Tonga’s Customs Minister Māteni Tapueluelu has publicly accused Police Minister Piveni Piukala of unlawfully assisting a prominent Mormon leader to depart for the United States last week, in direct breach of an active court travel restraining order.
The intervention concerns a court restraining order issued by Magistrate Court Judge Ana Tavo Mailangi on October 29. A copy of the order, obtained by Kaniva News, states that Pita Foliaki Hopoate “is restrained and prohibited from leaving the kingdom until further order of the court.”
Hopoate was reportedly facing a court hearing in connection to a dispute over the leadership of the Mormon Church’s alumni association.
A copy of the restraining order was delivered to the Ministry of Customs and Immigration for enforcement, as noted on the court order.
However, it later emerged that Hopoate arrived at the airport and was initially stopped, before an instruction, allegedly originating from Police Minister Piukala, was communicated to airport authorities to allow Hopoate to depart, citing that another court order was being processed to permit his travel.
Acting on the directive, Customs staff then released Hopoate, allowing him to leave the country despite the active restraining order and without any subsequent authorisation from the court, according to Minister Tapueluelu.
In his defence, Piukala argued that his intervention was necessary to prevent Hopoate from facing substantial financial losses on travel and commitments.
Staff shifted after scrutiny
The customs official who permitted Hopoate to depart is now under internal review and has been reassigned to a different division within the Ministry pending an investigation.
When pressed on the reason for the scrutiny, Tapueluelu clarified that this is standard administrative procedure in such cases. He confirmed that the employee retains all entitlements and continues to receive their full salary during this process.
Tapueluelu told Kaniva News the staff acted on a directive from an Immigration Officer. That officer claimed to have received communication from a higher authority instructing them to override the travel ban issued by the Police Magistrate legally.
Tapueluelu identified the higher authority as Minister Piukala. He has declared Piukala’s action a clear contravention of the law and an abuse of power.
“It is unfortunate that the Minister of Police is saying that the two officers should be given a medal. But I strongly urge the public servants to remember that it is the law that rules (rule of law), and under the Police Act, Clause 8 (1)g, police officers must execute the work orders of the Court, like this order. That is the reason they delivered it to the airport. And according to Clause 18 (3), it is prohibited for the Police Minister to issue orders regarding any specific investigation or to any police staff.”
He also said: “A court order was issued to restrict Pita Hopoate from travelling, but he was instructed to leave while that restraining order was still in effect. His departure constitutes a breach of the court order.”
Abuse of power
Tapueluelu stated that any further court order to release Hopoate would require a formal judicial process, wherein lawyers for both parties must present their arguments before a judge in chambers.
Only if they reach an agreement will the conditions and protections be set, followed by the drafting of a release order, which must be signed by the judge and then delivered to the airport authorities.
“We must not bypass the judicial process simply because someone wishes to travel,” Tapueluelu said.
He confirmed to Kaniva News that no court order ever authorised Hopoate’s release, a statement that directly conflicts with the Police Minister’s decision to facilitate his departure.
Only the court
Tapueluelu affirmed that such a court order is mandatory and stated that no Cabinet Minister has the authority to override it for personal or discretionary reasons.
“There have been individuals previously restrained by police under similar circumstances—last year, this year, and in earlier years,” he said.
“This is the norm under the rule of law. Some have been stopped at the airport in exactly the same way.
“It is the court that determines the seriousness and validity of an offence or allegation.
This decision is not subject to review or override by any executive authority, minister, or any other official. It is solely the jurisdiction of the judiciary.”
Piukala responses
Kaniva News contacted Minister Piukala for comment. We also asked what legal authority he relied on to override the court-imposed travel ban. He had not responded by the time of publication.
A Tongan‑language audio recording, obtained by Kaniva News, has been shared by Piukala’s supporters on social media. In the recording, a person who appeared to be Piukala offers a shifting and inconsistent rationale for his intervention on Hopoate’s behalf.
Piukala claimed Hopoate had contacted him, and “he felt deeply troubled due to concerns over the principle of separation of powers”.
He stated that when the restraining order was sent to him, he saw it had been issued by a Magistrate judge, and he strongly felt that Hopoate’s personal freedom was being undermined.
He said: “I asked myself – what if I acted in a way that avoided being implicated in his release. Would I then be complicit in the excuse often used by leaders—saying, Sorry, we can’t interfere in a court decision”?
He justified his intervention by saying that the key to pursuing justice lies in ensuring that Hopoate receives a fair trial.
“You are innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the trial has not yet taken place, and those involved have not yet been convicted.
Preventing him from travelling has already caused financial loss—money spent, tickets forfeited, new tickets purchased, and disrupted plans. I thought this might already be a violation of our constitutional duty, because the Constitution is clear: every citizen should expect that the government will protect their freedom, their property, and their life.”
What is a restraining order?
A court travel restraining order is a legal instrument issued by a judge to prevent an individual from leaving the country. Its primary purpose is to safeguard the integrity of legal proceedings by ensuring a defendant’s availability for trial, enforcing justice, and preventing flight risk.
In cases involving political leaders or high-ranking officials, such orders are typically sought in the context of serious investigations into corruption, human rights abuses, or other major crimes. By restricting the ability to flee the jurisdiction, these orders are a critical tool for upholding the rule of law. They ensure that those in positions of power can be held accountable for their actions, preventing them from evading prosecution and maintaining public trust in the legal system.
