Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa has threatened to fire Tonga Power Ltd director Paul Chapman.
Tu’i’onetoa has also put Chapman’s monthly director and meeting fees on hold.
Chapman was told he was “incompetence, neglect of duty, misconduct, or failing to assist the public enterprise to act in accordance with the principal objective.” Mr Chapman has “vehemently denied” this.
The director was given 14 days to make a response or his contract would be terminated.
Veteran journalist Kalafi Moala first published a story on Chapman and the prime minister last week.
Moala described Chapman as a person “who has been perceived by the TPL Board as someone who is not only a dissenter when he does not see things eye to eye with them, but can also be direct in his communication”.
Prime Minister Tu’i’onetoa, who is also the Minister of Public Enterprises, is expected to make a “final decision” when receiving a response from Chapman.
Tu’i’onetoa is being accused of refusing repeatedly to take immediate action against convicted Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu after she and her disgraced husband Etuate Lavylavu defrauded more than half a million pa’anga of the government school grant scheme.
In a surprising political twist yesterday Friday 18, Tu’i’onetoa has placed Akoslita on leave, amid mounting calls and pressures for him to sack Akosita.
It is uncertain whether she will be paid while she is on leave.
Tu’i’onetoa has been accused of constantly shifting justifications to defend his refusal to take action against Akosita. He told his critics he cannot sack Akosita until the court due process is completed referring to the constitution clause 23 which allows a convict to remain in office if they have sought leave to appeal their sentencing.
However his critics said the prime minister has sole power given by clause 51(3)(a) of the constitution to take immediate actions against Akosita.
Fiji’s Permanent Secretary of Health, James Fong, reports there have been 115 new cases of Covid-19 in the past day.
Most of the cases can be traced to existing clusters or localities where significant transmission has occurred.
21 have been identified as primary contacts of previous cases and are under investigation by the contact tracing teams to determine if there is a cluster link.
There has been another death at the Colonial War Memorial Hospital.
Acting Permanent Secretary for Health, James Fong Photo: Fiji Govt
This 49 year old man was being treated for a severe pre-existing condition and his doctors are currently investigating whether his death is due to Covid-19.
To date there have been 6 deaths but another 7 Covid-19 positive patients have died of pre-existing illnesses.
There are 1182 active cases in isolation, with Fiji having recorded 1578 cases since the latest outbreak started in April 2021.
Dr Fong said since April, 121,193 samples have been tested, with averag daily testing now at 3443.
In terms of vaccinations, “43% of Fijians 18 and older have received their first dose, and 2.1% are fully vaccinated. That is a total of 252,791 who have received at least one dose and 12,246 who are fully vaccinated,” he said.
The nationwide Innovating Streets programme promised to make streets safer, but as a group of Māngere East residents is discovering, if the work is only partially complete, their local roads can get even more dangerous.
Community advocate Shirl’e Fruean saw her car tyres damaged after the vehicle was jolted by a speed hump. Photo: LDR / Justin Latif
Recent weeks have seen mounds of asphalt rise on Māngere roads like swells in calm water. What has enraged residents, however, is not the introduction of speed bumps, but the way they have been installed, and the failure to alert drivers to their existence.
South Auckland hip hop artist and community advocate Shirl’e Fruean lives off one of the roads affected and said despite driving at the speed limit, her car was jolted violently as she passed over a pair of bumps late one evening.
“I went flying, I was like, what was that?” she said. “It actually damaged my tyres. They’ve been there over a week, and they still aren’t painted.”
Cheryl G hit one and also thought she was going to get airborne.
“I hit the one at about 40km/h after my late braking and thought I was about to start flying. I’m sure I’m not the only one. So yea, the thought is great but the execution sucks.”
Another local, Sam Penitani, had witnessed a number of vehicles being damaged from the bumps. “I’ve seen a few cars lose bumpers and even [saw] an old man jump out to change his tyre with kids in the car because of those stupid bumps,” he said.
“It’s hard enough we struggle with other things; now we gotta pull out money to fix our cars.”
Mi Li Ka was driving at 50km/h but did not see the bumps when she drove over them.
