Home Blog Page 389

PM Tu‘i‘onetoa sidesteps questions over continued payments to Minister, ignores calls for him to stand down convicted Akosita

By
Kalino Latu
-

Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa has failed to address questions about the thousands of pa’anga the government has paid to convicted Minister Akosita Lavulavu.

Kaniva News understands she was paid while out of office  and attending court for six weeks. She is continued to be paid.

Questions arose after Tu’i’onetoa claimed that previous governments had had to financially compensate  Ministers who had been sacked, but then won an appeal against their guilty verdicts.

Kaniva News has asked the Prime Minister to give an example of such an incident. We are waiting for a reply.

We queried him after he asked Kaniva News and other media to help him publicise his decision to keep Akosita in office despite her conviction.

He justified his decision by saying he would not force Akosita to resign because Clause 23 of the Constitution said anybody who had been convicted could appeal their sentence within 42 days.

His stance has sparked a public uproar, with many calling for him to use his prerogative under Clause 51 to suspend Akosita until her seeking leave to appeal her sentencing had been confirmed.

What happened to ministers who were dismissed in the past?

Kaniva News believes that of all the Cabinet ministers dismissed or demoted by Prime Ministers or the king before and after the 2010 political reforms, none were convicted while they were ministers.

Cabinet ministers who had been dismissed resigned because they either became involved in allegations, caused distraction to the government or the Prime Ministers were not happy with their performance.

This was because the Prime Minister has exclusive power given by Clause 51 of the Constitution to sack them at his pleasure. It mirrors Clause 50, which gives the PM the power to appoint his Cabinet.

Akosita is believed to be the first Cabinet Minister in Tonga to be convicted in the Supreme Court of serious fraud, but Tu’i’onetoa has taken no action against her.

How much Akosita is expected to have received?

The Prime Minister must come clean and explain why Akosita has continued to be paid. As Kaniva News reported last week, she was expected to have received an estimated TP$30,000 when she was out of office to attend her fraud trial and for the three months until September.

This money from the government’s coffers cannot be paid back to the Ministry of Finance even if Akosita’s seeking leave to appeal is dismissed, a source who was familiar with the government’s salaries said.

It is believed Akosita has been paid more than TP$7500 by the government as her normal salary. The money was meant for her to stay in her office and perform her ministerial duties or to represent Vava’u 16 in Parliament.

She is expected to remain in office until July 2 when the Supreme Court is expected to lay down her sentencing. This means that in another 28-day period, Akosita is expected to receive payments of about  $5000 in total.

After her sentencing it is anticipated that she will stay in her government office for another 42 days, during which time she is expected to apply for permission to appeal against her Supreme Court conviction. This means she is expected to receive another total of TP$7500 payment for this period.

If she lodges an appeal, it could take another 42 days or longer before she faces the Appeal Court. This meant she is expected to receive another payment of  about TP$7500 for that period.

Our source said Akosita’s Cabinet and parliamentary salary was around TP$1250 a week on top of her other allowances and entitlements.

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 this 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.

