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.
Convicted Minister of Infrastructure Akosita Lavulavu had to take her seat shortly after she took the floor in parliament to announce her ministries’ new budgets for financial year 2021/2022.
Minister of Infrastructure ‘Akosita Lavulavu and husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu. Photo/Akosita Lavulavu (Facebook)
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.
House proceeds
The House then proceeded with the announcements of three budgets from the Public Service Commission, Department of Statistics and MEIDECC before the Minister of Finance announced Akosita’s budgets.
Lord Tu’iha’angana. Photo/ Facebook (Salote Sisifa)
Lord Tu’iha’angana’s concern has sparked heated debates in the House with the defiant Prime Minister reading out the clause 23 of the constitution saying he cannot do anything against Akosita until the day of her sentencing because the clause allowed her to stay in office if she will seek a leave to appeal her sentencing within 42 days.
But Lord Tu’iha’angana was worried and asked whether Akosita will seek leave to appeal her sentencing or not.
The exchange also sparked a debate in the House about the importance of conscience approach.
Lord Tu’iha’angana said the Prime Minister’s stance on Akosita according to the constitution was clear but it was important for him to speak up because he wanted to have his heart and conscience cleared out of his concern.
Akosita and her disgraced husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu was found guilty of defrauding more than half a million pa’anga of the government school grant scheme.
They are set to be sentenced on July 2.
In full pay
Akosita’s failure to perform her duty in parliament came after the Prime Minister has remained silent when he was asked to explain why the government paid thousands of pa’anga to Akosita during the six weeks she was out of her office and in court. She will continue to be paid for another estimated three months.
There have been calls for the Prime Minister to come clean and explain this situation to the public and tell them who will pay back that money if Akosita is denied an appeal and will be sent to jail next month.
The budget
The Minister of Finance told the House the Ministry of Infrastructure’s budget for 2021/2022 was $39.6 million. It included $1.7 million budget support and $13.7 funded by the government.
He did not give the total amount of the budget for Tourism but he said $1.5 million was allocated for the new tourism board of directors.
The House later passed the National Budget for 2021-2022, of $618.4 million pa’anga.
Lavemaau told the House that the deficit budget will be financed 60 percent by government, and 40 percent by Tonga’s foreign development partners.
A formal Government apology for the dawn raids will be delivered later this month, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has announced.
Immigration officials targeted the homes of people from the Pacific Islands in the early hours of the morning, beginning in the 1970s in a crackdown on alleged “overstaying”.
The policy followed a boom in jobs after World War II, where many people from the Pacific Islands were encouraged to come to New Zealand to fill roles in growing industries.
As revealed by 1 NEWS earlier today, the apology will be made on June 26 at the Auckland Town Hall.
“The dawn raids period is a defining one in New Zealand’s history,” Ardern said.
“To this day, many members of our Pacific community still struggle to talk about their experiences during that period.
“They were routinely severe with demeaning verbal and physical treatment.
“To this day Pacific communities face prejudices and stereotypes … an apology can never reduce what happened, or undo the decades of disadvantage experienced as a result, but it can contribute to healing for Pacific peoples.”
Social justice group the Polynesian Panthers protested the raids conducted nearly 50 years ago, this year still calling for an apology.
Reverend Alec Toleafoa, who joined the panthers as a 16-year-old, told 1 NEWS earlier this year that “part of the apology is putting to right the injustice that was done, what we’d like to see is recognition of that injustice. We would also like to provide something that is sustainable for our people, following an educative process…”
NZ Herald reported the open letter by Benji Timu said the raids had caused generational trauma.
“The past is implied as forgiven and forgotten; however, the effects of the past still linger in the fabric of our identity 50 years on,” it stated.
RNZ reported last month the Ministry of Pacific Peoples responded to the open letter, saying Pacific People’s Minister Aupito William Sio was receiving advice around an apology.
ANALYSIS: The Prime Minster has accused the king, Parliament and former governments of ill-intention (“loto tāngia”) and breaking the Constitution when they sacked former Speaker Lord Lasike and former Cabinet ministers.
