OPINION: PM uses biblical advice, constitution to defend his refusal to take immediate action against convicted Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu
PM Tu‘i‘onetoa confirms convicted Akosita Lavulavu will remain in office; says ‘Only Jesus Christ is righteous’ as he asks media to help ‘enlighten’ the public
Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa told media this evening that convicted fraudster and Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu would stay in office until the 42-day appeal process was complete.
Akosita and her husband, ousted former MP and Cabinet Minister ‘Etuate Lavulavu, are set to be sentenced on July 2.
Tu’ionetoa again used the controversial Clause 23 of the constitution to defend his refusal to take immediate action against Akosita.
The Prime Minister told Kaniva News and other media in an e-mail that Clause 23 was re-enacted in 2013 and signed by the king to protect the right of the individuals, government clerks and senior officers who were accused and taken to court.
Final decision
Prime Minister Tu’i’onetoa said he would make a final decision after the appeal was completed, but he did not say what decision he would make.
He was emotional and asked the media to help him.
“It is not an easy task to make decision in judging another person because it is only a decision made by a human being who is also a sinner, its experience, wisdom and power given by God is incomplete,” Hon. Tu’i’onetoa said in Tongan.
“The decision maker is the same as the accused as they are both sinners. Only Jesus Christ is the righteous and can fulfill everything.”
Innocent until found guilty
When Akosita first appeared in court we asked Tu’i’onetoa whether he would force her to resign after a call by the opposition party. His response was that she was innocent until found guilty in court. Now Akosita has been found guilty and he said Clause 23 gave her the right to further remain in office until her appeal is completed.
He pleaded with the media to use his statement to enlighten the public and let the judiciary which is the third pillar of the country rule.
He said Tonga had its own constitution, law and democracy which was different from other countries who had complete democracies. He said he believed what he was talking about was in line with what the king wanted about the constitution. The king recently reprimanded Parliament and the Tu’i’onetoa government, saying they should learn from other countries’ democracies.
Editors’ note:
The Prime Minister’s media release appears to show he deeply felt for Akosita after she was found guilty, but did not say anything about the taxpayers and overseas donors such as New Zealand and Australia which funded the school grants which have been defrauded by the Lavulavus.
In our opinion article on Thursday we said we believed the Prime Minister had used the Constitution to defend his failure to take action against the Governor of Ha’apai after he was found guilty of unlawful possession of turtle meat.
In his handling of Akosita’s case we believe the Prime Minister has made the same mistake and used the same misguided reasoning as he did over the Ha’apai governor.
Two separate clauses
We believe there are two clauses in the Constitution that deal with appointments and dismissal of government representatives. They are Clauses 23 and 51.
Clause 23 is the power given to the judiciary while the clause 51 gives the Prime Minister and the government another power.
Clause 23 says: “No person having been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for more than two years, shall hold any office under the Government whether of emolument or honour nor shall he be qualified to vote for nor to be elected a representative of the Legislative Assembly unless he has received from the King a pardon together with a declaration that he is freed from the disabilities to which he would otherwise be subject under the provisions of this clause: Provided that the operation of this clause shall be suspended in any case until the expiration of 42 days after the date of the conviction; and in cases where notice of appeal or leave to appeal is given within 42 days after the date of conviction, until the determination of the appeal; and if the conviction is quashed on appeal or the sentence reduced to no more than two years imprisonment then this clause shall not have effect.”
Clause 51 says: “A 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.”
PM’s exclusive power
Clause 23 appears to have restricted the power of the judiciary to only those who are convicted and imprisoned for more than two years. Such people are not allowed to hold any government office unless they are pardoned by the king. It also restricted to convicts who appeal their conviction.
Clause 51 is called a prerogative or special power given to the Prime Minister over his Cabinet Ministers and there is no limit there for how significant or insignificant the crime, accusation or allegation involved. It appears this exclusive power given to the Prime Minister allows him to sack a Cabinet Minister at his pleasure whether they were innocent, convicted or at the centre of an allegation.
We believe these two separate constitutional powers were reasonable, but have various roles which needed to be clarified.
Respective roles
We believe the provision of Clause 51 gives the Prime Minister the right to use his conscience and action immediately to make sure the government offices are untarnished by serious allegations, controversy and distraction. It is a disciplinary power which relies on the Prime Minister’s principles and morals.
If it was not for this clause, the only options could be Clause 23 and we can imagine the anguish the kingdom could be in if it takes another 42 days for an appeal to be made. If the appeal is accepted it may take another months before a final decision is made. When that decision comes, the damage to the reputation of the government and the country may be very great.
In our opinion, it is important to understand that if the prime minister has sacked Akosita while she was awaiting his appeal that should not be regarded as a punishment for her guilty verdict. That is a matter for the Supreme Court to decide on July 2. Her dismissal by the prime minister should be seen as an attempt by the government to stop further distraction from the public because of her continuation in the office.
Suspended sentence
We also need to consider what might happen if the Supreme Court sentences Akosita to a two-year suspended sentence because she is a first time offender. According to the Constitution she would still have the right to stay in Cabinet. Given the Prime Minister’s repeatedly demonstrated inclination to take no action against Akosita Lavulavu, it seems likely he would keep her in Cabinet.