“It slammed my car and my daughter started screaming so I stopped to check her and she had bitten her tongue. I get they are for the safety of our community, but they could have at least sprayed arrows or something so that we don’t go over the damn bumps at 50km.”
The impression was that council organisations thought they could deliver lower quality projects in areas like South Auckland, said Fruean.
“It feels like someone decided to punish us,” she said. “South Auckland, especially Māngere, seems to always be the target. We have homelessness, housing issues, liquor store exploitation and now these random bumps. Whoever is making these decisions needs to just back off.”
Photo: LDR / Justin Latif
Another local, Natasha Lilo shares Fruean’s concern, and is imploring her fellow locals to call Auckland Transport to complain.
“The speed bumps are a good idea especially if it’s to make our streets safer for all. Just poor execution as usual from Auckland Transport. Would this be the case in a suburb like Remuera? Why do we have dangerous road bumps with the purpose of making roads and pedestrians safer but they’re not safe during the progression of making them.”
‘We can quickly address the issues’
In a statement prior to the project’s delivery, Auckland Transport said the speed humps are part of a wider series of improvement that were the result of “community co-design”, which will make it “easier, and safer, to move around Māngere”.
The Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board co-funded the project and board chair Lemauga Lydia Sosene said the temporary changes have been put in place in response to feedback from locals.
“We’ve heard from our community that parts of Māngere East are difficult to move around, crossings are not safe, and there needs to be easier and better ways for people to safely get around their neighbourhood. As the project is a consultation by trial, we can quickly address the issues, and determine if the proposals are working.”
In response to The Spinoff’s inquiries a spokesperson for Auckland Transport said the delay in marking the speed humps was a result of rain but was due to be completed soon.
“We have been aware of this as we are working very closely with our community partner,” the spokesperson said. “The weather has been holding us up on line marking over the last few days.”
But as Pila N Noa said on a community Facebook page, intentions to make these streets safer have been undermined by how the work has been carried out.
“These speed bumps have caused more harm and damage than safety! All we’re left with are damages to pay on our vehicles because of the poor work that has been done! As if life wasn’t hard enough already!”
Local Democracy Reporting is a public interest news service supported by RNZ, the News Publishers’ Association and NZ On Air.
The Prime Minister Tu‘i‘onetoa has placed convicted Cabinet Minister Akoslita Lavulavu on leave, but is still giving conflicting information about her situation.
Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa. Photo/Kalino Lātū (Kaniva Tonga)
The Prime Minister said Akosita was taking leave until after she had sought leave to appeal against her conviction in the supreme Court.
It is uncertain whether she will be paid while she is on leave.
Critics believe the move for Akosita to take leave was either the result of pressures from media and the public. Others have speculated that Tu‘i‘onetoa and the Lavulavus have made the move after the petition to impeach her was submitted to parliament last week.
On Tuesday Tu’ionetoa said Clause 23 of the Constitution allowed Akosita to stay in office for another 42 days from the day of their sentencing if they sought leave to appeal. He said he stood by that despite mounting calls for him to take immediate actions against the disgraced Minister.
Instead, the Prime Minister has tried to use three ministerial resignations from the former government to wrongly justify his refusal to take action against Akosita to the public.
He also appears to have downplayed question from the media on Radio 87.5 FM Facebook livestream on Tuesday about why he did not use his powers under Clause 51 to dismiss Akosita.
Wrong statements by the PM
Several of the Prime Minister’s statements appear to be wrong.
Tu’ionetoa claimed that if a Minister refused to resign the Prime Minster could not sack them and the King would not sign any recommendation for their resignations.
He also said that it was extremely difficult to sack a Cabinet Minister.
The Prime Minister also claimed that he might have acted against Akosita if she has committed her crimes while she was a Cabinet Minister. However, he said she committed the crimes in 2013 while she was not an MP or a Cabinet Minister.
He admitted that Akosita was being paid by the government while she was in court, but was only there some days and not the whole of the six weeks of the trial.
The Prime Minister also overstated the time it took for Akosita before she resigned in 2018 and Lord Ma’afu’s resignation to be processed and alleged the King declined to sign Late Prime Minister Akilisi Pōhiva’s recommendation to dismiss the noble.