Hon. ‘Akosita and her husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu
In July 2012, Lasike was convicted and fined for illegally possessing ammunition. As a result, he automatically forfeited his seat in Parliament.
Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa claimed these dismissals were unjustified.
He said leaders “kau taki” of those days did not live by the Constitution and it had cost some MPs their jobs.
The Prime Minister made the remarks in a livestreamed programme last week as he attempted to defend convicted Cabinet Minster Akosita Lavulavu and her husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu who have plundered more than half a million pa’anga of the government school grant scheme.
It was during the same radio talk show on Friday that he likened the church schools’ overpayments and misspending of the government school grant scheme to the Lavulavus plundering TP$558,600.
Many criticised the Prime Minister for making such comparisons against the churches.
The Lavulavus are set to be sentenced on July 2.
Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa. Photo/Kalino Latu
In justifying his use of Clause 23, which allows a convicted government representative to stay in office for another 42 days after their sentencing if they seek leave to appeal, the Prime Minister said he could not make any decision which went against the Constitution.
He then gave examples of previous dismissals and a court case he claimed were unjustified to support his stance on the Lavulavus.
Tu’i’onetoa cited the incident in which former Minister of Finance Dr ‘Aisake Eke was asked to resign in 2017.
He also mentioned other ministers and MPs who he said had resigned, but did not identify them. He said he was almost forced to resign after he refused to sign a government deal.
But what are the realities about these ministers and Lord Lasike’s dismissal?
Lord Lasike was dismissed in 2012 after an advice from the then attorney general was approved by King Tupou VI. At the time, the Office of the Legislative Assembly said the decision was made by the king under Clause 61(2) (c) of the Constitution. The noble’s title was also removed after he committed an offence under section 4(2)(b) of the Arms and Ammunition Act.
In 2017 the then Minister of Finance Dr ‘Aisake Eke was told to resign. The Late Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva announced that Dr Eke had to go after a no confidence vote against him was defeated. Dr Eke abstained from voting. It was the King and Prime Minister who processed Dr Eke’s resignation according to their prerogative under Clause 51.
Although Tu’i’onetoa did not name two of the other ministers he alleged were unlawfully forced out of office, it appears he was talking about Education Minister Hu’akavameiliku and Finance Minister Tevita Lavemaau.
The King revoked their ministerial positions after a recommendation by ‘Akilisi Pohiva. It was announced that the reason for the revocation included the duo paying gift money without the prime minister being made aware of it. The dismissal was made according to Clause 51.
Is Tu’i’onetoa’s comment misleading, and untruthful?
The Prime Minister appears to have confused the Court of Appeal decision to overturn Lord Lasike’s sentencing with his dismissal by the King according to the Constitution. These were two different incidents and should not be mixed up.
The Court of Appeal overturned Lord Lasike’s guilty verdict on the grounds that there had been a miscarriage of justice while the Supreme Court dealt with his charges of possession of ammunition without a license.
There was nothing to suggest that the quashing of the Supreme Court’s decision had anything to do with the King’s decision to sack Lord Lasike.
Tu’ionetoa was wrong again when he claimed that Dr Eke’s dismissal was unjustified and that the Constitution had been disregarded. It was in fact made based on reasonable grounds because, among other things, the then Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva was not happy with Dr Eke’s refusal to support the government by choosing to abstain in the vote of no confidence. In fact, his resignation was approved by the King under the Prime Minister’s recommendation under Clause 51.
Prime Minister Tu’i’onetoa, who appeared to have read his response to media from a written document, and often stopped to correct his mispronunciation on Radio FM 87.5 on Friday, failed to identify which clauses of the constitution His Majesty, former prime ministers and Parlianment had breached.
He also failed to prove that the king, the parliamentarians, and former governments were ill-intentioned when they made the dismissals.
Should the Prime Minister stop trying to confuse the media and the public?
The Prime Minister’s attempt to drag in Lord Lasike’s dismissal to justify his defence of the Lavulavus was wrong because Lord Lasike was elected by the Nobles to the House after he was found not to have committed any offence prohibited under the election acts.