This would raise serious questions among Tonga’s citizens about the morality of having a convicted fraudster in such a position of power.
There seems little doubt that many people want the Prime Minister to remove Akosita from office immediately using his powers under Clause 51, rather than using Clause 23 as an excuse to do nothing.
Kaniva News believes the Prime Minister should force Akosita to resign for the good of the government and Tonga.
FAKAMATALA FAKATONGA NOUNOU
Kuo fakahā ‘e he palēmia’ ‘e kei hoko atu pe ‘a Akosita Lavulavu ‘i hono lakanga minisitaa’ ‘oua leva ke ‘osi ‘ene tangi ‘i ha ‘aho ‘e 42. Ko e faka’uhinga ‘a e PM ‘oku fai mei he kupu 23 pea ‘i he ‘aho’ ni kuo tuku mai ‘ene tali ‘o kau ai ‘a ‘ene akonaki faka-Tohi Tapu ko e konga ‘ene taukapo ma’a Akosita. ‘I he vakai ‘a e Kaniva’ ‘oku hā mai ‘oku ‘i ai ‘a e matavaiavai lahi he faka’uhinga ‘a e palēmia’ ki he kupu 23 ‘o e konisitūtone’ pea ngali ko ‘ene fai pe ke fakatonuhia’i’aki ‘ene ta’efiefai ha me’a kia Akosita’. ‘I he kupu 51 ‘o e konisitūtone ‘oku’ foaki ai ‘a e mafai ta’etoe’ekea ki he palēmia’ ke ne tuku ki tu’a ha’ane minisitā ‘o fakatatau pe ia ki he anga hono loto’ ‘ikai toe fiema’u ke ‘ai ‘uhinga atu ha minisita pe fakafepaki ki he’ene tu’utu’uni. Pea oku hā mai ngali ko e mafai he kupu 51 oku ‘ikai toe fiema’u ia ke tatali ki ha tangi pe hopo pe ha toe faka’uhinga. ‘Ikai ‘aupito. Ko ‘ene pehē pe ‘e he palēmia’ ke ‘i tu’a ha minisita ko e ‘i tu’a ia ‘a e minisitā ko ia’. Tonu foki ke mahino ‘i he anga e tui’ ‘oku ‘ikai ko hano tuli ‘e he palēmia ia ‘a Akosita, ‘o kapau te ne tuli, ko hano tautea’i tokua ia ‘ene hia kuo halaia ki ai ‘i he fakamaau’anga lahi ki hono ma’u kākaa’i e pa’anga vaeua miliona mei he pule’anga’. ‘Ikai ‘aupito ‘e toki tala tu’utu’uni ‘a e Fakamaau’anga Lahi ia ki ai ‘i Siulai ‘aho 2. Ko e ‘uhinga ki hono tuli ia ‘e he palemia’ ‘e kau ai ‘a e ‘uhinga he ‘oku ‘ikai fiema’u ke valau pe fakatupu hoha’asi ‘e hono ngaahi tukuaki’i mamafa faufau kuo fai’ ‘a e kakai pea uesia ai mo e pule’anga’. ‘Oku mahino lelei ‘a e ‘uhinga ko ‘eni ‘i hono ‘ai ‘i Nu’u Sila’ pea na’e ‘osi hoko ‘i Tonga ‘o tuku ki tu’a ‘a e kau minisita pea toe fakafoki pe ia ki loto. I he anga e fakakaukau’ ‘oku kehe ‘a e kupu 23 ia pea ko e mafai fakangatangata pe ia ‘o e fakamaau’anga’ ki ha taha kuo ngāue pōpula laka hake he ta’u ‘e ua’ pea toe tangi. ‘Oku ‘ikai ha kākunga ia ‘a e kupu 23 ki he mafai makehe ‘o e palemia he kupu 51 ko e ongo mafai kehekehe pe ia ‘e ua pea ‘oku na tau’ataina pe ‘ikai fepaki pe tukulolo ē ki hē. Ko e fehu’i – ko e hā kuo ala ai e palēmia’ ki he mafai ‘o e fakamaau’anga’ he kupu 23 ‘oku ‘ikai ko hano mafai ia kae ‘ikai ke ne ngāue’aki e kupu 51 ko hono mafai totonu ia ‘o’ona ke ngāue’aki’. Kuo lea lahi atu e kakai he me’a ni mo ui kiate ia ke tuku ‘a Akosita ki tu’a ngaue’aki hono mafai he kupu 51 ka ‘oku ‘asi mai ‘oku fakasiosio kehe pe ia. ‘I he’ene pehee’ ‘oku lava ke tau aofangatuku ko e faka’uhinga ‘a e palēmia’ mo hono kei fakalaloa’i holo ‘o Akosita’ ‘oku ‘ikai fai ia ki he ‘uhinga lelei mo e ngaahi pilinisipolo fakamōlale’ ‘a ē ‘oku taau ka ‘oku fai pe ki he’ene lele’ia pea mo malu’i e ki’i kakai tokosi’i mo’ui ta’efaitotonu ‘oku nau poupou’i ia mo ‘ene ngaahi taumu’a fakapolitikale’ mo fakatokosi’i.
