Home Blog Page 661

Speaker has no power to advise king to dissolve Parliament says Justice Minister

By
Kalino Latu
-

There is no clause in the Tongan Constitution which says the king can dissolve Parliament on the advice of the Speaker of Parliament, the Minister of Justice told Kaniva News today.

Hon. Sione Vuna Fā’otusia said this meant there was room to challenge in court the involvement of the Speaker in the decision.

His Majesty King Tupou VI dissolved Parliament after he received recommendations from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Lord Tu’ivakanō, who was Prime Minister before Hon. ‘Akilisi Pohiva.

Acting Attorney General Aminiasi Kefu said the decision to dissolve Parliament was part of the king’s royal prerogatives and it could not be challenged in court.

However Hon. Fā’otusia disagreed and said the decision by the king, based on a recommendation from the Speaker, was not a royal prerogative, but was a statutory .

“The Acting Attorney General does not think so! But I think that there is a ground for judicial review as the decision was not royal prerogative, but statutory!”, Hon. Fāʻotusia told Kaniva News.

“There is nothing in the constitution to allow the king to dissolve the house based on the recommendation of the Speaker.

“What the king did is not considered proper i.e. to dissolve a duly elected government of the people based on the recommendation of the Speaker.

The instrument of dissolution unequivocally stated that “having considered advice from the lord speaker of the legislative assembly, … [they] do lawfully dissolve the legislative assembly…”, the Minister said.

Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva said on Wednesday the king had the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

He said he received recommendations from lawyers that the government could challenge the “second part” of the royal directive, which referred to the king’s order to put his government on the caretaker mode.

The recommendations were based on clause 50A of the Constitution, which says the Prime Minister would continue holding his office even if the Parliament was dissolved.

The Constitution says the Prime Minister will hold his office until: “(c) he dies, resigns, or his appointment is revoked after he ceases to be an elected representative for any reason other than the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly;”

Hon. Pōhiva said he would not seek any legal action against the king’s decisions.

The Constitution clearly states the two bodies which can advise the king are Privy Council and the Prime Minister.

This is what the constitution says:

“Constitution and powers of Privy Council

(1) The King shall appoint a Privy Council to provide him with advice. The Privy Council shall be composed of such people whom the King shall see fit to call to his Council.

(2) If any case shall be heard in the Land Court relating to the determination of hereditary estates and titles, it shall be lawful for either party thereto to appeal to the King in Privy Council which shall determine how the appeal shall proceed and the judgment of the King in Privy Council shall be final.

(3) Privy Council may by Order in Council regulate its own procedures”.

According to the Constitution the Prime Minister has the power to recommend His Majesty remove the Speaker of Parliament according to Clause 61 (3). The clause says:

“If the Prime Minister, with the approval of at least half of the members of the Legislative Assembly, recommends to the King that the Speaker be removed from office, the King shall revoke the Speaker’s appointment and appoint a new Speaker on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly.”

The main points

  • There is no clause in the Tongan constitution which says the king can dissolve Parliament on the advice of the Speaker of Parliament, the Minister of Justice told Kaniva News
  • Sione Vuna Fa’otusia said this meant there was room to challenge the decision in court.
  • His Majesty King Tupou VI dissolved Parliament after he received recommendations from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Lord Tu’ivakano, who was Prime Minister before Hon. ‘Akilisi Pohiva.
  • “There is nothing in the constitution to allow the king to dissolve the house based on the recommendation of the speaker,” Hon. Fa’otusia said.

For more information 

Challenge to king’s action has no basis in law or Constitution, says acting AG

Two men, one woman charged after theft of heart surgery equipment

By
Kalino Latu
-

Three suspects have been charged with housebreaking and theft after heart surgery equipment were stolen from the Tanoa Hotel in Nuku’alofa.

Police have  arrested  a 42-year-old  man from Tofoa and his 25-year-old  girlfriend from Lomaiviti this morning,  in relation to the  housebreaking  and theft  of a laptop and 4 flash drives which were stolen on Wednesday morning.

A third suspect, a 48-year-old man from Kolomotu’a was arrested from a house at a bush allotment in Lomaiviti this morning at 5.24am, where Police found the  stolen laptop and flash drives  as well  as 4 cannabis plants.

As Kaniva News reported on Wednesday, a complaint had been launched with Police after heart surgery equipment belonged to heart surgeons from Australia were stolen from their hotel room.