Tu’i’onetoa’s re-appointment of Akosita as Minister of Infrastructure while knowing she was facing serious fraud charges that could send her to prison for seven years has raised many serious questions. The Prime Minister and former Auditor General should have been aware of the implications of Clause 23 in her case.
It has to be made clear that Lord Lasike did not initially take legal action against His Majesty or Parliament for dismissing him. He was appealing his conviction by the Supreme Court after he was prosecuted for breaking the ammunition acts and was finally acquitted.
Lord Lasike’s compensation from government was justified because there was a miscarriage of justice in his court case.
What has the Prime Minister kept from the media?
The Prime Minister has remained silent when he was asked to explain why the government paid thousands of pa’anga to Akosita during the six weeks she was out of her office and in court. She will continue to be paid for another three months.
The Prime Minister should come clean and explain this situation to the public and tell them who will pay back that money if Akosita is denied an appeal and will be sent to jail next month.
The Prime Minister should apologise to His Majesty, Parliament and the nation for his failure to take appropriate action against Akosita. He should stop making wild accusations and unfounded claims in an attempt to divert criticism from his refusal to sack Akosita. He is the only one to blame for this situation since he appointed her in the first place.
If Akosita’s appeal is denied or if her appeal goes ahead and fails and she and her husband are jailed, the only decent path the Prime Minister can take is to resign to save the reputation of Parliament and the kingdom.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This story was updated to reflect the fact that the king dismissed Lord Lasike following an advice from the then attorney general.
Former Minister of Finance Dr ‘Aisake Eke who was one of the witnesses for the convicted Lavulavu couple has pledged to fight to clear his name after the Supreme Court judge said he was not telling the truth.
Dr Eke had given evidence that non government schools were allowed to set their own fee system and that it was acceptable to write a cash receipt of the value of the barter item tendered.
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 also claimed that bartering services or labour for school fees was used world wide.
Under cross-examination by the prosecutor the former Minister of Finance claimed it was perfectly legitimate for the Institute to record a monetary value for the barter in the receipt book.
He said one student had brought a pig as part payment and the value of the pig had been recorded despite it contradicting the pro-forma words on the receipt.
Dr Eke also claimed he “knew of under payments and over payments” but “do not know any institutions that were prosecuted for overpayments.”
He said non-government schools were allowed to set their own fee system and that it was acceptable to write a cash receipt because of the value of the bartered item tendered.
He said during the trial which convicted Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu and her husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu that enrolment figures were manipulated when there were differences between first and second semester.
The couple are set to be sentenced on July 2 after they have plundered more than half a million pa’anga from the government school grant scheme.
Dr Eke said during the trial there had been an assumption that audits were being held annually and that money was only released to the Institute after an audit had been made.
However, government officials were very busy and there was a lack of co-ordination, despite calls for improvements in the process in 2016. Staff conducting audits were told to follow earlier Cabinet decisions.
Dr Eke stands by his claims
His lawyer, Tongan-Auckland based Amelia Schaaf told Kaniva News Dr Eke was subpoenaed by the Lavulavu to appear as a witness in their trial.
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.
She said the conclusion by Justice Cooper has greatly damaged Dr Eke’s reputation.
“Dr Eke is seeking legal advice whether there is any avenue for him to challenge the damaging conclusion made by Justice Cooper.
“He has worked in various institutions with integrity and has not had his truthfulness questioned. He hopes that people reach their own conclusion about his character, and not on the conclusion by the Judge”.
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.
Attorney General Linda Simiki Folaumoetu’i has confirmed that one witness has been identified for potentially committing perjury during the Lavulavu trial.
She said she could not release any details because police were still investigating and charges had not been laid.
Police from the Serious Crimes Unit, which led the investigation against the Lavulavus, were present in Court throughout the trial.
“No doubt they would have been alerted to the fact that a witness may have potentially committed perjury during the course of giving evidence or even from the judgment,” the Attorney General told Kaniva News.