Lord Chief Justice’s PA works overtime after Lavulavu guilty report too big to be sent to media online
Tonga’s Supreme Court could reconsider its system of sending judgements to media by e-mail after the report on the Lavulavu trial was found to be too big to be sent electronically.
The judge’s verdict, which ran to 126 pages, had been eagerly awaited by media outlets.
The Personal Assistant (PA) for the Lord Chief Justice informed Tongan local and international media the verdict could not be attached to an email because of its large size.
She advised the reporters to come to the Supreme Court and download the 126 pages verdict ruling into a USP stick. We have informed the PA and reminded her we are based in Auckland.
The email was sent about an hour before the court’s closing time at 4.30pm.
However, the PA said she would just stick around until 5pm in the office in case some reporters would turn up late.
The email read: “Please be advised that the verdict ruling of the abovementioned case cannot be sent to you by email as an attachment, due to its size. Therefore, if you require a copy do attend our office with a USB drive.
“Note that our office is to be closed at 4:30pm. I will wait around until 5PM before I leave. If you have any questions please call me or the Registrar who is copied herein.”
Guilty
As Kaniva News reported yesterday, the Supreme Court has found Cabinet Minister and MP Akosita Lavulavu and her ousted husband, former Cabinet Minister and MP, Etuate Lavulavu guilty of allegedly defrauding $558,00 of government school funding grants.
‘Etuate, 62, and Akosita, 36, were charged with knowingly dealing with forged documents and obtaining credit by false pretenses, after irregularities in an audit of the ‘Unuaki ‘o Tonga Royal Institute in 2016. Akosita was the director of the school while ‘Etuate was the president.
The Tongan Broadcasting Corporation reported at the time that the attorney General believed that the Lavulavus had provided false information about student enrolments, which had led to the overpayment.
The original investigation identified 97 names of supposed students, including staff, band and floorshow groups working at the Restaurant at the Tonga National Cultural Centre.
Following their conviction, the Lavulavus, who have been married since 2009, have now been released on bail ahead of their sentencing on July 12.
The court case, which started in April 12, heard how ‘Etuate used his political connections and position to facilitate the frauds.
In his verdict, Mr Justice N. J. Cooper said: “This is an example of the worst sort of dishonesty; people who should be working earnestly for constituents but use their position, connections and influence to steal from a fund for the education of children of this Kingdom and then in front of me in court, twist the evidence and lean on witnesses to try extricate themselves,” Matangi Tonga Online reported.
“It is a particularly egregious aspect of this case that both defendants have tried to corrupt the trial process by buying off at least one [of the] witnesses,” Mr Justice Cooper said.
‘Etuate argued he was not directly involved as he was away in Vava’u and in Fiji at the time of the incident and that prosecutors had failed to prove otherwise.
But Mr Cooper said that claim was “just silly”.
“They were in this together, just as they ran the school together….What happened to the money on receipt and that they disposed of it makes this glaringly obvious,” according to the Matangi Tonga.
The grants were paid into the bank accounts that were controlled by both defendants. The applications for the grants were made in the name of ‘Akosita Lavulavu the Director. While ‘Etuate Lavulavu was the President of UTRI at all relevant times.
The judge said he had been persuaded on the evidence that both knew of the deliberate inaccuracy of the claims; the falsity of the student lists and the receipts.
‘Etuate Lavulavu has a long history of court appearances and convictions, while ‘Akosita Lavulavu has been the subject of repeated calls for her to step down from her Ministerial portfolio while the current case was being heard.
Supreme Court finds Lavulavu couple guilty in $558,600 fraud trial
The Supreme Court has found Cabinet Minister and MP Akosita Lavulavu and her ousted husband former Cabinet Minister and MP Etuate Lavulavu guilty of allegedly defrauding $558,00 of government school funding grants.
‘Etuate, 62, and Akosita, 36, were charged with knowingly dealing with forged documents and obtaining credit by false pretenses, after irregularities in an audit of the ‘Unuaki ‘o Tonga Royal Institute in 2016. Akosita was the director of the school while ‘Etuate was the president.
They have been released on bail ahead of their sentencing on July 12.
‘Etuate Lavulavu, who did not have legal representation, previously argued that he and his wife should have separate trials.
The Attorney General argued that the prosecution case was based on a joint enterprise by Mr and Mrs Lavulavu who allegedly gave instructions or information to their staff to engage in activities which allowed them to gain government subsidies.
They had applied money allegedly derived from the false accounting to their private bank accounts either individually or together.
Two material witnesses who Akosita Lavulavu admitted were accomplices had been given indemnities to give evidence of the allegedly dishonest instructions they received.
This resulted in a significant amount of money being received by the institute and then being transferred to the Lavulavu’s bank accounts.
In his closing argument last week, ‘Etuate Lavulavu, told Judge Nicholas Cooper he did not directly involve as he was away in Vava’u and in Fiji at the time of the incident and that prosecutors have failed to prove otherwise.
“What are the fake names that were added to the list? What went wrong with it and who were those fake names?” ‘Etuate asked at the end of the proceedings, local media reported.