FAKAMATALA FAKATONGA

‘Oku mālie ‘a e kumi ‘uhinga holo ‘a e palēmia’ ke malu’i ‘ene ta’efiemāvae kava mo Akosita Lavulavu hili hono fakahalaia’i ia ‘i he fakamaau’anga’ pea ‘asi mai mo ‘ene ngaahi fakamatala hā ta’emo’oni pea ‘oku ‘ikai ko ‘ene toki fai ‘eni. Tala mai ‘e he palēmia’ ‘oku’ ne loto ke tuku pe ‘a Sita ‘i loto he ne ‘osi tuku ki tu’a tokua ‘e he kau palēmia ki mu’a ‘a e kakai pe kau minisitā ne halaia he fakamaau’anga’ pea iku ‘o tangi kinautolu ‘o liliu ‘e he fakamaau’anga tangi’ ‘a honau tautea’ ka kuo mole honau lakanga’. Toe pehē ‘e Tu’i’onetoa na’e iku ‘o mole lahi ‘a e pule’anga’ ‘i he ngaahi keisi peheni’ hili hono totongi huhu’i e kau minisitā pe kakai ko eni’. Na’a’ ne fakamatala’i e tu’utu’uni ‘ikai ‘ilo pe ko ha mo’oni ko ‘eni ‘a e kau palēmia ki mu’a’ ko e “kāimu’a” mo e “‘oho’ohomu’a”. Na’e fehu’i atu leva mei he Kaniva’ ‘o ‘eke ange ke ne tala mai ange’ ha minisitā mo ha palēmia ne hoko ki ai ha me’a pehē ki mu’a’ hangē ko ‘ene fakamatala’. ‘Oku te’eki ai ke ne tali mai ‘a e fehu’i ko ‘eni. ‘Oku tui ‘a e Kaniva’ ‘oku ‘ikai mo’oni e fakamatala ko ‘eni ‘a Tu’i’onetoa’. Ne te’eki ’i ai ha minisitā ia ‘i Tonga he teketi (decade) ‘e tolu kuohili’ ne mo’ua he fakamaau’anga’ pea tuku ki tu’a pea tangi ia ‘o toe liliu hono tautea’ pea iku toe totongi huhu’i ia ‘e he pule’anga’. Ko e kotoa e kau minisitā kuo fakafisi ‘i Tonga he kuohili’ ne fai pe ia he tu’utu’uni ‘a e kau palēmia ‘aho ko ia’ tu’unga ha hu’uhu’u kuo fai kia kinautolu pe ko ha ‘ikai pe fiemālie e palēmia’ ia kia kinautolu. Ko e mafai fakaleveleva ia ‘o e palēmia pea ‘oku ‘ikai ha lao ia ke ne ta’ofi. Ka kuo kalo ia fai ‘ene faka’uhinga mo manavasi’i na’a mo’ua e pule’anga’ tokua ha tali e tangi ‘a Sita’ kae fēfē ‘ene vahe’ pe ‘ena kae nofo fale hopo ia’? Toe hokohoko atu pe ‘eni ‘ene vahe’ pea ka ‘alu ia ‘o ngāue pōpula ‘e toe totongi fakafoki fēfee’i mai e pa’anga kakai’ ko ia?

Money from ‘Unuaki Institute bank accounts transferred into bank account belonging to convicted Akosita’s father; ‘barter’ school fees not allowed: AG

By
Kalino Latu
-

Details of the Lavulavu’s fraud continue to emerge, with revelations that they used a joint account belonging to  convicted Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu and her father to transfer money from ‘Unuaki ‘O Tonga Royal Institute’s bank accounts.

‘Etuate Lavulavu (L), Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu

News of the involvement of the Minister’s father emerged during the trial at which the Minister and her husband, disgraced former MP Etuate Lavulavu, were found guilty of defrauding the government of TP$558,600.

Armed with a search warrant Police found another two bank accounts belonging to the ‘Unuaki ‘O Tonga Royal Institute under Akosita and her husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu’s names.

The 126 page report on the trial and judgement said there were cross transfers between all the accounts.

The conviction included three counts of knowingly dealing with forged documents to defraud the government’s school grant scheme.

They are set to be sentenced on July 2.

Police also seized a letter applying for a loan from the Tonga Development Bank at the Lavulavu couple’s residential address.

They found two UTRI bank accounts, 2000911715 and 2000778155, which allowed them to compare receipts with deposits.

Auditor General Sēfita Tangi. Photo/Facebook

The judgement said both accounts were the name of both defendants, who signed for both of them. The opening of this account signed for by both ‘Etuate and Akosita.

The other account, 2000638284 BSP, was in the name of Akosita and her father.

In kind or barter school fees

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 Vs Former Finance Minister

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. “Only money was accepted. “

Dr ‘Aisake Eke’s claims

As Kaniva News reported yesterday, Dr ‘Aisake Eke 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 enrolment figures were manipulated when there were differences between first and second semester.

He said 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.

Not telling the truth

As we reported yesterday, Justice 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.”

Akosita dishonestly employs key witness as her PA; ‘Etuate ‘taught’ her to lie in court ‘on oath’: Judge

By
Kalino Latu
-

When convicted Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu was appointed  in October 2019 one of her first moves in office was rewarding one of their key witnesses by giving her an important role in her Ministry of Infrastructure, the Supreme Court has revealed.

Convicted Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu (L), ‘Etuate Lavulavu. Photo/Facebook

Akosita and her convicted husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu were both found guilty for obtaining TOP$558,600 by false pretences.