She said her office would work with the police if charges were going to be laid.
If there was a suggestion that a witness in a criminal case had deliberately given false evidence under oath, the matter would be referred to Police to collect the relevant evidence, such as the official transcript of the trial.
“We cannot use a specific judgment and the views and findings of a judge in relation to the credibility of a witness to conclude that a witnesses has committed perjury,” the attorney General said.
“Evidence must be independently obtained by Police so that there is evidence to prove a charge of perjury.”
The guilty verdict
The Supreme Court has found Cabinet Minister and MP Akosita Lavulavu and her ousted husband former Cabinet Minister and MP Etuate Lavulavu guilty of defrauding $558,00 of the government school grant scheme.
‘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 2.
What were the reactions against the PM?
The Prime Minister’s repeated refusal to penalise Akosita has sparked a huge uproar with many calling on him to resign.
In Parliament last week the noble MPs led by Lord Tu’iha’angana along with Opposition Party took side with the public and told the prime minister he had to do something against Akosita.
There were calls for him to use his common sense and stand her down to maintain the government’s reputation and the king’s dignity.
Tu’i’onetoa has been slammed for using the Holy Bible and Clause 23 of the Constitution to defend his decision to keep Akosita in office while at the same time the constitution clause 51 has given him a prerogative power to force her to resign.
The Prime Minister is now facing another backlash over revelations about her pay. Critics have lashed out, saying that he has repeatedly changed his justification for taking no action against her.
In a series of startling comments this morning Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa compared the serious defrauding of the government grant scheme by convicted Cabinet Minster Akosita Lavulavu and her husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu to alleged overpayments made to church schools.
Speaking on radio, Tu’i’onetoa claimed more money had been paid to church schools than the institution plundered by the Lavulavus.
He said prosecuting the Lavulavus without taking any legal actions against the church schools baffled him.
He claimed the church schools used the money to pay for things which were not in accordance with the laws and regulations.
Tu’i’onetoa said the law was breached and the government made a decision to deduct those monies from the following year’s payments from the grant to those particular schools.
Imprecation
Tu’i’onetoa then referred to the Lavulavu case and said: “This is the only case which was taken to the court.
“And I do not know what was the intention behind it.
“Why were other schools not included?
He then paused and appeared to have attempted to compose himself before he began cursing and warning the Lavulavu’s critics.
The Prime Miniser was visibly emotional and tearful while defending the Lavulavus this morning on Radio Broadcomm FM87.5 livestream.
“If you are a Christian and made a serious judgement on this case do it and remember it was a judgement made by a sinner against his brother or sister who was also a sinner.
“Do not look down on your brother or sister as that was not Christian like.
“Do not shout out crucify as you may be the one next.”
The Prime Minister reconfirmed his stance on using Clause 23 of the constitution to defend his refusal to take immediate action against Akosita.
He never mentioned anything about clause 51 of the constitution which gives him an exclusive power to sack his ministers at his pleasure. it was the same clause Late Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva used to force Akosita to resign in 2018 when she was charged by Police. At the time Akosita did not use clause 23 to challenge her dismissal. She was reappointed by Tu’i’onetoa in 2019.
Analysis
The Lavulavus’ serious case which was described by the judge as “an example of the worst sort of dishonesty” has plunged the kingdom and its international community into a crisis of confusion.
In a small community like Tonga where there is lack of professional news media and the influence of the government on local news outlets became normal, it is important for authoritative figures like the PM to show professionalism, civility and respect.
The Prime Minister must stop responding to the media in a way that makes it look as if he is trying to spin the Lavulavu story to support his opinion and disregard the facts.
Tu’ionetoa has made the same claims that former Finance Minister Dr ‘Aisake Eke made in court in support of the Lavulavus. However, the Supreme Court did not believe Dr Eke when he said he “knew of under payments and over payments” but did “not know any institutions prosecuted for overpayments.”