What was the truth about the Prime Minister’s claims?
Tu’ionetoa was wrong when he said the Prime Minster could not sack a Minister who refused to resign according to clause 51 of the constitution.
Clause 51 (3) (a) says: “Minister shall retain his position as Minister until – (a) his appointment is revoked by the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister or in accordance with clause 50B”.
This clause has two independent phrases divided by the conjunction “or” which means it is ether the prime minister can recommend a revocation to the king or the minister can be revoked according to clause 50B.
In his livestream talk show the Prime Minister appears to have intentionally avoided talking about the first phrase and claimed his power in clause 51(3)(a) can only be exercised according to clause 50B.
Former Minister of Finance Lisiate ‘Ākolo
In 2014 Prime Minister Lord Tu’ivakanō demanded the then Minister of Finance, Lisiate ‘Ākolo, resign. ‘Ākolo refused to resign, but the Prime Minister publicly announced he has sacked ‘Ākolo. ‘Ākolo was defiant and told the public he was still a minister, despite the announcement. Lord Tu’ivakanō brought security guards to guard the Cabinet house compound and barred Ākolo from entering a Cabinet meeting which was held to decide his fate. ‘Ākolo never resigned, but Lord Tu’ivakanō recommended to the palace that he be replaced.
The king appointed Dr ‘Aisake Eke as new Finance Minister. Dr Eke was appointed on January 10, 2014, despite Ākolo claiming he was still Minister. It is believed Ākolo was the first Cabinet Minister to be fired by the Prime Minster without tendering his resignation.
Respected lawyer Clive Edwards, who was in Cabinet at the time, told media that when ‘Ākolo refused to resign the Prime Minister has the “sole power” to dismiss him.
Tu’i’onetoa could also use this case as a precedent to sack Akosita.
There is also the Cabinet Manual which its section 26 says: “In formal terms, Cabinet Ministers are also appointed and dismissed by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the Prime Minister”.
Dismissing a Cabinet minister was not difficult
Tu’i’onetoa was wrong when he said it was difficult to sack a Cabinet Minister who went through the due process before he was appointed by the King. In fact, the government representatives in ministerial posts are the easiest to dismiss.
If the Prime Minister wants a minister to resign, that minister must go immediately no matter if they agree or not. Some ministers in the past were sacked and left their office within 24 hours. The best example was ‘Ākolo’s case.
Again it was the Prime Minister’s exclusive power given by clause 51(3)(a).
Did Tu’i’onetoa ask Akosita to resign?
Tu’i’onetoa claimed the minister must agree to resign before he can make a recommendation to the king to dismiss her. The question now is for the Prime Minister to tell us whether he has asked Akosita to tender his resignation immediately after her conviction.
The Prime Minister’s claims that he may have taken action against Akosita if she committed the crimes while she was a Cabinet Minister seem unlikely. He said Akosita committed the offence in 2013 while she was not a Member of Parliament.
The truth is that the Lavulavu couple were charged in 2018 and that was the first time the public became aware of allegations that they had defrauded more than half a million pa’anga from the government school grant scheme.
Tu’i’onetoa knew Akosita had been charged with serious fraud before appointing her. Surely he had a duty to check the constitutional implications before he appointed her.
PM admits Akosita was paid while in court
Tu’i’onetoa was invited to tell the public how much Akosita was paid while she was out of office facing her fraud charges. He was expected to either justify the payment and state the legal position on Cabinet ministers being paid while effectively out of office and unable to do their job.
Instead he told the livestream audience that Cabinet Ministers worked 24 hours a day and they were equipped with internet at home and mobile phones to make it easier for them to get in touch with the public whenever they were needed.
PM overstated resignation cases
Tu’i’onetoa wrongly told the public it took four months before Akosita Lavulavu agreed to resign from her post as Internal Affairs Minister after the Late Prime Minister ‘Akilisi dismissed her. She was removed after she and her husband Etuate Lavulavu were charged with using forged documents and obtaining credit by false pretences in relation to the Unuaki ‘o Tonga Royal Institute, the same charges on which she has now been found guilty. She was sacked after refusing to resign.