“This is excellent work by the Police Criminal Investigation  Unit  in locating  and arresting these people responsible for this burglary so quickly,” says Acting Chief Superintendent Tevita Vailea.

“We are pleased to have been able to locate and give back to them the  property stolen within  two days of the  crime being committed.”

“It is a disgrace that criminals have  stolen from guests to our country,  whom are here  to help  our medical people to care for our people.”

The suspects are remanded in Police custody to appear at the Nuku’alofa Magistrate Court  later today.

Pacer Plus signing followed Budapest convention signing process, Deputy PM says

By
Kalino Latu
-

Tonga’s interim Deputy Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni has defended the signing of the Pacer Plus agreement in June.

He was responding to questions about whether the signing was illegal because it bypassed the king’s approval.

Hon. Sovaleni said the government followed the same process used to sign the Budapest Cybercrime convention before the king ratified it.

Tonga was the first Pacific country to join the Budapest Convention On Cybercrime Treaty in May.

Hon. Sovaleni said the government signed the convention followed by a public consultation before he submitted the agreement to the His Majesty for ratification.

He was speaking to a question at a press conference in Nuku’aofa yesterday whether the government had sought advice from its solicitors before signing the Pacer Plus treaty.

The question emerged after it was revealed the signing of the Pacer Plus treaty was one of the grievances the Speaker of Parliament, Lord Tu’ivakano, presented to His Majesty before a royal command was issued to dissolve the Legislative Assembly last week.

Lord Tu’ivakano claimed the government had tried to bypass the King by signing the trade agreement and the UN convention on women’s rights, CEDAW.

Hon. Sovaleni said signing and ratifying of any convention or treaty in Tonga were two different processes.

He said the power to sign any convention lay with the government, which then held public  consultations.

If the majority of the public accepted it than the government presented the agreement to the king to ratify it. If the king did not want to sign it, that was the end of it.

He said the Pacer Plus signing followed the same pattern. The government had signed it and it was awaiting the consultation process.

Once the consultation process was completed, the government would present it to the king to ratify.

However, Acting Attorney General ‘Aminiasi Kefu has been quoted by local media as saying the Tonga government’s signing of the Pacer Plus Trade Agreement was not valid because it was not presented to the King for approval.

Kaniva News contacted Hon. Kefu this afternoon and asked him why the Budapest Cybercrime Convention Treaty was treated differently from the Pacer Plus agreement.

In his response Kefu said what he told media was just an opinion.

“As reported by Matangi Tonga, our view is that His Majesty must approve signing, accession and ratification of any treaty, convention or protocol”, he told Kaniva News.

However, the newspaper’s website said: “The Acting Attorney General, ‘Aminiasi Kefu told Matangi Tonga today that the government must adhere to a legal approval process when signing international treaties or agreements, which must ultimately be approved by the King.”

The main points

  • Tonga’s interim Deputy Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni has defended the signing of the Pacer Plus agreement in June.
  • He was responding to questions about whether the signing was illegal because it bypassed the king’s approval.
  • Sovaleni said the government followed the same process used to sign the Budapest Cybercrime convention before the king ratified it.
  • He said the government signed the convention followed by a public consultation before he submitted the agreement to the His Majesty for ratification.

For more information

Tonga becomes first Pacific island country to join Budapest convention

PACER-Plus trade deal signed in Tonga

Challenge to king’s action has no basis in law or Constitution, says acting AG

By
Philip Cass
-

Acting Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions ‘Aminiasi Kefu, said this morning any legal action taken against the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly would be dismissed by the courts.

The Acting Attorney General was responding to an article in Kaniva News which quoted former Government Chief Executive Officer for Internal Affairs Mr. Lopeti Senituli urging the current Government to take legal action against King Tupou VI’s decision to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Senituli said the Government should apply to the Court for an injunction against the dissolution and for a review of the king’s actions.

Hon. Kefu said there was no provision in the Constitution or laws of Tonga to support Mr Senituli’s opinion.

He said His Majesty’s personal prerogative to dissolve parliament was not limited by the law.

The power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution was a personal Royal prerogative that had no “parameters” prescribed by any law, unlike the personal Royal prerogative to appoint successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates.

Accordingly, there was no basis for the Courts to analyse whether the decision taken by His Majesty the King to dissolve the Legislative Assembly had exceeded any legal parameters prescribed by the law.