The conviction included three counts of knowingly dealing with forged documents to defraud the government’s school grant.

They are set to be sentenced on July 2.

Muna Nasiai, 29, who previously worked in the Lavulavus’ school office, was employed as Akosita’s personal assistant (PA).

Justice Nicholas Cooper said Nasilai “deliberately misled” the court by lying that she was a “clerk” in the Ministry for Infrastructure, before it was found out during the trial and on oath she was in fact Akosita’s PA.

“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 witness,” the judge said.

Taught to lie

The judge said he was no doubt that both ‘Etuate and Nasilai “rehearsed what she was to say in answer to questions put to her by him”.

But ‘Etuate “had made an error in what he taught her so she repeated that same incorrect version” to the judge in court.

Nasilai, along with another witness Simione Tahi, had been described by Mr Cooper as   examples of witnesses determined to lie to the court for the Lavulavu couple.

“Nasilai were plainly instrumental in the dishonest bidding of both defendants in the recruitments; the enrolment lists, and the receipts, she appears to be as culpable as these defendants from what I have seen”, Justice Cooper said.

“I am quite sure she was bought off by Mrs Lavulavu (and her husband) and given a job in the Ministry of Infrastructure where Mrs Lavulavu had become a Minister in October 2019”.

During the seven-week trial, Nasilai also pretended to be ill so that she could not come to court to produce her work contract with the Ministry, after she was ordered by the judge.

“That she was in fact Mrs. Lavulavu’s Personal Assistant means that the court was deliberately misled when she was identified during the trial and on oath, as being a “clerk” in the Ministry for Infrastructure”.

“That deceit strikes at the heart of this case because Miss Nasilai was called as a witness of truth on key issues the defence have gone on to rely on.

“But steps were taken to disguise her association and connection to the first defendant.

Justice Cooper said Nasilai’s lying on behalf of the Lavulavus was clear when she gave her evidence of two government auditors, Miss Golton and Mr Elone.

“This was a mistake that Mr. Lavulavu made in his questioning of her and was perpetuated by Miss Nasilai in her answer when she agreed with this, but went on to say she did not know the names of the people from MET who had come to check.

“Of course, they were really Miss Golton and Mr Elone.

“The corollary of this is that plainly both Mr. Lavulavu and Miss Nasilai had rehearsed what she was to say in answer to questions put to her by him; he had made an error in what he taught her so she repeated that same incorrect version to me in court. No doubt this attempt to assist the defendants by perjuring herself is how and why she was ‘rewarded’ with a job by Mrs Lavulavu”.

Looked uneasy 

Mr Cooper described Nasilai’s reaction in court while she was giving evidence about a meeting in Sopu as “looking very uneasy at this point”.

“She was hardly ever addressing her answers to me and often casting her eyes to the ground when answering. She stated from 2012 to 2016 nothing illegal had happened at UTRI”, Justice Cooper said.

As we reported previously, the Lavulavu couple have been released on bail after their conviction.

The conditions of the bail included requiring the couple to report into the central police station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and they are prohibited from leaving the mainland Tongatapu .

Former Finance Minister Dr ‘Aisake Eke not telling the truth while giving evidence during Lavulavu fraud trial: Judge

By
Kalino Latu
-

Former Minister of Finance and MP Dr ‘Aisake Eke failed to tell the truth in court when he gave evidence at the trial of the convicted Minister of Infrastructure Akosita Lavulavu and her convicted husband ‘Etuate Lavulavu, a Supreme Court judge said.

Dr ‘Aisake Eke (L), ‘Etuate Lavulavu

The couple, who swindled the government’s school grant out of more than $500,000 left the judge in no doubt that  instead of using the funds to support their Unuaki ‘O Tonga Royal Institute (YTRI) and the teachers, the Lavulavu “used the monies freely for themselves”.

Dr Eke made claims in court in which the judge referred to them in his judgement as the former and the latter.

He said the “Cabinet Decision 1182 dated 22 December 2009 70 , effectively were the rules for processing of TVET grants for Tongan schools”.

Dr Eke claimed  he “knew of under payments and over payments” but “do not know any institutions prosecuted for overpayments”.

“Heard from some service providers there was real financial hardship”.

