister, costing taxpayers about $30 millions.
Princess Pilolevu’s controversies: Including the unlawful transfer of a $90 million Chinese grant and involvement in Tongasat’s satellite slot allocations.
Mismanaged Chinese loans: A $120 million post-riot reconstruction loan from China was mishandled during the Sevele government.
These incidents—along with countless opaque, royally controlled projects—left Tongans demanding accountability through democratic reform. Yet no one was ever held accountable.
Pro-democracy reformers always maintained that royal involvement in governance creates an accountability vacuum – the king answers to no one for his use of public funds.
Prior to the Eke Bill’s passage, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs operated outside normal oversight structures—unlike the twenty ministries under the Public Service Commission.
This exemption allowed its chief executive to avoid the performance reviews required of other executives, creating systemic inequities.
The Eke Bill—passed without public consultation—follows years of clashes between the Palace and government over control of Foreign Affairs.
The late Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva refused to bow to pressure from King Tupou VI regarding control of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Pōhiva maintained that such authority constitutionally belonged solely to the elected government.
Several years later, Prime Minister Huʻakavameiliku’s legal dispute with King Tupou VI’s private secretary over the operation of the Ministry resulted in the monarch revoking confidence in both Defence Minister Hu’akavameiliku and former Foreign Minister Fekitamoeloa ʻUtoikamanu.
Democracy Eroded By Decree
The His Majesty’s Diplomatic Service Bill 2025, passed on August 5, dissolves the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and replaces it with His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services, placing all diplomatic, consular, and immigration powers under direct royal oversight.
The legislation empowers His Majesty’s Diplomatic Services to create its governing Board, along with provisions for administration, overseas appointments, regulations, and transition protocols.
Critics warn this move dismantles a cornerstone of Tonga’s hard-won democracy, reversing the very reforms King George V once called a “natural development” for the nation.
Tonga’s fragile democracy—more than a decade in the making—was the result of a combination of King George V’s political vision, the advocacy of the country’s leading scholars that can be traced back to 1970s proposal to Cabinet by former Deputy Prime Minister Langikavaliku, and the efforts of church leaders, spearheaded by Tonga’s Defender of Democracy title holder and former Prime Minister, ‘Akilisi Pōhiva.
“You can’t expect to keep repeating the same mistakes and expect a different result,” King George V cautioned his peers in the nobility who resisted democracy. Today, as the monarchy reclaims control over critical state functions, many fear his warning has gone unheeded—and that Tonga’s fragile democracy may be entering its most precarious chapter yet.
But why did King George V relinquish his executive authority while retaining ceremonial and traditional royal prerogatives?
To answer this, Kaniva News reproduces the monarch’s own words from a pivotal 2010 interview with ABC’s Bruce Hill, conducted as Tonga prepared for democratic reforms.
In this unedited transcript, King George V explains his historic decision—and his vision for a modern Tongan monarchy.
A Monarch’s Democratic Vision
An interview in November 2010 between King George V and ABC broadcaster Bruce Hill about the king’s commitment to transitioning Tonga to democracy is reproduced verbatim below.
His Majesty King George V (HMKGV):
I think it’s the natural development of the original 19th century constitution. It’s an attempt to take the principles of that Constitution and apply them in 21st century idiom, which of course has to be democracy.
Bruce Hill (ABC Broadcaster):
Is it something you particularly support?
HMKGV:
Yes. Yes. I have always wanted to do this for the country, and it’s a very practical idea in that our political life has to travel at the same speed and same level as the development of our economic life.
B Hill:
Is Tonga ready for this kind of more representative system, do you think?
HMKGV:
I believe so because for the past 150 years we have had very democratic institutions, mainly the Churches, like the Christian Churches in Western Europe, even during the middle ages. These are probably the only truly democratic institutions which have existed in the country. For example, Church affairs are discussed freely by the members who elect the officials, and Bishops and Presidents and it’s the one of the institutions in Tonga where a person of relatively humble beginnings can rise to positions of great power and influence by his own talents without autocratic patronage.
B Hill:
What happens to your role as Monarch under the new system? Are your powers diminished or decreased or be simply changed?