“The wording of clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution puts this principle beyond doubt,” Hon. Kefu said.

“Clause 38 provides that the King may dissolve the Legislative Assembly at his pleasure and command that new representatives of the nobles and people be elected to enter the Assembly.”

Clause 77(2) also provided that “it shall be lawful for the King, at his pleasure, to dissolve the Legislative Assembly at any time and command that new elections be held.”

The Acting Attorney General said Mr Senituli had based his opinion on the Land Court case of Tupou Tongaliuaki Filo’auola Aleamotu’a v Fielakepa, [2015] Tonga LR 556 (Scott LCJ).

However, Hon. Kefu said that in the case relied upon by Mr Senituli, the court had ruled that the king could not be made a defendant to the case because the Courts had no jurisdiction over him.

Legal reasoning

Hon. Kefu then went into lengthy detail explaining the court’s reasoning for its finding.

“A distinction must… be drawn between the exercise by His Majesty of unfettered royal prerogatives retained by him under the Constitution, such as the power to confer titles (Clause 44) and the exercise by him either upon the advice of a body or person, of the powers specified in the relevant statute (e.g. Clause 50A(1) or Clause 50B).

“In Tu’ipulotu v Kingdom of Tonga [ [1997] Tonga LR 258] Hampton CJ held that in Tonga, as in England, the King in person (subject only to Clause 49) is immune from all actions at law whether civil or criminal: ‘No proceedings are maintainable against the King in person. The Courts are the King’s court and the Courts have no jurisdiction over him.’

“While the decision relates to Judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court…the principle is equally applicable to the Land Court.

“In paragraph 27 it added that:

“ Most of the previous cases dealing with the issue of contested hereditary titles may be found in Volume II, Tonga Law Reports.[…] In none of them, so far as can be seen from the report, was the Sovereign joined as a party. …The matters now before this Court for decision may be satisfactorily and comprehensively be dealt with without the need for any second defendant or third party to be joined.

“A Land Court case dealt with a personal Royal prerogative that is limited by the law: appointment of successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates,” Hon Kefu said.

He said the Land Court case dealt with different laws to the laws that applied in the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly.

“The Land Court stated in this case that the power to appoint successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates is a personal Royal prerogative, and the Courts cannot direct His Majesty the King on making such appointments,” the Acting Attorney general said.

“However, the Courts can review the exercise of this particular power because of the procedures prescribed by law under sections 38(1) and 40(1) of the Land Act, and the rules of succession prescribed by clause 111 of the Constitution. The Land Court stated this by saying that:

‘…the powers and duties given to the King by Sections 40(1) and 38(1) [of the Land Act] are personal and not subject to direction by the Court. It follows that there is no basis for the King to be joined as a party when breaches of these sections are alleged.

‘To say however that decisions made by the King pursuant to sections 40(1) [and] 38(1) are not subject to order is not to say that they are not justiciable at all. The Court retains the right and indeed the duty to analyse the actions taken and, when it is of the view that the parameters within which the royal prerogative must be exercised have been exceeded it may, in its discretion, declare that to be the case.’

Hon. Kefu said the Privy Council had confirmed that Land Court case dealt with a personal Royal prerogative limited by the law

“The limitation by the law of the personal Royal prerogative to appoint successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates was confirmed by the Privy Council in the appeal from this Land Court case,” he said. The Privy Council stated as follows:

‘ Relevant to the interpretation to be given Clauses 104, 111 and 112 of the Constitution is HM King George Tupou I’s address to parliament in 1875 as quoted by our distinguished predecessors in Tu’ipulotu v Hon Niukapu (supra) at 83:

I have made up my mind absolutely not to alter names or nominate chiefs so that the estate shall go with the title and the succession shall be from father to son forever. The Law of Succession is stated in the Constitution, and such succession shall be by blood relationship only …. Should there be any dispute it shall be tried by Justices of the Court in accordance with the usage of civilised Governments. You Chiefs of Tonga all of you who have titles estates when the Constitution came into force: I affirm to you the right of yourself and your children by marriage to hold and possess your titles and estates forever, as stated in the Constitution.

‘His Majesty [King George Tupou I] clearly contemplated that succession to the noble titles he had created to reinforce his reign and the unity and wellbeing of the Kingdom would henceforth devolve according to law and not by royal pleasure.’