Prime Minister Tu’i’onetoa claimed His Majesty would not sign ‘Akilisi’s recommendation to sack her. He also claimed that King did not approve recommendation by ‘Akilisi to dismiss Lord Ma’afu. He claimed this delayed the resignation process by four months. Tonga Broadcasting Commission at the time reported that ‘Akilisi denied claims the king did not approve his recommendation to sack Lord Ma’afu.
Only two months
In fact, Akosita was publicly dismissed on April 12 2018 before it was announced in June 21 that the king has signed ‘Akilisi’s recommendation to sack her. That was nine weeks and three days or two months one week and three days. Lord Ma’afu tendered his resignation on March 2 before he was returned to Cabinet on May 17. That was 10 weeks and five days or two months two weeks and two days.
We can tell from Akosita’s first refusal to resign before finally being dismissed in 2018, and Lord Ma’afu’s agreeing to resign the same year by handing his resignation letter to the then prime minister but was not immediately officially dismissed and ‘Ākolo’s repeatedly resisting Lord Tu’ivakanoo’s demand for his resignation but still the prime minister went ahead with his dismissal – the king’s approval of recommendation from prime ministers to sack a minister does not depend on the minister’s permission, as claimed by Tu’i’onetoa.
A failure of duty
Prime Minister Tu’i’onetoa’s lack of action over Akosita shows he has failed to fulfil his duty to make good decisions as leader of the government.
His responses to media, particularly his clinging to Clause 21, have all been about protecting Akosita. It was not until the media pushed for him to use Clause 51 of the Constitution that he finally did something.
The public expect the Prime Minister to talk about facts and support his arguments with a proper understanding of the law and constitution.
Unfortunately, the media and the public are still in the dark over certain issues, chief of which is the question of whether Akosita will continue to be paid while she is on leave.
If Akosita is jailed next month, will she receive any remuneration and money from the government? The public wants to know if their taxes are being used to pay her.
Tu’i’onetoa should explain to the public why he made the surprise move to send Akosita on leave. Given his constantly shifting justifications to defend his refusal to take actions against Akosita, it is important for the public to know whether his actions have been meant to benefit the government or to benefit the disgraced Minister.
Convicted Minister of Infrastructure and Tourism Akosita Lavulavu was placed on leave before her sentencing on July 2.
“The Prime Minister Hon. Rev. Dr. Pohiva Tu’i’onetoa has approved today the request of the Minister for Infrastructure and Tourism, Hon. ‘Akosita Lavulavu to take leave until a decision of the Court of Appeal is delivered regarding her court case”, the one line press release from the Prime Minister’s office says this morning.
No further details provided and it was unknown whether Akosita was placing on leave without pay or is still receiving her salary, allowances and other ministerial entitlements.
The announcement came after the prime minister appeared on livestream Tuesday saying he cannot take any actions against Akosita citing clause 23 of the constitution.
He again defended his refusal to take immediate action against Akosita saying if she has committed the fraud while she was in her roles as Cabinet Minister he would have placed her on leave. He said Akosita committed the serious offences in 2013.
The Prime Minister recommended Akosita’s appointment to the king in 2019 knowing she was charged with the fraud in 2018 and that was why she was dismissed by late Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva.
Akosita’s leave came after a petition to impeach her was submitted by the leader of the Opposition Party Semisi Sika to parliament last week.
The Opposition Party petitioned their colleagues in parliament on Friday to impeach the fraudster Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu after she was convicted with her husband for defrauding more than half a million pa’anga of the government school grant scheme.
Opposition Leader Semisi Sika has confirmed this to Kaniva News.
The petition was submitted after the Prime Minister announced he cannot take actions against Akosita citing clause 23 of the constitution.
According to the House procedures the motion of impeachment and its supporting affidavits have to go to the Standing Committee on Privileges first for consideration and recommendations. They will then be returned to the House for debate and put the recommendations to a vote.
The parliamentarians were scheduled to arrive in ‘Eua early this week to join the Free Wesleyan Church annual conference.
As we previously reported, the nobility MPs sided with the Opposition and called on the prime minister to do something against Akosita.
Last week AKosita had to take her seat shortly after she took the floor in parliament to announce her ministries’ new budgets for financial year 2021/2022.