HMKGV:
Officially, the sovereign’s power remains unchanged because under our Monarchy we have a unity of power as opposed to a separation of power. The difference in the future is that I shall not be able to exercise any of my power, at will. All the Sovereign’s powers must be exercised solely on the advice of the Prime Minister in most things, and in judicial matters, it’s the Law Lords who advise on the exercise of power. In that case I suppose, we are different from other nominal monarchies which retained their trappings of monarchies but actually govern themselves as republics.
B Hill:
Historically Kings have resisted diminution of their powers. Why do you think this is the way to go?
HMKGV:
Well, like others of my generation my education has generally been a liberal –European education and I feel sure that without a European education …er with a solely Tongan education, I don’t believe I would have been able to make these changes.
B Hill:
The events of 2006 when a Pro-Democracy rally got out of hand and there was rioting and burning and looting and much of the Central Business District of Nuku’alofa was destroyed. What role did that event play in getting this kind of political change? Did it speed things up or were these changes going to happen now anyway?
HMKGV:
There were changes …I think the changes would have happened anyway. But what the riots did for me … it vindicated my belief in the ‘systems’ approach to change …which was compartmentalising each stage of the revolution, and putting each stage under the charge or tutelage of different groups in society and government.
B Hill:
After seeing the destruction of what’s called 16/11 did you feel under more pressure to move towards this change?
HMKGV:
I didn’t feel under pressure from below. But the pressure I felt was the pressure not to change which was exerted on me from my own class of society.
B Hill:
What form did that pressure take?
HMKGV:
People expressed to me their views … my fellow Nobility expressed to me their views, that perhaps Tonga was far better off as it was before under the old system. Well I had a simple answer to that … and that was, you can’t expect to keep repeating the same mistakes and expect a different result because that would be totally unreasonable.
B Hill:
Tonga is a very traditional kind of a system and the role of the monarchy is very important in society. Will this political change mean a change in relationship between you and the Tongan people?
HMKGV:
I don’t believe so. The relationship between the Monarchy in Tonga and the people is one of blood … and indeed with the Nobility as well. In that every Tongan … there is a Tongan phrase that literally means, “Every Tongan has a road to the Palace”, which means that if you go back far enough in your ancestry you can find that you are related to this Nobleman or that one or even to the King. In the past the basis for this relationship has been one relative speaking to another… that’s how they felt about it.
B Hill:
Is this new system ideal as it is or do you think there might be more change further down the road?
HMKGV:
Well what we have done is we have given it our best shot and said, this is the model we have come up with … that’s the present government and I. But I hope that in the future if the government or the parliament, find that what we’ve put up or what we’ve proposed is inadequate in any way that they will feel free to make the necessary adjustments …you know…. It’s not an unchangeable thing. I think our constitution should be kept alive with minor changes and adjustments to suit life … as the country progresses.
You can follow this link to listen to the interview
United States — A second explosive video of Tongans brawling in a sacred space has gone viral just days after footage of lawmakers fighting in Tonga’s Parliament shocked the world.
Fists Fly in God’s House: Tongan Church Fight Follows Parliament Brawl, Exposing Cultural Crisis
The latest incident, captured during a church service in the U.S., shows a woman violently attacking another congregant as worshippers struggle to separate them, with punches thrown and profanity echoing through the Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga.
Swearing can be heard throughout the video, contrasting starkly with the normally reverent atmosphere of a church gathering.
Some worshippers attempted to de-escalate the situation, while others stood by in shock.
Social Media Reacts
The video has since spread rapidly online, sparking outrage and debate.
Many viewers expressed dismay over the disrespect shown in a house of worship, while others questioned what led to the altercation.
“This is not the kind of example we should be setting, especially in front of our children and elders,” wrote one Tongan community leader on Facebook.
“Whatever the disagreement was, it should have been resolved with words, not violence.”
While the identities of those involved have not been officially confirmed, members of the Tongan diaspora are urging church leadership to address the incident.
Some are demanding accountability, including possible disciplinary action, to prevent future disruptions.
“The church is supposed to be a place of peace and forgiveness,” said a longtime member of the congregation who wished to remain anonymous.