“The Attorney General’s Office therefore wishes to confirm that it is of the view, that the decision by His Majesty the King to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution was an exercise of a personal Royal prerogative that is not limited by the Constitution or the laws of Tonga, and therefore such decision cannot be reviewed by the Courts.”

The main points

  • Acting Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions ‘Aminiasi Kefu, said this morning any legal action taken against the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly would be dismissed by the courts.
  • He was responding to an article in Kaniva News which quoted former Government Chief Executive Officer for Internal Affairs Mr. Lopeti Senituli urging the current Government to take legal action against King Tupou VI’s decision to dissolve the Legislative Assembly.
  • Kefu said there was no provision in the Constitution or laws of Tonga to support Mr Senituli’s opinion.
  • He said His Majesty’s personal prerogative to dissolve parliament was not limited by the law.

For more information 

Former gov’t political adviser urges Pōhiva to launch legal challenge against King’s decision to dissolve Parliament

Agreement on direct Samoan flights could be only a week away

By
Philip Cass
-

Real Tonga could sign an agreement for new flights between the kingdom and Samoa as early as next week.

There has been no direct air service between Tonga and Samoa for a decade.

Real Tonga’s CEO, Tevita Palu, said the date would depend on how soon approval for the flights was approved.

Negotiations have been underway with Samoan airline authorities over a shared twice weekly service.

Palu said he was looking forward to providing an alternative route to and from Samoa and improving relationships with the Samoan Government.

As Kaniva News reported in July, the suggested cost of tickets on the proposed route was less than TP$874.

There are many Tongans in Samoa and Samons in Tonga, but at the moment they have to take a long and expensive route home via Fiji or New Zealand.

The Samoan Observer  said the proposed service would fly between Fagalii in Samoa and Vava’u in Tonga.

Polynesian Airlines General Manager Seiuli Alvin Tuala told the Observer that Talofa Airways would serve the direct connection between Fagalii and the kingdom with flights on Tuesdays and Saturdays.

The Samoa-Tonga link come in the lead-up to the launch of the country’s national carrier, Samoa Airways, in November.

Tuala predicted that  Samoa Airways and Samoa would be used as a transit point by other Island nations for travel to New Zealand and Australia.

The main points

  • Real Tonga could sign an agreement for new flights between the kingdom and Samoa as early as next week.
  • There has been no direct air service between Tonga and Samoa for a decade.
  • Negotiations have been underway with Samoan airline authorities over a shared twice weekly service.
  • As Kaniva News reported in July, the suggested cost of tickets on the proposed route was less than TP$874.

For more information

Tonga-Samoa ties re-established 

Regional service to Samoa could be reality by August says Real Tonga CEO

Kingdom’s snap election affects overseas Tongan potential candidates

By
Kalino Latu
-

Tonga’s early general election has affected some of the Tongan citizens living overseas who had planned to run for Parliament in 2018.

The election date had been changed and Tongan voters will now go to the polls in two months time.

Tonga’s electoral laws required all potential candidates who wish to register to be in Tonga on a certain period of time before the election begins.

This is what the law says:  “Provided that a person resident outside of Tonga who is qualified to be an elector will qualify as a candidate only if he is present in Tonga for a period of 3 months before the election.”

Auckland-based business man Vaʻa Taliaʻuli said he was planning to stand for Tongatapu 3 electorate in the 2018 general election.

He said he cannot now fulfil his dream because the election date had been changed and he could not qualify.

He said he has other commitments for his businesses and family.

Taliaʻuli, who owned the Velata Restaurant and Catering centre in South Auckland said the unexpected election meant he did not have enough time to prepare.

King Tupou VI has stunned the Tongan political world by calling for an early general election to be held before November 16, seeking new Members of Parliament to run the country.

Acting Attorney General ʻAminiasi Kefu said the upcoming election was a general election and the new elected representatives will become Members of Parliament for the next four years after the election.

When asked if his Office could consider the situation and do something to allow the potential candidates who were not in Tonga before the election to be able to register Kefu said that was impossible.

He said the Legislative Assembly was the only body that can change the law but it has been dissolved.

Tongan woman admits guilt to providing illegal immigration advice in Pacific community

By
Kaniva Staff
-

An Auckland woman of Tongan nationality has pleaded guilty to 14 charges laid by the Immigration Advisers Authority (IAA) for illegally providing New Zealand immigration advice.