Witnesses for Akosita told the court the names of students the prosecutor has submitted as fake were indeed students who were enrolled at Unuaki ‘O Tonga Royal Institute (UNRTI).
In an email from the Supreme Court this morning it says the verdict ruling of the case cannot be emailed to us in Auckland due to its size but it is available to be downloaded into a USP drive from its office.
Young Crusader Leicester Fainga’anuku not fussed over All Blacks bolter status
By One News / TVNZ and is republished with permission
A month from today, the All Blacks will play their first Test of the year in a historic clash with Tonga at Mount Smart Stadium in Auckland.
That match could have special meaning for rising star Leicester Fainga’anuku, if he’s able to crack the squad after an impressive campaign with the Crusaders.
It could be argued that given his form, Fainaga’anuku deserves to be in the All Blacks discussions but the outside back has a unique view on the black jersey.
“Growing up, there’s always been boys saying, ‘I want to be an All Black,’ but it was always a weird feeling for myself,” he said.
“Like, it wasn’t really a fire burning in my stomach. All I knew was my goal in life was to give back to my family, support them.”
Fainga’anuku’s journey to a potential black jersey has a few more miles to it than others though with the 21 year-old born in Tonga but named after a city in the east midlands of England with a connection to a special win over Italy.
“My name started with my old man,” Faianga’anuku told 1 NEWS.
“He was playing for Tonga at the time in England at the 99 World Cup. It was Leicester Stadium.
“They won by a dropped goal, three points and I think they were partying hard.”
The Fainga’anukus came to New Zealand from Tonga in the early 2000s looking for a better life with dad Malakai working as a plasterer.
Fainga’anuku started out in rugby league in South Auckland before his father moved the family to Nelson for work – and aren’t Tasman and the Crusaders glad they did.
“One thing I do love about the Crusaders is they create good people before good rugby players and that’s always a first,” he said.
“I think coming straight out of school straight into a team like that has really built me into the character I am today.”
Kacific succeeds in its application to Supreme Court to restore Tonga Satellite to Register of Companies
By Kacific
Kacific Broadband Satellites International Limited, a member of the Kacific Broadband Satellites Group (Kacific) has succeeded in its application to the Supreme Court of Tonga to restore Tonga Satellite Limited, a subsidiary of the Government of Tonga (TSL: company number 9006358), to the Register of Companies. This milestone means that Kacific can now continue its arbitration against TSL and the Government of Tonga.
Kacific came to Tonga’s aid during cable outage and signs long-term satellite broadband agreement with TSL
When Tonga suffered two cable cuts which plunged the nation into digital darkness in January 2019, Kacific quickly provided emergency broadband services to Tonga to ensure the nation’s most critical services could continue. Kacific has not been paid for providing that service.
To protect the nation from the consequences of any future cable problems the Government entered into discussions with Kacific for the supply of satellite broadband to the Tongan people and on 9 April 2019, Kacific and TSL signed a long-term agreement (the FSA) for the provision of satellite broadband internet in return for a single upfront payment of USD5,760,000 due on 15 June 2019. The satellite broadband would cover the whole of the Kingdom and would support the provision of e-government and e-learning services to Tongans living in remote locations and in the nation’s outer islands, as well as protecting the Kingdom against any disruption to its cable service for the next 15 years.
The fee remains outstanding. Following several unsuccessful attempts by Kacific to engage with TSL and the Government of Tonga in an open and constructive way about the payment of the fee, on 19 January 2021 Kacific commenced arbitral proceedings in Singapore against TSL and the Government of Tonga to enforce payment of the debt.
Kacific wishes to perform the FSA
Kacific has initiated the arbitration as the only means left to it to resolve its dispute with TSL and the Government of Tonga. Kacific’s preferred outcome is, and has always been, to perform the FSA: it wishes to provide bandwidth to the Kingdom of Tonga, and with it to bring benefits to those people in Tonga otherwise excluded from digital participation. The FSA will deliver on a vision for a digitized Tonga where all citizens have access to affordable broadband which would help eliminate disparities in health, education and e-government services.
Tongan Government fails to honour commitments
“Kacific negotiated with the Government of Tonga in good faith to provide affordable internet services to the nation, to safeguard the Tongan cable service and to enable connectivity for people living in remote locations,” says Christian Patouraux, CEO and founder of Kacific.
“We came to Tonga’s aid during its hour of need. We provided assistance when asked, immediately and without hesitation,” said Mr Patouraux. “Social responsibility is at the core of Kacific’s values. We provide broadband connectivity at an affordable price to underserved communities in the Pacific Islands and South East Asia, bringing tangible benefits to enterprise and access to healthcare and learning.
Kacific remains committed to operating openly and transparently in the Kingdom to deliver health, education and economic benefits and opportunities to the people of Tonga. It is deeply disappointing that Kacific has to undertake legal proceedings for payment, and that the Cabinet attempted to de-register and remove TSL from the Register of Companies after those proceedings had started. We are grateful that the Supreme Court has recognised this. The Tongan Government has benefited from millions of dollars (USD) of payments from international aid and infrastructure agencies to fund e-government initiatives and strengthen digital access over the last 10 years.”