“We need to reflect on how this happened and how we can heal from it.”
As of now, no official statement has been released by the church’s administration regarding the fight or whether any disciplinary measures will be taken.
However, sources indicate that internal discussions are underway.
“This isn’t just about one fight—it’s about how we handle disagreements as a community,” said a Tongan youth advocate.
“We need to find better ways to communicate before things escalate like this again.”
Tonga’s Parliamentary Brawl
The church brawl comes just days after Tonga’s Parliament saw its own sacred space of democracy violated when two senior leaders – including Police Minister Paula Piveni Piukala – came to blows during a session.
The Legislative Assembly suspended both Piukala and Lord Tu’ilakepa after their physical altercation brought debate to a halt, marking one of the most disgraceful moments in recent parliamentary history.
AUCKLAND, NZ – Amid growing concerns over dawn raids and deportations targeting the Tongan community, a Tongan immigration consultant has successfully secured permanent residency for an overstaying family—offering a glimmer of hope for others in similar situations.
(L – R) Koli Vanisi (Director of Pacific Immigration Consultancy & Services Limited, Pauli, Lute and Linda Ongo’ivaha. Photo/Supplied
The case involved a Tongan family who had overstayed their visas, making their immigration status extremely difficult to regularise.
However, Koli Vanisi, director of Pacific Immigration Consultancy & Services Limited, fought their case against Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and won, securing them a permanent residence permit.
This victory comes just hours after a Tongan father was arrested by immigration officers this week, sparking fear and frustration within the community.
Vanisi is now urging overstayers not to lose hope, insisting that even complex cases can be resolved with the right legal approach.
No Case Is Too Hard
Linda Ongoivaha,57, and her two children, Pauli, 19, and Lute Mafi ,17, arrived in New Zealand from Tonga on May 3, 2008, on a visitor visa, Vānisi told Kaniva News.
The mother made multiple attempts through lawyers and licensed immigration advisers to secure legal residency in the country, but none were successful.
Vanisi worked on this case, resulting in a ruling (Order) by the New Zealand Immigration Protection Tribunal on August 4, 2025, granting Linda and her two children a Resident Visa, according to Immigration documents seen by Kaniva News.
Immigration New Zealand finalised the tribunal’s decision on August 5, 2025.
“There are people who believe no consultant or lawyer can help them because they think their case is too complex,” Vanisi said.
“But I invite them to come and talk to me—let’s see what can be done.”
Vanisi, who has years of experience in immigration law, says he has regularly battled INZ in tribunals over tough cases—and won.
His latest success with the Tongan family proves that even long-term overstayers may still have pathways to legal status.
A Call to Action for the Tongan Community
With increasing reports of early-morning immigration arrests, many Pacific families live in fear of deportation.
Vanisi’s message is clear: “Don’t wait until it’s too late.”
“If you’re worried about your status, come and see me,” he said.
“We can assess your situation and fight for your right to stay.”
Vanisi is no stranger to the community, as we have regularly reported on his immigration successes—helping Tongans who overstayed their visas finally secure permanent residency.
We have covered his previous wins in tribunal and Immigration NZ cases, including securing residency for Tongans who overstayed for up to 30 years.
Even in cases where Tongans had only been in New Zealand for just over two years and faced medical issues, Vanisi successfully secured their visa approvals.
Editor’s note:This story has been updated to clarify that the arrest by immigration officers did not occur at dawn, and to include Immigration New Zealand’s response.
A Tongan man was arrested for overstaying his visa, while his wife was permitted to remain with their children, according to a live social media broadcast by the mother this morning.
The incident, which occurred this morning, has sparked renewed discussions about the humanitarian considerations in NZ’s immigration enforcement practice
In an emotional Facebook livestreamed video, the mother described being awakened by a knock early this morning, before officers took her husband into custody shortly after he opened the door.
The emotional mother called this God’s will for their return to Tonga after 15 years as overstayers.
It appeared the operation was part of New Zealand Immigration’s routine compliance measures.
Through tears, the mother explained they’d followed proper channels – hiring a lawyer and obtaining an official case number. “We showed the officers the number,” she said, “but they took him anyway.”