“If the roll calls higher, then lower and deduct for the 2nd Semester.

“2016 came across Government document calling for the improvement of subsidies but this manual was not approved.

“No guidance manual approved in his time, just the Cabinet Decision 1182

“When the audit came annually, they should follow 1182.  Audit is to check the reality, by talking with the other parties.

“Supposed to audit then release money, but they were very busy. An assumption they did it annually. Problem was lack of coordination”.

Dr Eke also claimed that 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.

When he was under cross-examination by the prosecutor, “he claimed that for example in a receipt book had a student brought a pig by way of payment then recording a sum of money received was a legitimate as it expressed its value, despite and contrary to the proforma words on the receipt. He could not recall if UTRI was one of those colleges facing hardship”.

Not desirous of telling the truth

Mr Cooper said: “Dr. Eke provided no proof as to the former claim and when he made the latter, all his credibility was gone, it then being so obvious he was not desirous of telling the truth”.

Parts of his claims were made after the court was told the grant was used to reimburse ‘Etuate.

The judge rejected this and said “the grant had clearly defined specific purposes and only those uses : 50% to supplement teachers’ salaries, the rest to improve teaching and minor renovations, never was it to be a reimbursement system”.

Mr Cooper described the Lavulavus’ conduct as  “disgraceful” and “goes beyond just criminally reprehensible”

“ 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”.

The court case had been dubbed the trial of the century.

The fact that it involved two high profile political figures, ‘Etuate’s no stranger to controversy and court, and that the Prime Minister’s repeatedly demonstrated inclination to take no action against Akosita, the conviction has sparked public outrage.

Public outrage

Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa is being heavily criticized after he repeatedly refused to take immediate action against Akosita. He told Kaniva News last week Akosita will remain in office until an appeal leave is expected after July 2. It will take another 42 days to process that appeal application.

The prime minister has been urged to use his common sense and stop mixing religion and politics as an excuse to do nothing.

Tu’i’onetoa has been slammed as cynical and irresponsible after he appears to support Akosita and failing to show empathy and sensitivity to the taxpayers and overseas donors such as New Zealand and Australia which funded the school grants which have been defrauded by the Lavulavus.

The Prime Minister now is facing another backlash after it has been reported that Akosita was still receiving her full pay from the government since the first day she was in court facing her fraud charges.

Tu’i’onetoa maintained his decision was fair to allow Akosita to go through the court’s due process and if the appeal court upholds the Supreme Court’s decision than he will make his final decision.

But critics lashed out with many saying he was indecisive after previously defending Akosita by hiding behind the principle of innocent until found guilty. When Akosita was convicted he said the constitution clause 23 gave her another chance until her appeal is complete.

Man charged with manslaughter over death of MMA fighter Liufau Vake

By
Kaniva Staff
-

A man has been charged with manslaughter this morning over the death of MMA fighter Liufau Vake in Auckland last month.

He was one of the four men who appeared in Auckland District Court today charged in relation to the fatal incident on Symonds St in the early hours of Sunday, May 16.

It is alleged Vake fell after being hit from behind while he was heading home after a night out in the CBD.

The identifies of the four men will stay secret until June 23 and their cases have been transferred to the High Court.

As we reported previously, one of the men was charged with common assault, another with two counts of assaulting with intent to injure, another charged with wounding with intent and injuring with intent, and another is also charged with common assault.

Three of the men are aged 29. The fourth is a 32-year-old.

Vake’s last fought before he died was in late April. It was part of the Undisputed Fight Series event in Wairarapa, where he won by TKO in the first round in the card’s main event.

He had a 2-0-0 win-loss-draw record as a middleweight MMA fighter.

His death has been described as a great loss to the mixed martial art community as Vake had been seen as a promising and rising start fighter.

 

Convicted Akosita Lavulavu paid salaries of up to $30,000 while attending trial, until when seeking leave from Appeal Court confirmed

By
Kalino Latu
-

Convicted Cabinet Minister and MP Akosita Lavulavu was expected to receive an estimated amount of TOP$30,000 when she was out of office to attend her fraud trial and while deciding whether to seek leave to appeal her Supreme Court conviction in more than two month’s time.