FAKAMATALA FAKATONGA NOUNOU
Kuo ikuna ‘a e kautaha fetu’utaki fakasatelaite Kacific ‘i he’ene kole ki he fakamaau’anga ke toe fakafoki ‘a e hingoa ‘a e kautaha fetu’utaki ‘a e pule’anga’ ko e Tonga Satellite Limited (TSL) ki he Lēsisita ‘O e Ngaahi Kautaha pe Register of Companies ‘a ia ‘oku lēsisita fakalao ai ‘e he pule’anga’ ‘a e ngaahi kautaha pisnisi’. Ko ha makamaile ‘eni ki he kautaha’ ni he ‘e lava ke nau hoko atu ai ‘enau fakafekiki fakalao mo e TSL mo e pule’anga Tonga’. Ko e fakafekiki ‘eni he te’eki ke totongi ‘e he pule’anga’ mo e TSL ‘a honau mo’ua ki he Kacific hili ‘enau tū’uta ‘i Tonga ke tokoni’i e fonua’ he taimi na’e motu ai ‘a e keipolo faka’initaneti’ he 2019. Ko e alea ke totongi ‘a e pa’anga ‘Amelika ‘e nima miliona tupu (USD$5,760,000 ‘i he ‘aho 15 Sune 2019 kae fakahoko ‘a e ngāue’ kau ai ‘a hono fokotu’u ‘o e ako ‘i he ‘initaneti mo hono fakahoko e ngaahi ngāue ‘a e pule’anga’ ki he kakai’ fou he ‘initaneti’ pe ko e e-government mo e e-learning. ‘Oku te’eki totongi ‘a e pa’anga ko ‘eni a’u mai ki he ‘aho ni neongo ‘a e toutou feinga ‘a e Kacific ‘i he ngaahi founga kehekehe ki he pule’anga’ ke totongi ange ‘enau sēniti’. Ko e tupu’anga ia ‘o e ngāue fakalao ko eni kuo ikuna hono konga ‘uluaki’ ‘e he Kacific. ‘Oku fakame’apango’ia ‘a e Kacific he lava ‘onau fakahoko e tokoni ki he keipolo ne motu’ ka kuo te’eki totongi ange ‘enau sēniti’ pea toe feinga e pule’anga’ ia ke to’o hono lēsisita fakalao ‘o e TSL.
OPINION: PM uses constitution to defend his failure to take action against convicted Ha’apai governor
OPINION: Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa has used the Constitution to defend his failure to take action against the Governor of Ha’apai after he was found guilty of unlawful possession of turtle meat.
Tu’i’onetoa has cited Clauses 23, 54 and 55 to justify not taking action.
Kaniva News believes the Prime Minister’s argument is flawed and that Clause 54 of the Constitution outlines his powers, while Clause 55 underlines the Governor’s legal and Constitutional obligations. Clause 23 is a power given to the judiciary to make sure a person who is convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for more than two years would not become a minister or governor.
PM has more power
We believe the Prime Minister is wrong because clause 54 has given him more power over his ministers and governors no matter how significant or insignificant the offences they have committed, than the power clause 23 has given to the judiciary.
Tu’i’onetoa told Parliament he would not take action against Governor Viliami Hingano Manuopangai after the Governor was convicted and sentenced in the Supreme Court for breaching a law Manuopangai is obliged to ensure his people do not break.
Manuopangai, who was MP for Ha’apai No 12 until 2015, has been spoken of as a candidate for the Prime Minister’s PAK party to challenge sitting Democrat MP Mo’ale Finau at the next election.
Innocent until proven guilty
The Prime Minister has already clearly laid out the house rule for his ministers or governors and said the key for dismissing them if they misbehaved was the principle of being presumed innocent until found guilty.
He meant that if a Cabinet minister or governor became involved in serious allegations or court case he would only act against them if they were convicted by the courts.
Governor Manuopangai was found guilty and fined TOP$20,500 in the Supreme Court of unlawful possesion of 198 kg of turtle, but Tu’i’onetoa said the Constitution did not allow him to sack Manuopangai.
Attempt to divert attention
Tu’i’onetoa also told Parliament the government would not interfere with the judiciary, and that the Governor was free to lodge an appeal within 42 days after his sentence. He was sentenced on May 19.
The Prime Minister urged Parliament last week not to disobey the Constitution or leave the law aside because of their own personal opinions towards Manuopangai.
However, his plea could be seen as an attempt to divert attention from the fact that he has a responsibility to respond to the governor’s conviction appropriately.
Clauses 23 and 54 are independent
Clauses 23 and 54 are two separate powers given by the Constitution to the judiciary and the Prime Minister. The most important point here is that it appears the Prime Minister can recommend the dismissal of the governor at any time. The provisions of Clause 23 do not appear to prevent the Prime Minister from dismissing or forcing a governor or a minister to resign.
Kaniva News believes the Prime Minister’s reasoning for not taking any action is misguided. Any action taken by the Prime Minister with respect of a conviction would be justified by Clause 54, which it does not clash with Clause 23.
Clause 54 says: “The King shall appoint Governors to Ha’apai and Vava’u on the advice of the Prime Minister.” This means the power to dismiss the governor rests with the Prime Minister and the king’s prerogatives.