The livestreamed video was shared over 500 times and garnered thousands of reactions, with commenters overwhelmingly expressing sympathy for the family’s plight.
“Heartbreaking to see our people treated like criminals! 15 years building a life only to be torn apart,” a commenter wrote.
“NZ should show more compassion to our Pasifika families,” another wrote in Tongan.
“How can they separate fathers from children? This system is broken. That family contributed to NZ for years – where’s the grace?”
“I sympathize but… 15 years illegal? Come on. Why never try fix visa?
“Now kids suffer because of parents’ mistakes. Hard lesson.”
“Many of us migrated the right way – working hard for papers. This makes it harder for all Tongans trying to do things properly.”
INZ Acknowledges Hardship But Offers No Path
The visa processing body has expressed understanding of the hardships this Tongan family is enduring.
“Immigration New Zealand remains committed to upholding the integrity of the immigration system and ensuring that individuals residing in New Zealand do so lawfully,” said Steve Watson, General Manager Immigration Compliance and Investigations
“Mr and Mrs Tonga have been living unlawfully in New Zealand for an extended period. Mr Tonga’s visa expired on 26 June 2008, and Mrs Tonga’s visa expired on 30 April 2012.
“Over the years, the couple have made several attempts to resolve their immigration status, including multiple unsuccessful section 61 requests and at least three ministerial intervention requests between 2020 and 2024.
“Immigration Compliance has worked closely with the family to identify lawful pathways. Despite these efforts, the family did not make arrangements to leave New Zealand. As a result, deportation notices were served during regular operating hours on 11 August 2025.
“Mr Tonga was detained under the Immigration Act and transported to the Auckland Custody Unit for the purpose of deportation. Mrs Tonga was served with a Deportation Order and released under a Residence and Reporting Requirements Agreement (RRRA), taking into account the couple’s two children. Although born in New Zealand, the children do not currently hold lawful immigration status, as children born in New Zealand after 1 January 2006 automatically hold the most favourable visa status of their parents.
“Arrangements are underway for Mr Tonga’s deportation, with a flight tentatively scheduled for later this week. Immigration Compliance will continue to engage with Mrs Tonga to support her voluntary departure alongside the children.
We understand this is a disappointing outcome for the family. However, unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify the granting of a visa, individuals who have overstayed must leave New Zealand.”
Vehikite Deportation and Campaign
This follows our recent report about a family’s campaign to return their relative to New Zealand after his deportation to Tonga last month.
The removal occurred after the Rotorua District Court granted Immigration New Zealand (INZ) a warrant of commitment for Paea Vehikite, leading to his detention and eventual deportation.
As previously reported by Kaniva News, Paea arrived in New Zealand in May 2009 but failed to secure a valid visa, allegedly after falling victim to an immigration scam. His wife holds a New Zealand resident permit.
New Zealand’s Labour government under Jacinda Ardern issued a historic formal apology in 2021 for the racist policing of Pacific communities during the 1970s Dawn Raids era. Many Tongan overstayers viewed this as a first step toward more compassionate treatment of future visa violators.
However, the current National-led government under Prime Minister Christopher Luxon appears to be reversing this approach, continuing dawn raid-style operations against overstayers
Nuku‘alofa, Tonga – The fight between Police Minister Piveni Piukala and the Parliament Whole House Committee Chairman Lord Tu’ilakepa during debates over Tonga’s anti-money laundering bill has reignited scrutiny of unresolved drug trafficking allegations—dropped in 2013 but never adjudicated—against Tu’ilakepa.
Minister of Justice Mo’ale Finau
Submitted to the House by the Minister of Justice, Mo’ale Finau, the amendments seek to strengthen Tonga’s Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act 2001 by granting authorities broader powers to track and confiscate illicit funds—a reform long advocated by international watchdogs.
Tensions flared as supporters of the bill, including Minister Piukala, questioned why Tu‘ilakepa appeared to stall proceedings on reforms aimed at strengthening Tonga’s financial crime laws.
Tu’ilakepa stated in the House that he wholeheartedly supported the amendment, but he believed it was rushed through too quickly.