Maria ‘Ilaisaane Valu-Pome’e appeared in the Waitakere District Court yesterday following a thorough investigation by the IAA into her history of providing New Zealand immigration advice in the Pacific community.

Registrar of the IAA Catherine Albiston says Mrs Valu-Pome’e, who previously held a practising certificate with the New Zealand Law Society, continued to provide immigration advice after it expired.

“People giving New Zealand immigration advice must be licensed by the Immigration Advisers Authority or be exempt. We have no tolerance for those who act outside the law,” says Ms Albiston.

“This case serves a further reminder to people in our Pacific communities to check that their immigration adviser is licensed or exempt.”

Mrs Valu-Pome’e pleaded guilty to three charges of providing immigration advice without a licence or exempt status while knowing she was required to be licensed; three charges of advertising herself as legally able to provide immigration advice; and four charges of receiving fees for providing immigration advice.

In addition to these charges, Mrs Valu-Pome’e also pleaded guilty to two charges of dishonestly using a document, one charge of using a forged document, and a representative charge for multiple instances of using forged documents under the Crimes Act 1961.

“The IAA was set up to promote the interests of people receiving New Zealand immigration advice and looks into all complaints,” adds Ms Albiston.

“Anyone can talk to the IAA about their experience without their immigration status being affected.”

Mrs. Valu-Pome’e will appear in the Waitakere District Court on 22 November 2017 for sentencing.

Heart surgery equipment for scheduled training in Tonga stolen

By
Kaniva Staff
-

An important training session in Tonga scheduled to be held this morning in Tongatapu was affected after equipment was stolen, reports said.

Two Australian heart experts had their hotel room burgled in Nuku’alofa last night and instruments brought to assist with training of local heart surgeons and nurses were taken, Radio Tonga Broadcom report says.

The details of the instruments and the way how they were stolen remained unknown.

It is understood a complaint had been launched with Police.

No arrests have been made.

Former gov’t political adviser urges Pōhiva to launch legal challenge against King’s decision to dissolve Parliament

By
Kalino Latu
-

The government of ‘Akilisi Pōhiva has been urged to take legal actions against the king’s order to dissolve the Parliament, with a former Political adviser to government saying he disagreed with the  Acting Attorney General’s claim the royal command could not be challenged in court.

Lōpeti Senituli, who was also a former government CEO, was responding to request from Kaniva News this morning regarding a post he made on Facebook last night saying “If I had a say in matters I would advise the Hon Prime Minister to seek an immediate injunction and the judicial review of His Majesty’s proclamation.  God Bless Tonga!”

The rest of his response is published verbatim below:

“I stand by my opinion that the Hon Prime Minister and Cabinet should apply to the Supreme Court for an immediate injunction on the dissolution of the Legislative  Assembly and for a judicial review of His Majesty’s proclamation to ensure that it is constitutional.

I say that with the greatest of respect to the Acting Attorney General and his opinion that His Majesty had exercised his Persona Royal Prerogative which he says is beyond judicial scrutiny.

I disagree with the Acting Attorney General. The basis of my disagreement is the decision of the Supreme Court in 2016, (which was later endorsed on appeal by the Privy Council in 2016) relating to His Majesty’s decision to appoint the current Chief of Defence Staff of His Majesty’s Armed Forces to the Hereditary Noble title of Lord Fielakepa.

The Supreme Court declared His Majesty’s appointment as null and void. Part of their reasoning was that although it was His Majesty’s Personal Royal Prerogative to appoint Nobles of the Realm, he still had to make those appointments according to the law (the Land Act) and the Constitution.

So I agree that His Majesty in dissolving the Legislative Assembly was using his Personal Royal Prerogative, and is not required by the Constitution or any law to disclose reasons. However it is my opinion, His Majesty must use that Personal Royal Prerogative according to the letter and the spirit of the constitution and laws of the land.

The Legislative Assembly is the highest democratic mechanism in the Kingdom of Tonga and the current structure was adopted after the reforms in 2010 with the full approval of His Majesty’s predecessor.

The functioning of the Legislative Assembly therefore should only be disturbed or interfered with in extreme circumstances where the sovereignty and integrity of the country as an independent nation state is being threatened.