This money from the government’s coffers cannot be paid back to the Ministry of Finance even if Akosita’s seeking leave to appeal is dismissed, a source who was familiar with the government’s salaries said.

It is believed Akosita has been paid more than TP$7500 by the government as her normal salary. The money was meant for her to stay in her office and perform her ministerial duties or to represent Vava’u 16 in Parliament.

She is expected to remain in office until July 2 when the Supreme Court is expected to lay down her sentencing. This means that in another 28-day period, Akosita is expected to receive payments of about  $5000 in total.

After her sentencing it is anticipated that she will stay in her government office for another 42 days, during which time she is expected to apply for permission to appeal against her Supreme Court conviction. This means she is expected to receive another total of TP$7500 payment for this period.

If she lodges an appeal, it could take another 42 days or longer before she faces the Appeal Court. This meant she is expected to receive another payment of  about TP$7500 for that period.

Our source said Akosita’s Cabinet and parliamentary salary was around TP$1250 a week on top of her other allowances and entitlements.

Bail conditions

As we reported previously, the Lavulavu couple have been released on bail after their conviction.

The conditions of the bail included requiring the couple to report into the central police station every Monday, Wednesday and Friday and they are prohibited from leaving the mainland Tongatapu .

Akosita and her husband, ousted former Cabinet Minister and MP ‘Etuate Lavulavu, were both found guilty for obtaining TOP$558,600 by false pretences.

The conviction included three counts of knowingly dealing with forged documents.

Public outrage

Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa is being heavily criticized after he repeatedly refused to take immediate action against Akosita. He told Kaniva News last week Akosita will remain in office until an appeal application is expected after July 2. It will take another 42 days to process that appeal application.

There were calls for the prime minister to use his common sense and stand her down to keep the good reputation of the government and the king’s dignity.

The prime minister has been slammed for using the Holy Bible and clause 23 of the constitution to defend his controversial 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 now is facing another backlash after it was clear Akosita was still receiving her full pay from the government since the first day she was in court to face her fraud charges.

Tu’i’onetoa maintained his decision was fair to allow Akosita to go through the court’s due process and if the appeal court upholds the Supreme Court’s decision than he will make his final decision.

But critics lashed out with many saying he was two-faced and he appears to have changed his stance against the Lavulavu saga from time to time.

Tu’i’onetoa previously defended Akosita by hiding behind the principle of innocent until found guilty. When Akosita was convicted he said the constitution clause 23 gave her another chance until her appeal is complete.

What are Lavulavu couple sentences likely to be after conviction over $500,000?

By
Kalino Latu
-

Cabinet Minister ‘Akosita Lavulavu and her husband, ousted former Cabinet Minister and MP ‘Etuate Lavulavu, were both found guilty on Friday for obtaining TOP$558,600 by false pretences.

The charges included three counts of knowingly dealing with forged documents.

They are set to be sentenced on July 2.

It’s currently unclear how much time the couple will spend behind bars.

Obtaining an advantage by false pretences carries a maximum penalty of five years’ jail while forgery carries a maximum imprisonment of seven years.

Knowingly dealing with forged documents carries a maximum penalty of five years.

The presiding judge, Nicholas Cooper, has wide discretion in how he imposes the sentences. It’s unclear whether the sentences will be imposed consecutively or concurrently — or whether Akosita’s status as a first-time offender will result in a shorter sentence.

‘Etuate was no stranger to court and he could be given the maximum allowable sentences. The Supreme Court convicted him of bribery and spending over the legal limit on his 2014 election campaign.

The conviction cost him his Parliamentary seat for Vava’u No. 16.

In his summary of the case, Lord Chief Justice Paulsen said Lavulavu was not a credible witness and that his evidence was implausible, evasive and untruthful.

Furious backlash

Prime Minister Pohiva Tu’i’onetoa provoked a furious backlash from the public for refusing to sack Akosita.

Tu’i’onetoa has used the constitution’s clause 23 to defend his failure to take immediate action against Akosita because she has appealed her conviction, a move which will take a 42-day process.

But critics called on him to use his exclusive power given by clause 51 to sack her.

‘Akosita previously told Kaniva News he would not step down citing the principle of everyone is innocent until found guilty.