Conscience issue
It is also a matter on which the Prime Minister must use his conscience.
Although Tonga’s Parliament does not formally accept conscience and pragmatic approaches in a legal sense, technically such issues can arise. Even when we might expect them to vote as a block, nobles and people’s representatives have voted according to their conscience rather than on party lines, on certain issues.
Most of the Cabinet Ministers in the past included ministers who resigned according to their conscience did so because they did not want their continuation in the post to cause further distractions.
No interference with judiciary
If the Prime Minister stood down Governor Manuopangai temporarily while he was filing an appeal, such a decision would not be seen as interfering with the judiciary. One power lies with the Prime Minister, the other with the courts.
Governor’s role model
Kaniva News believes that Manuopangai has breached his constitutional obligation to enforce the law to his Ha’apai people.
The Prime Minister appears to have ignored the fact that Clause 55 clearly tells us that the sole responsibility of governors is to ensure their people follow the law. He has not made a case for keeping Governor Manuopangai in office, when his duty is to tell the people of Ha’apai, whose livelihood relies on fishing, to follow the law on turtle meat – a law he has been found to have broken.
The best thing for the Prime Minister to do is to stand down Manuopangai and let him appeal his conviction. If he is acquitted he may be re-appointed – on Hon. Tu’i’onetoa’s recommendation – by the king.
FAKAMATALA FAKATONGA NOUNOU
Kuo mahino ‘eni he’ikai pe fai ‘e Tu’i’onetoa ia ha me’a ki he kōvana Ha’apai hili hono tautea’i ia ‘i he fakamaau’anga’ ‘i hono maumau’i ‘o e lao ‘oku ‘uhinga ai ‘ene kōvana’ ke fakapapau’i ‘oku tauhi lao ‘a e kakai ‘o Ha’apai. Pea na’a’ ne fakahā ‘eni ‘i Fale Alea he uike kuo ‘osi’. ‘Oku faka’apa’apa’i pe ‘ene tu’utu’uni’ ka ‘i he taimi tatau ‘oku ‘i ai e ngafa ‘o e mitia’ ke sivisivi’i ene faka’uhinga’ pe ‘oku fai he ngaahi makatu’unga lelei, totonu mo taau pe ‘oku ‘ikai. Ko e vakai ‘a e Kaniva’ ‘i he fakamatala faka-e-fakakaukau (opinion) ko ‘eni’ ‘oku ‘i ai ‘a e tōnounou mo e matavaivai lahi he faka’uhinga ‘a e palēmia’ pea ‘e lava pe ke mau pehē kuo’ ne takihala’i ‘a e Fale Alea’ mo e kakai ‘o e fonua’. Kuo kalo e palēmia’ ki he kupu 23 e konisitūtone’ kae tuku e kupu 54 ‘oku ne foaki ‘a e mafai lukufua mo lahi ange ia he mafai ‘oku foaki ‘e he kupu 23 ki he fakamaau’anga’. Ko e kupu 54 ‘oku ne ma’u ai e mafai ke ne tauea’i ha minisitā ‘o tatau pe pe ko e hā e lahi hono tukuaki’i pe tautea he fakamaau’anga’. Ko e kupu 23 ‘oku fakangatangata pe ia ki ha taha kuo mo’ua ngāue pōpula laka hake he ta’u ‘e ua’ pe lolotonga fai ha’ane tangi tuku kehe kapau kuo fakamolemole’i ‘e he tu’i’. Pea tokua ‘i he faka’uhinga ‘a Tu’i’onetoa ‘oku hao ai ‘a Manuopangai he na’e ‘ikai foki mo’ua ngāue pōpula ia. Ka ko e me’a ‘oku vaivai ai e faka’uhinga ko ‘eni’ he ‘oku ‘ikai ‘aupito kaunoa ‘a e kupu 23 ia ‘i hono mafai (perogative) he kupu 55 ‘a ia kuopau ai ke ne pule ki hono fakanofo, tuku ki tu’a pe tautea’i ha’ane minisitā pe kōvana kuo tukuaki’i pe mo’ua ‘i ha’ane faihia. Ko e mafai kakato ia ‘oku ma’u ‘e he palēmia’ ta’e ha kākunga ki ai ‘a e fakamaau’anga’. Pea ‘oku foaki ia ‘e he konisitūtone’ ke vave ma’u pe ha’ane faitu’utu’uni ke fakapapau’i ‘oku ‘ikai ma’u ‘a e fu’u vāhenga lahi mo monū’ia ‘i he lakanga minisitā mo kōvana’ ‘e ha ni’ihi lolotonga ‘oku fai e femamahi’aki mo e vālau ‘a e kau li tukuhau’ ‘i hanau tukuaki’i pe ‘ulungaanga ta’etaau pe maumau lao. Pea ‘i he keisi ‘a Manuopangai, ‘oku lau ia ko e hia mamafa