She was skipped over during a parliament debate on the national budget before the Minister of Finance Tevita Lavemaau stepped in and announced the Ministry of Infrastructure and Tourism budgets on her behalf.
Akosita began addressing the House with the normal practice of fakatapu before she was interrupted by nobility MP Lord Tu’iha’angana.
The king’s noble said Akosita was convicted by the court and it was not appropriate for her to deliver a speech on her budgets in the House.
He said the House was debating on important matters relating to the national budget and law.
Lord Tu’iha’angana said it was not easy for him to raise his concerns in front of Akosita but he thought he must say it because all MPs have oaths to maintain the constitution and the law of the country.
The MAFF Minister Lord Tu’ilakepa spoke in support of Lord Tu’iha’angana.
Justis Huni surprised many with his power by dominating Paul Gallen with a tenth round TKO in Sydney tonight but the former NRL star won plenty of fans with his bravery.
Huni landed several heavy body shots early and pressured from the inside and outside hurting Gallen at will. The former NRL star was in trouble throughout the fight, getting rocked in the first round and in the latter part of the fight but he just kept coming.
Such was the ferocity of Huni’s strikes to the body he broke the former NRL star’s ribs in the second round.
In the final three minutes Gallen did everything he could to hang on and grabbed at Huni’s legs in a tackle that would have been right at home on the footy field. But when both fighters returned to their feet Huni went to town on the former Sharks skipper and dropped the 39-year-old.
Gallen got back to his feet and wanted to continue, but referee John Cauchi waved the fight off.
“A big shout out to Gal,” he said post-fight. “He’s an awesome competitor very tough very strong.
Two Tongan men accused of murder over the death of another Tongan man Aleki (Alec) Moala in South Auckland has entered a not guilty plea and can now be publicly identified.
‘Aleki (Alec) Moala. Photo/Facebook
Sosaia Vaitohi, 26, and Metthuselak Talakai, 28, appeared briefly in the High Court at Auckland.
Both men were remanded in custody, New Zealand Herald reported.
Defence counsel Emma Priest said both had requested to attend their upcoming hearings in person.
Moala was 31, was married and had three children, his father told the Herald last month.
The reporting of the identities of the suspects came after it was revealed three Tongans had been charged and appeared in court last month in connection with the death of the 57-year-old Tongan mother Meliame Fisi’ihoi.
Falala’anga Momooni Iongi, Viliami Mounga He Ofa Iongi, and Manu Hori Iongi have all been charged with Fisi’ihoi’s murder, as well as intending to cause grievous bodily harm to three others by shooting a gun at them, two weeks prior to her death.
Fisi’ihoi died on January 15, 2020. Her body was found following reports of a gunshot at her house in Favona, south Auckland.
Tonga Law Society’s President Lawyer Sione Fonua said the society is concerned at the recent public statement made by Dr ‘Aisake Eke challenging the Supreme Court decision in the criminal case against convicted Cabinet Minister ‘Akosita Lavulavu and her disgraced husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu.
He said unjustified attacks on the judiciary undermined the rule of law.
As Kaniva News reported this week, Dr Eke was one of the witnesses called by the Lavulavu to appear in court on their behalf.
The couple who plundered more than half a million pa’anga of the government school grant scheme are set to be sentenced on July 2.
Dr Eke claimed, among other things, in court students can donate Tongan handicrafts and domestic animals in lieu of school tuitions.
In his decision Justice Nicholas Cooper said Dr. Eke provided no proof for his claims and that all his credibility was gone.
“It was obvious he was not desirous of telling the truth.”
Dr Eke’s lawyer
His lawyer, Tongan-Auckland based Amelia Schaaf told Kaniva News the former Minister of Finance is seeking legal advice and ffighting to clear his name.
“Dr Eke said what he provided to the Court was true and he stands by those statements.”
“Non-government educational establishments in Tonga are free to formulate their operations and policies and how school fees are paid.
Their school fees can be paid by cash or “in kind”, with Tongan mats or tapa pieces being provided in lieu of cash.
“This reflects the reality of poverty in Tonga as some parents are unable to pay school fees.