FAKAMATALA FAKATONGA

‘Oku ‘ikai mahino pe ko e hā e lōloa e ta’u ‘e ngāue pōpula ai ‘a e ongo Lavulavu’ tukukehe ka ‘i ai ha tautea toloi. Ko e hia kuo na halaia ki ai ‘oku tautea ngāue pōpula kotoa ia. Ko e ma’u e pa’anga ‘i he founga kākaa’ ‘oku ngāue pōpula ‘ikai toe laka hake he ta’u ‘e nima. Ko e tautea lahi taha ki hano liliu kākaa’i ha fakamatala ko e ngāue pōpula ‘ikai toe laka hake he ta’u ‘e fitu. ‘Oku ‘atā e mafai ‘o e fakamaau lahi Nicholas Cooper ki he anga ‘ene fili ki he lahi ‘o e tautea ke hilifaki’. ‘A ia ‘oku ‘ikai mahino pe te ne tautea ke na ngāue’i taimi kehekehe’i ‘a e ngaahi hia kuo fai ai ‘a e halaia’ pe te ne hilifaki ke ngāue’i fakataha’i pe ‘i ha fo’i taimi pau. Pea ‘e malava foki ke fakasi’isi’i ha tautea ‘o Akosita he ko ‘ene toki halaia ‘eni ‘i he fakamaau’anga’. Ko ‘Etuate kuo pāte’i ia ‘i he fakamaau’anga’ kau ai ‘ene halaia ‘i he ta’u 2014 he’ene totongi fakafufū pea iku mole ai hono sea ‘i Fale Alea’. Pea ‘i hono tu’unga ko ia’ ‘e malava na’a fusi a’u ‘e he fakamāu’ hono tautea’. Kaekehe, kuo fakahā mai kuo fakahū atu e tangi ‘a e ongo me’a’ ni.

Samoa PM approves minister’s resignation after police charges as Tonga PM defends decision to keep fraudster minister and convicted governor in their offices

By
Kaniva Staff
-

Samoa Prime Minister elect has approved the resignation of her Minister elect for the Environment and Tourism, Toeolesulusulu Cedric Schuster after he was charged with drink driving offence on Tuesday last week.

The Prime Minister elect Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa announced  that she has accepted Toeolesulusulu’s decision that was prompted by his respect for the rule of law and the protection of the integrity of the office, a press release said.

Fiamē said she respects Toeolesulusulu’s decision and based on the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, he remains a Member of Parliament and that the member has the Party’s full support as he follows the process to clear his good name in the court of law.

Meanwhile, Tonga Prime Minister Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa has come under fire after he announced he will not dismiss his convicted fraudster Infrastructure Minister Akosita Lavulavu and his convicted Ha’apai Governor Viliami Manuopangai Hingano.

The Supreme Court has found Akosita and her ousted husband former Cabinet Minister and MP Etuate Lavulavu guilty of 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 couple are set to be sentenced on July 2.

Tu’i’onetoa told media yesterday that Akosita would stay in office until the 42-day appeal process was complete.

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.

It was the same pathetic excuse he used to defend his refusal to take immediate action against the governor.

Tu’i’onetoa failed to mention that clause 51 of the constitution has given him an exclusive power to sack a Cabinet Minister at his pleasure whether they were innocent, convicted or at the centre of an allegation.

In convicting the governor last month after he was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of 198 kg of turtle meat , the Supreme Court judge said:

“Having heard the accused‘s background, he being a director in the Ministry of Public Enterprises, and he had been a member of Parliament representing District 12 of Ha’apai which included Lofanga, and having grown up and living in Ha’apai, I do not believe his evidence that he did not know that an approval was required before a turtle was killed”.

The governor was fined TOP$12,500.

OPINION: PM uses biblical advice, constitution to defend his refusal to take immediate action against convicted Cabinet Minister Akosita Lavulavu

By
Kalino Latu
-
OPINION: The Prime Minister’s media release this evening, Saturday 5 in response to his Minister of Infrastructure’s guilty verdict 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. Various roles We believe the provisions 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 only as an attempt by the government to stop further distraction from the public because of her continuation in the office. That is the normal practice in New Zealand and other democracies as well as in Tonga. 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.

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

By
Kalino Latu
-

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.

PM Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa, ‘Etuate Lavulavu and MP ‘Akosita Lavulavu

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.

1...388389390...966Page 389 of 966