he kuo’ ne toe maumau’i pe ‘e ia ‘a e lao ‘oku tu’unga ai ‘ene hoko ko e kōvana’. ‘Oku hanga ‘e he keisi ko ‘eni ‘o tesi ‘a e konisenisi mo’ui ‘o e palēmia’ mo e loloto e maama fakalotu mo e ako ‘oku’ ne ma’u’. ‘Oku taha mātē pe fatongia ‘o e kōvana’ ‘oku tala mai ‘e he konitūtone’ kupu 55. ‘A ia ko e pau ke ne fakapapau’i ‘oku muimui ‘a hono kakai Ha’apai’ ki he tu’utu’uni ‘a e lao’. ‘E anga fēfē ke fakamālohi’i ‘e Manuopangai ‘a e kakai ‘o Ha’apai’ ke ‘oua na’a nau maumau’i ‘a e lao fekau’aki mo e kakano’i fonu’ lolotonga ia’ na’e mo’ua ia ‘i he’ene maumau’i ‘a e lao ko ia? Ko e fakamanatu pe ki he palēmia’ ko hono ngafa ke faitautea’ ‘oku ‘i he kupu 54 ia pea ‘oku ‘ikai ha kaunga ki ai ‘a e kupu 23. Ko e ongo mafai kehekehe ia ‘e ua ‘o ‘ikai ta’ofi ‘e ē ‘a ē. Pea kapau te ne fai hano tautea ‘o Manuopangai he taimi ni’ lolotonga ‘oku te’eki fai ‘ene hopo tangi ‘oku lau’ ‘e ‘ikai ‘aupito ha’ane uesia ‘e taha ‘ene tu’utu’uni ko ia’ ‘a e fakamaau’anga’ ai hangē ko ‘ene faka’uhinga ‘i Fale Alea’. Mole ke mama’o ke taku ko ha’ane kaunoa ia ‘i he fatongia ‘o e fakamaau’anga. ‘Oku hala ‘aupito e fo’i faka’uhinga ia ko ia. ‘Oku aata mai leva heni ‘a e fakakaukau ‘oku ‘ikai fai ‘ene tu’ut’uuni ko ‘eni ‘i ha ‘uhinga taau mo lelei mo e vakai atu a e kakai totongi tukuhau pea ‘oku ‘atā ai ki he kakai ‘o e fonua’ ke nau faka’uhinga’i pe ko hā ‘oku kei vilitaki ai ‘a e palēmia’ ke malu’i ‘a e kōvana’. Kuo ‘i ai foki e vavalo ‘a ha ni’ihi ‘oku taumu’a ‘a e palēmia’ pea mo ‘ene paati PAK ke kemipeini’i ‘a Manuopangai ke hū ki Fale Alea mei Ha’apai he fili hoko’. Pea kapau ‘oku tonu e faka’uhinga ko ia’, pea ta ‘oku ‘ikai tokanga ‘a e palēmia’ ia ki he lelei ‘a e kakai li tukuhau’ mo hono tauhi malu ‘e he kakai ‘o Ha’apai’ ‘a e lao’ ka ko ‘ene lelei pe ia ‘a’ana tokotaha mo ‘ene paati fakapolitikale’.
Jargon to blame for confusion over govt’s traveller quarantine fees proposal; ‘don’t twist and spin’, warned Lord Tu‘iha‘angana
Lord Tu’iha’angana has warned the government in parliament to come clean and tell the public it was working on a proposal for travellers to pay their stay in managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ).
The nobility MP said the government should give clear explanation about the proposal and avoid trying to mislead the public into believing there will be no such fees.
The noble also warned the government to be “transparent” saying the reality was that travellers are currently staying in MIQ free, while the government is working on a proposal to charge future passengers.
In Tongan Lord Tu’iha’angana said: “Mahino ia ‘oku te’eki ke totongi, ka ‘oku ‘i ai e fokotu’utu’u pehē pea ‘oku ou tui ko e fiema’u ia ko ē ‘ata kitu’a”.
Lord Tu’iha’angana also said: “Kae ‘oua ‘e toe takai pehē mai, hangē ko ē ‘oku toe ki’i vilovilo holo, ha’u hangatonu pē ke mahino ‘oku te’eki ai ke charge ‘a e 4 afe ka ‘oku fai e ngāue ki ai ‘a e Komiti ko ē pea ‘e toki ha’u faka’osi”.
In English this means:
“Do not spin and twist it, just come straight so that it is clear the $4,000 fees are yet to be charged but a committee is working on it before a final decision”.
Lord Tu’iha’angana was responding after what appears to be the Minister of Health’s failure to give a straight answer to a straight question from Ha’apai 13 MP after he asked her to clarify the “proposal”.
In Tongan MP Mo’ale Finau said: “Ko e ki’i konga ‘e taha ‘i he health ‘Eiki Sea. Ko e ki’i me’a pē eni ia ‘Eiki Sea ‘oku ki’i hamumu ai ‘a e motu’a ni. Ko e fo’i konga ko ē ‘o e 4000. Na’e pehē foki ‘aneafi na’e ‘ikai ke fai ha fakakaukau pehē pea hangē ‘oku ki’i malohi mai ‘Eiki Sea e me’a ni ia hangē ia ‘oku ha’uha’u pē ki’i fo’i fokotu’u ia ke ‘alu ki he Kapineti.