“This was the practice at ‘Atenisi and ‘Unuaki ‘o Tonga institutions.
“For government schools, school fees must be paid in cash.
Independence of the court
The Law Society said: “Trust in the independence of the courts and respect for the rule of law are critical to democratic government.
“All citizens are bound to follow the rule of law – including Ministers of the Crown, Members of Parliament, and government officials.
“All must abide by the decisions of the courts, which decisions are made by judges personally appointed by His Majesty.
“There is never any justification for undermining or attacking the legitimacy of judges who are fulfilling their judicial oaths through the exercise of their independent and impartial judgment.
Judges must be allowed to do their job without fear of criticism, retaliation or retribution because without it, judicial independence is threatened, and the rule of law is undermined”.
In kind or barter school fees
As Kaniva News reported, the Lavulavus claimed students did not pay fees in 2013 and 2014 and said they were given the option of making handicrafts or working for the Institute.
“They were able to work in services in buffet dinner services,” Etuate said.
“They were also able to work in tour guiding services. Also do some cleaning up of rubbish at school”
These types of payments were described in court during the trial as barter or payment-in- kind.
Auditor General
Auditor General Sēfita Tangi told the court Cabinet had made no decision to allow these kinds of payments.
“Auditor General made the point that UTRI did not have a record system to prove ‘ in kind’ payment system”.
“Cabinet decision only allows school fees; the reciprocated monetary receipt. Which means pay in cash,” Tangi said.
“This has been procedure probably more than a century for schools in Tonga”.
Payment-in kind or barter had never been accepted.
More New Zealanders are viewing China as a threat rather than a friend, for the first time, a new survey suggests.
New Zealanders also reported feeling closer to many Asian nations than before and showing an interest in them.
The findings are part of Asia New Zealand Foundation’s annual survey – New Zealanders’ Perceptions of Asia and Asian Peoples (2020) – which has been running for more than 20 years.
There was a drop in people who viewed China as friendly, from 40 percent in 2019 to 31 percent, while those who saw China as a threat increased, from 21 percent in 2019 to 35 percent.
He said the growing threat perception was concerning, and more work needed to be done to find out why the shift had occurred and try to address those issues.
“I think that if that trend continues, then that would likely have a detrimental impact on the bilateral relationship and New Zealand’s ability to achieve security and prosperity in the region.”
Respondents said they believed China was a key relationship that New Zealand should put extra efforts into building.
Young agreed, saying the government and business community had been working to build ties, but more needed to be done to enhance understanding about China, socially and academically.
“We’re still, I think, very far away from where we should be in terms of the type of courses and understandings and stories and knowledge that we have of such a large and important country.”
The report found more people view South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, India, Vietnam, and Indonesia as friendly compared to previous years.
It also found New Zealanders connected with Asia through a range of interests, including increasingly through music, art, literature, languages, politics, history and current affairs. Māori respondents also felt a sense of cultural connection with Asia and had an interest in learning more.
Race relations commissioner Meng Foon said this year’s report reflected a better understanding of Asia, and encouraged more positive exchanges.
“More particularly, I’m heartened by how Māori feel about Asian people in terms of the relationship concepts and whakawhanaungatanga,” Foon said.
“Building good relationships with any country is good. We have a big influence in how we relate to each other. I think world harmony and world peace is important.”
Asia New Zealand Foundation executive director Simon Draper said in early surveys in the mid ’90s, New Zealanders generally viewed Asia as distant and irrelevant, but things had changed.
“New Zealanders are saying, you know, they see themselves as part of Asia, that Asia touches their lives in a way that it simply didn’t when we started over 20 years ago and it touches their everyday lives where they travel, who their friends are, what they’re reading, what they’re eating … the gaming, all those things.”
Draper said it was positive that New Zealanders had an appetite for learning more about Asian countries.
The survey also showed less of a positive sentiment towards the United States, which both Young and Foon say might be due to the Trump administration and New Zealanders’ general discomfort with a superpower.
Colmar Brunton lead the survey, which more than 2000 New Zealanders took part in through October and November last year. The results have been weighted so that they are representative of New Zealanders by age, gender, ethnicity and location.