He expressed concerns about families’ property rights and possessions, arguing that the amendments should be discussed publicly to ensure full understanding.
“‘Oku ou poupou ‘aupito au ki he lao’ ni,” Tu’ilakepa said in Tongan, referring to his full support for the amendments.
However, his suggestion to return for a further public consultation prompted an emotional reaction from the Minister of Police, who believed Tu’ilakepa was simply trying to delay legislation the government urgently needed. This disagreement led to a heated argument between them.
As Kaniva News reported last week, a leaked video of the parliamentary fight, shared on social media, showed staff and security intervening to separate Piukala and Tu’ilakepa.
Tu‘ilakepa’s Controversial Legal History
Proponents of the legislation have cited Australian authorities’ 2012 reports about Tu’ilakepa’s alleged cartel links while questioning whether his heated argument with Piukala on the amendment reflects a conflict of interest.
In 2010, Australian police accused Tu‘ilakepa of conspiring with convicted drug lord Obeil Antonio Zuluaga Gomez to funnel cocaine through Tonga to Australia and China.
Evidence included intercepted phone calls—later deemed inadmissible in Tongan courts—where Tu‘ilakepa allegedly promised to house and finance Gomez after securing his visa.
Tongan prosecutors dropped his drug-related charges in 2013, citing “case complexity” and illegal evidence collection.
Political Fallout and Next Steps
The incident has polarised Parliament, with bill proponents criticising Tu‘ilakepa’s deliberate prolonging of debates—a tactic widely seen as a protest against the government—as incongruous given his unresolved past allegations.
His supporters counter that his procedural delays reflect legitimate dissent over the bill’s provisions, unrelated to his 2012 dropped charges.
Some critics accused the Minister of Police of jumping on the bandwagon by supporting an amendment submitted by the Minister of Justice, while simultaneously trying to claim credit for it among his followers.
Piukala’s supporters have circulated 2012 Australian and NZ media reports about Tu’ilakepa’s alleged cartel links on social media, using them to discredit his faction.
The parliament finally approved the bill last week following a five-day suspension of both Piukala and Tu’ilakepa by the Speaker, effective Monday, April 4.
A magnitude 5.1 earthquake occurred 48 km northeast of Nuku’alofa at 5:36 am local time on August 11, 2025, according to the Tonga Meteorological Service.
The quake, centred at a depth of 86 km near Nomuka in Ha’apai, prompted immediate evaluation but was determined to pose no tsunami threat to the island nation.
The National Tsunami Warning Centre confirmed this assessment in its final advisory, noting the provisional magnitude could be revised as more data becomes available.
Authorities emphasised that only official warnings from the Tonga Meteorological Service should be considered definitive for tsunami alerts.
Residents across Tonga reported feeling tremors on Monday morning at around 4.40am (Tonga time), on social media.
“Earthquake Tonga,” a commenter wrote.
“Earthquake on the move,” another wrote.
Last month, two earthquakes were reportedly felt in the kingdom.
An 8.8-magnitude earthquake near Russia’s coast triggered tsunami waves that reached Tonga’s remote Niua islands.
No damage or injuries from the Russian quake’s waves have been confirmed in Tonga.
The following day, a magnitude 5.2 earthquake struck Tonga at approximately 2.34pm local time.
According to seismic data, that quake occurred at a depth of 14 kilometres, with its epicentre located 80 kilometres east of Nukuʻalofa, the capital of Tonga.
When a U.S. federal judge ruled last week that kava—known as kava Tonga in Tonga—is a “food additive” rather than a cultural staple, it didn’t just ban the drink in New York City cafes.
Tevi said if they can successfully argue the word “kava” is etymologically linked to the Tongan language then there is an opportunity to protect it.
It also dealt a blow to Pacific nations like Tonga, Fiji, and Vanuatu, which have spent years lobbying Australia, Europe, and the U.S. to recognise kava as a safe, traditional product worthy of trade expansion.
The ruling, which upheld New York City’s ban on kava drinks, cited FDA regulations that classify kava mixed with water as a “food additive” subject to strict oversight.
In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Valerie E. Caproni acknowledged that kava “changes the chemical composition of water from H₂O to a liquid that includes kavalactones, chemicals that have hepatotoxic properties.”