Comparison
The Prime Minister’s comparison of the church schools’ alleged overpayments to the Lavulavus’ fraud case could be interpreted as telling the public the church schools had defrauded the government school grant scheme in exactly the same way as the Lavulavus.
Questions could arise from Tu’i’onetoa’s comment, including asking whether the church schools used hundreds of fake student names to claim money from the government as the Lavulavus did.
Did those schools really plunder funds and use nothing for the school or the teachers as the Lavulavus did?
If the Prime Minister was so concerned about the alleged misuse of funds by the church schools, why did he not consult the Auditor General and the Office of the Crown Law about the issue?
Church schools payments
We previously reported that Australian and New Zealand funds for non-government high schools in Tonga had been withheld by the Tongan Ministry of Education and Training.
We were told by the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) the money was misspent.
MFAT said the grants were being diverted into school operational budgets, which was not their intended purpose.
MFAT told Kaniva News in March 2016 the money had been cleared and it was released after two years.
We reported in April this year that some church schools funds had been withheld after the auditor found the schools had used them to pay for expenses not covered by their contract agreements.
The Free Wesleyan Church and Catholic Schools have told the media no one defrauded the grant, but they used the money to pay for school activities for which they did not have funds.
It is understood the government auditors became involved, but there were no reports that the church schools defrauded the grant scheme or dishonestly applied for it.
FAKAMATALA NOUNOU FAKATONGA
Ne māfana mo tangi ‘a e ‘Eiki Palēmia’ lolotonga ‘ene polokalama mai he feinga holo ke ‘aofi ‘a e ongo Lavulavu ‘aki ‘a e mafai ‘o e fakamaau’anga ‘i he kupu 23 hala ha’ane lave ‘e taha ki hono mafai tonu mo aoniu ‘oku foaki ‘e he kupu 51 ke ne tuli ha minisitā ‘i ha fa’ahinga taimi pe. Na’e ‘osi tuli ‘a Akosita he 2018’ lolotonga pe ‘oku laumālie ‘a e kupu 23 hā na’e ‘ikai ngāue’aki ai ia he taimi ko ia? Ka ne toki ngāue’aki ia ‘e ia? ‘Ikai ne ‘ilo e Akosita ‘oku mafai lahi pe PM ia he kupu 51 ki hono tuku ia ki tu’a? Kaekehe kuo ‘alu ‘eni e palēmia’ ia ki hono talatuki’i e kau fakaanga ‘o e ongo Lavulavu’ mo fakatokanga ‘oua te nau kaila kalusefai’ na’a ko kinautolu ia ‘e hoko’. Kuo ne toe toho mai ‘eni mo e totongi hulu hono fakamoleki ‘ o e pa’anga ‘a e ngaahi ako siasi ia ki he ‘ū me’a kehe pe ia ma’a e ngaahi ako’ ni ke ne fakatatau’aki ‘a e fu’u mātu’aki kākā fakalilifu mo ta’efaitotonu ‘a Sita mo ‘Etu. Na’e ‘osi fai ‘e Dr ‘Aisake Eke ‘a e fo’i fakamatala tatau ‘i fale hopo ke malu’i’aki ‘a e ongo Lavulavu ka ne ‘ikai tali ia ‘e he fakamaau’anga’. Toe kehe ange