In English this means:
“One thing about Health Mr Speaker. Something I am concerned about. The part about the $4,000. Yesterday it was said there was no such idea but Mr Speaker it’s becoming clear now the proposal is likely to go to Cabinet”.
In her response, instead of clarifying the proposal, the Minister of Health Dr ‘Amelia Tu’ipulotu began by saying the government is not charging repatriated travelers with such fees. But that was not the question. She was asked to clarify Finau’s concern about the proposal.
The minister’s answer in the first place appears to show she was attempting to avoid being straightforward. And instead of using the word “fokotu’u” the English word for proposal she used the word “kaveinga ko ‘eni”, which it can be interpreted in English to refer to – this issue.
And instead of clearly saying a government committee was being tasked with revising the quarantine fees and expenses, she said it was a small committee, “ki’i kōmiti si’i”.
“But it has yet to be submitted to Cabinet,” Dr Tu’ipulotu said in Tongan of the proposal.
The Prime Minister claimed in parliament he was just made aware of the proposal after he read it in an email, apparently, an email by CEO Ma’u to Kaniva News on Wednesday last week confirming the proposal in which the Prime Minister was copied. Tu’i’onetoa said there was no decision made yet, “te’eki ke fai ha tu’utu’uni pau”.
As we reported last week and today, Communication (MEIDECC) CEO Paula Ma’u has confirmed to us last week the proposal is currently underway for passengers to pay their stay in MIQ from their own pockets.
He previously said in a press release the work to create the proposal was endorsed by the National Emergency Management Committee and National Committee for Covid-19.
He said when the proposal is completed it will be submitted to the two committees and if they approve it the proposal will then go to Cabinet for final decision.
Ma’u said the proposal was initiated after the costs for the managed isolation facilities were too expensive for the government to pay.
The planned quarantine fee was raised in parliament last week by former Minister of Health Saia Piukala. The Minister of Finance denied it.
The proposal has sparked heated debates online with critics calling on the government to withdraw it.
Critics argued that the Tongan returnees were people who got stuck overseas because of Covid-19 and most of them were on visitor’s visas.
They said this was not a good proposal for people who returned from New Zealand and Australian seasonal worker programmes because the quarantine fees would be an equivalent of the wages they earned after working up to eight weeks in the farms.
Health Minister reiterates govt’s ‘proposal’ for travelers to pay thousands for Tonga quarantine facilities
The Minister of Health once again told parliament yesterday the government is working on a proposal for travelers having to stay in quarantine facilities in Tonga to be charged up to $4,000 for their stay.
The measure, which is expected to come into force in July, apply to Tongans stranded overseas and foreign nationals wanted to come to Tonga.
It is the latest twist in what has been described as conflicting answers coming from the government last week with the Minister of Finance denying there was such proposal.
The government is currently paying up to $4,000 to managed isolation and quarantine facilities (MIQ) per traveler. It pays about $600,000 to isolate passengers arriving per repatriated flight.
Communication (MEIDECC) CEO Paula Ma’u has confirmed to Kaniva News last week the proposal is currently underway for passengers to pay their stay in MIQ from their own pockets.
He previously said work to create the proposal was endorsed by the National Emergency Management Committee and National Committee for Covid-19.
He said when the proposal is completed it will be submitted to the two committees and if they approve it the proposal will then go to Cabinet for final decision.
Ma’u said the proposal was initiated after the costs for the managed isolation facilities were too expensive for the government to pay.
The planned quarantine fee was raised in parliament last week by former Minister of Health Saia Piukala.
The plan sparked heated debates online with critics calling on the government to withdraw the proposal.
Critics argued that the Tongan returnees were people who got stuck overseas because of Covid-19 and most of them were on visitor’s visas.
They said this was not a good proposal for people who returned from New Zealand and Australian seasonal worker programmes because the quarantine fees would be an equivalent of up to eight-week working in the farms.
South Auckland community leaders question police response to Harbour Bridge cycle protest
By One News / TVNZ and is republished with permission
Some South Auckland community leaders are questioning the official response to a weekend cycling protest on Auckland’s Harbour Bridge.
Hundreds of bikers forced their way through a police cordon to ride over the bridge yesterday.
But, with just one arrest Auckland Councillor Efeso Collins is asking whether the group was shown leniency not shown to others.
“When you’re handling poorer people out south you’re treated one way by the police and when you’re managing people who are wealthy and in lycra you’ve got a completely different approach by the police,” he told 1 NEWS.
“You look at Ihumātao as an example, you had police in riot formation who’d turned up there, and then you get half a dozen cops trying to hold a gate together at the harbour bridge.”
Collins also equated it to what he believes was a heavy-handed police presence during the Rugby League World Cup in 2017 when Tongan supporters celebrated in the streets.
Manurewa’s Rowandale School principal Karl Vasu agrees.
“Imagine if this was a different group who pushed their way through a police cordon.
“There are people out there with other passionate issues and sometimes they’re not met with the same leniency or treated the same.”
1 NEWS asked police about allegations of bias.
In a statement they didn’t address the issue, but said they are continuing inquiries and a 47-year-old man arrested yesterday has now been cautioned.