“No one can seriously dispute, then, that kava ‘affect[s] the characteristics’ of water, rendering kava a ‘food additive’ under the FDCA when steeped in water,” the judge added.
But for Pacific leaders and exporters, the decision sets a dangerous precedent that could stifle their ambitions to grow the global kava trade—particularly in Australia, where Tonga and Fiji have fought for years to ease strict import limits.
For decades, kava has been caught in a regulatory tug-of-war.
While Pacific communities have consumed it ceremonially for centuries, Western nations often treat it with suspicion, citing (often disputed) studies linking heavy consumption to liver toxicity.
Australia, for instance, only recently relaxed its 20-year ban on commercial kava imports, allowing limited personal use for Pacific diaspora communities in 2021.
Tonga and Fiji saw this as a first step toward broader market access. But the U.S. court’s ruling risks reinforcing the very stigma they’ve battled.
The Double Standard
Pacific exporters argue that kava is unfairly targeted compared to other botanicals. Coffee, tea, and even alcohol—all psychoactive in varying degrees—face no similar restrictions.
Yet kava, which is non-addictive and integral to Pacific social and spiritual life, remains mired in legal grey zones.
Australia’s recent kava reforms were hard-won. After years of pressure from Pacific leaders, including Fiji’s Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama, Australia agreed to raise import limits for personal use—a move seen as a precursor to eventual commercial trade.
But the U.S. ruling could embolden sceptics in Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), which still classifies kava as a “controlled substance” outside personal allowances.
Protecting Kava’s Cultural Legacy
Tongan kava growers have revealed plans to trademark the term “kava” as a protective measure. Tonga’s National Kava Committee chairman, Fe’ilokitau Tevi, recently confirmed to RNZ that this effort stems from kava being a Tongan term. The drink has different names across the Pacific – yaqona in Fiji and malok in Vanuatu.
Tonga’s initiative also aims to safeguard the traditional beverage from commercial exploitation.
This protection push comes as Australian community leaders voice concerns about potential import restrictions.
Ratu Maseinawa, a Fijian community leader in Brisbane, warns that resumed kava smuggling to banned Northern Territory Aboriginal communities could trigger another blanket prohibition, undoing years of advocacy work.
A Tongan woman, previously accused online of allegedly abusing Tongan seasonal workers in Perth, Australia, has reappeared to counter new criticism.
Vaiola Tupou Fainu (L) and Tonga Maile. Photos (Screenshots)
Accusations of unpaid wages, mistreatment, and verbal abuse of workers—along with vehement denials from the accused—have dominated these online clashes.
Contractor Tupou Vaiola Fainu was responding to Maile Tonga’s allegations in a streamed video seen by Kaniva News.
Tonga claimed he and fellow workers endured profanity-laden tirades from Fainu and alleged contractor Wilfred Vuna, Fainu’s partner, delayed payments for weeks and failed to provide agreed wages on time.
The conflict erupted when Fainu became enraged after the workers complained to their palangi grape farm employer—who had contracted Fainu and Vuna—about their unpaid wages.
The employer reportedly said he had already transferred their pay to Vuna and Fainu.
Tonga said they arrived in Australia after responding to Vuna’s Facebook recruitment ad. Upon arrival last month, Vuna picked them up and introduced them to Fainu. They agreed to stay at Fainu’s house rent-free, though it’s unclear if this was formalised in writing.
Payment Disputes Tonga claimed that when he asked Vuna about their wages, he was told to borrow from Fainu and repay her later.
“We just wanted our pay,” Tonga said in an emotional livestream, adding they had initially agreed with Vuna for independent housing but relented to Fainu’s request.
Contractors’ Rebuttals Fainu denied all allegations, accusing Tonga of lying. Vuna also dismissed the claims as false on Facebook before deleting his post.
In her livestream, a visibly angry Fainu called Tonga a “dog” and “dumb,” defending her provision of free housing, transport, and food to help workers save earnings.
She criticised Tonga for what she described as failing to appreciate her generosity, meant to help them save their wages to take back to Tonga.