hono fakalahi’i ‘e he palēmia he ‘oku ne ‘eke’i pe ko e ha ‘oku faka’ilo ai pe ongo Lavulavu’ kae hā ‘a e ngaahi ako siasi? Ko e fehu’i ‘eni ke tokoni mai e palēmia ‘o fakamahino? ‘A ia ko ho’o ‘uhinga’ na’e kākaa’i ‘i he ‘ilo’ilopau ‘e he ngaahi ako siasi’ ‘a e pa’anga tokoni ‘a e pule’anga’ ki he ngaahi ako’ ‘aki ‘enau fakafonu loi’i e ngaahi hingoa ‘e lau ngeau tupu’ ‘o ma’u mai ‘aki ‘enau pa’anga hangē ko e ongo Lavulavu? ‘A ia na’e ngāue’aki tavale pe ‘e he kau pule ‘o e ngaahi ako siasi’ ‘i he founga hala ‘a e pa’anga tokoni’ hala ke nau faka’aonga’i ki he kau faiako’ mo e ngaahi ako’anga’ hangē ko e ongo Lavulavu? Ne ‘osi tala mai ‘e he fakamaau’anga ne ‘ikai pe ha momo’i seniti ‘e taha ne ‘ave ‘e he ongo Lavulavu ki hona ‘apiako’ na ngāue’aki pe naua ki he’ena fiema’u pe ‘a kinaua. Pea na’e ‘osi fakahā ne ‘i ai e tōnounou he ngaahi pa’anga tokoni ki he ngaahi ako siasi’ ka ko e lea ne ngāue’aki ko e misspent pe overpayment pe fakaTonga ko hono fakamoleki ki he me’a ne ‘ikai fai ha alea pe ‘ai ki ai pe totongi hulu. Na’e ‘ikai ko hano kaiha’asi hangē ko e lea ne ngaue’aki ‘e he fakamaau’anga ko e plunder pe ma’u ‘i ha founga mātu’aki kākaa’i hangē ko e ongo Lavulavu. ‘A ia ko me’a ne hoko’ ko hono ‘ave ‘e he ngaahi ako siasi’ e silini’ ki he’enau operational budget, pe patiseti ngāue ‘o fua ‘aki pe ia ngaahi fakamole ki he ako’ koeuhi ko e ‘ikai ha’anau pa’anga ki ai’ kae me’apango’ ne ‘ikai kau ia he’enau aleapau mo e pule’anga’. Ko e fakamatala ia kuo ‘osi fai mei he ako’anga siasi’ tautefito ki he Katolika’ mo e Uēsiliana’. ”Oku ‘ikai mama’o mei he feinga taki hala’ leva ‘a hono fakatatau ‘e he palēmia’ ‘a e natula e fehalaaki ‘o hono ngāue’aki ‘e he ngaahi ako siasi’ ‘a e pa’anga’ mei he fu’u mātu’aki kākā tō ki tu’a ne fai ‘e ongo Lavulavu’.Ne ‘omi e fakamatala tonu ki he Kaniva’ mei he Potungāue ki Muli ‘a Nu’u Sila’ he taimi ne mau lipooti ai ‘a e keisi ko eni ‘a e ngaahi ako siasi’ pea ne iku puke tu’u ai ‘ e Nu’u Sila o ‘Aositelēlia ‘a ‘enau tokoni ‘o toki tuku ange he ta’u hoko ‘osi hono fakapapau’i kuo lava solova e palopalema ko ia’. Neongo ne te’eki tuku ange ai e pa’anga’ ia ki he ngaahi ako siasi ni’ihi tu’unga he palopalema ne hoko’. ‘Oku hangē kuo hange ‘e he palēmia’ ia ‘o lī ki lalo ‘a e ‘Atita Seniale’ mo e ‘Ofisi ‘o e Kalauni he ngali ‘i he’ene fakamatala tokua ‘oku na fakasiosio kehe pe kinaua mei he ngaahi ako siasi’. Pea ko e hā ‘oku ‘ikai ke ne fai ai ‘a e tu’utu’uni ki he ongo potungāue ko ‘eni ke fakatotolo’i mo faka’ilo e ngaahi ako siasi’ kapau ne nau ma’u e pa’anga’ he founga tatau mo e ongo Lavulavu’ he ko ia tonu ‘a e ‘ulu ‘o e ongo potungāue’ ni. Ka ne fai ‘a e fa’ahinga fakamatala anganga taki hala ki he ngaahi ako siasi’ ke fakatonua’aki ‘ene ta’efiefai ha me’a kia Akosita’. ‘Oku toe ‘asi mo e hangē ‘oku ‘ikai ke ne faka’apa’apa’i ‘a e tu’utu’uni ‘a e lao mo e ngeia ‘o e Fakamaau’anga Lahi’ kuo fai ki he ongo Lavulavu’.