She admitted Vuna had agreed to pay the workers per block but claimed she was unaware of this arrangement, stating the normal practice was to make payments only after completion of their assigned farm work.
She also confirmed the farm owner contacted her about the wage complaints, but did not disclose her response.
Visa Compliance Questions
Fainu alleged Tonga’s Seasonal Worker Programme (SWP) visa, while valid, prohibited work for unauthorised contractors like herself.
Dr Sione Vaka, Tonga’s SWP liaison officer in Australia, told Kaniva News the complaint wasn’t raised with him, as it was a private contract between Tonga, Fainu, and Vuna.
He clarified SWP visa holders must work only for their approved sponsor.
Historical Context
The clash follows a January 2023 livestream where Leilani Faingaa, a former SWP worker, accused Fainu of mistreatment, using the Tongan term anga’imanu (“animal-like”) to describe her behaviour towards workers.
Fainu later countered Fainga’a in a streamed video seen by Kaniva News, asserting she owned two farms and was not a contractor.
She said her online critics were harassing her while she was trying to make a living.
These disputes align with an ABC recent report on ongoing SWP issues, including worker “mistreatment, family breakdowns.”
Australia’s DFAT told the ABC it is “listening” and working to improve the scheme.
Tonga’s Parliament has passed a bill raising the legal marriage age from 15 to 18, following years of concern over underage unions in the Pacific kingdom.
The reform comes alongside a separate amendment further cementing the country’s ban on same-sex marriage, making the prohibition more explicit in law.
The decision follows years of advocacy, including stark warnings raised in the Parliament in 2016 revealing that 183 child marriages had been recorded in Tonga over a three-year period—including 17 involving 15-year-olds.
At the time, a lawmaker criticised the kingdom’s Parent Consent Act of 1926 as “embarrassing” and questioned whether it truly served its purpose of protecting children.
It is understood, some rape victims, some just 14 years old, are forced to marry their rapists under the Parent Concent Act to prevent family shame and village gossip.
Shocking Child Marriage Data
As reported byKaniva News at the time, Deputy Speaker Lord Tuʻiʻāfitu first sounded the alarm after attending a 2016 regional conference in Kathmandu, Nepal, where 13 Asia-Pacific nations discussed strategies to end child and forced marriages.
In a report to Parliament, he disclosed that he had confronted Tonga’s record at the summit, citing cases of 15-year-olds wed with parental approval under the nearly century-old law.
He said that in the past three years, 183 child marriages had been recorded in Tonga.
From 2013 to 2015, 17 children aged 15 had married, he said.
Lord Tu’i’āfitu declined to specify the exact years of all child marriages during his parliamentary address, stating he wanted to protect the “dignity” of these young individuals.
The new legislation abolishes the controversial parental consent loophole, aligning Tonga with global human rights standards.
Same sex marriage
However, the same parliamentary session saw lawmakers strengthen the nation’s ban on same-sex marriage, adding clearer language to existing statutes.
The lawmakers were concerned that the current law did not explicitly ban same-sex marriage, but the Minister of Justice—who tabled the legislation—responded in Parliament that Tonga’s traditional and cultural laws inherently forbid such unions.
Tonga’s laws ban sex between same-sex couples under the “sodomy” rule in the Criminal Offences Act.
However, it doesn’t specify gender—such as lesbian relationships—even though the law could apply to them too.
In 2015, Lopeti Senituli, then Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, stated that the government intended to amend Tonga’s Deaths, Births, and Marriages Registration Act to explicitly ban same-sex marriage.
The move came in response to fears among some community and church leaders that Tonga’s planned ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) at the time might pressure the country to legalise same-sex unions.
NZ Grants Tongan LGBT Asylum
As Kaniva News reported early this year, a Tongan woman won the right to live in New Zealand after that country’s Refugee Tribunal ruled she faced a well-founded fear of persecution in Tonga due to her sexual orientation as a lesbian.
In its ruling, the Tribunal found that the appellant would be at risk of serious harm if she returned to Tonga because of her identity as a lesbian.
Last year, the king appointed the chief justice, but reports emerged of a petition to remove the British judge from office due to his identity as a gay man.