I do not regard the 8 reasons that the Hon Speaker had released as good enough to warrant the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. They do not amount to a threat to the nation’s sovereignty and integrity as an independent state

I classify the Hon Speaker’s 8 reasons into two groups. The first group I have classified as:

  1. Alleged Threats to His Majesty’s Royal Prerogatives.
  • The draft Bill to review or amend clause 41 of the Constitution which grants His Majesty’s authority to assent to all legislation adopted by the Legislative Assembly before they become law.
  • The government’s earlier plans to sign and ratify CEDAW thereby bypassing His Majesty’s authority under clause 39 to make treaties and sign conventions on behalf of the country
  • The government’s earlier signing of the PACER Plus agreement which is a regional convention without prior authorisation by His Majesty in accordance with clause 39.
  • The draft Bill to amend the Constitution to remove His Majesty’s authority (clause 31A) to appoint the Attorney General and to appoint the Police Commissioner (under the Police Act) and transfer these powers to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

In my view the draft Bills that the Hon Speaker referred to should be allowed to be tabled and discussed by the Legislative Assembly and if necessary the Legislative Assembly should conduct public and community meetings to discuss these proposals so that the whole country can express an opinion on it.

Dissolving the Legislative Assembly because of the fear of these alleged threats to His Majesty’s Prerogative is an extreme knee-jerk reaction of people who are afraid of the democratic process! We should let the people hear and express their opinion on these proposals through their elected representatives in the Legislative Assembly as well as in public meetings on these proposals.

In respect of CEDAW and PACER Plus, Hon Prime Minister Pohiva and Cabinet acted in accordance with legal advice it was given by legally qualified people in government. (I know this because I was responsible for the CEDAW initiative.)

If that advice clashed with advice given by His Majesty than that can be resolved by going to court for a declaration as to which advice is correct. It does not warrant dissolving the Legislative Assembly.

The second group of reasons I have classified as:

  1. Mismanagement by Hon Prime Minister and Cabinet.
  • Lying to the Legislative Assembly that Hon Etuate Lavulavu would be punished and not delivering on it.
  • Misleading the Leg Ass on the Pacific Games 2019 and continuing to collect the foreign exchange levy though hosting the Games had been cancelled.
  • Raising their own salaries in response to a tax increase whilst the rest of the country carry the extra tax burden.
  • Petitions of impeachment not worth of the Legislative Assembly’s time and resources.

This second group of reasons I regard as specious. These could have been dealt with by The Hon Speaker as he has considerable powers under the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Assembly and under the Constitution (clause 70) to punish members who behave in contempt of the Legislative Assembly.

They certainly do not warrant the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly!”

Speaker Lord Tuʻivakanō finally speaks out after king dissolved Parliament

By
Kalino Latu
-

The Speaker of Tonga’s Legislative Assembly broke his silence Monday and delivered a statement on air detailing what advice he offered the king before His Majesty dissolved the Parliament.

As Kaniva News reported, the surprise dissolution on Thursday 24 followed an approach by the Speaker Lord Tu’ivakanō to King Tupou VI and a decision made by the Privy Council.

According to the  government gazette, fresh elections have to be held by November 16.

Acting Attorney General ‘Aminiasi Kefu said the king’s decision to dissolve Parliament was part of his royal  prerogative and could not be challenged in court.

Kefu said when the king proclaimed such royal command he was not required, according to the constitution, to explain it.

The royal command left the public in a state of limbo with many wanting to know why the king made such a surprising decision.

However, it is understood the Speaker went public with the grievances he presented to the king on TBC.

Former Political advisor and government CEO Lōpeti Senituli has posted the Speaker’s grievances in English on Facebook.

The Lord Speaker said he was concerned “that a bill had been submitted to the Office of the Speaker that seeks to amend the Constitution so as to revoke His Majesty’s right of assent to legislation approved by the Legislative Assembly before it could become law.

“That the intent of the Bill is in keeping with the Cabinet’s earlier plans to bypass His Majesty’s prerogative to sign treaties and conventions entrenched in clause 39 of the Constitution when they tried to sign and ratify CEDAW without His Majesty’ prior approval.

“That Cabinet had also become party to PACER Plus without His Majesty’s prior approval.

“That another Bill had also been submitted to the Office of the Speaker that seeks to amend the Constitution so as to remove His Majesty in Privy Council’s right to appoint crucial positions such as the Police Commissioner and the Attorney General.

“That Hon Prime Minister Pōhiva had intervened and prevented the Legislative Assembly from sanctioning former Cabinet Minister Etuate Lavulavu for abuse of office on the understanding that he would punish him instead. It later became apparent that he did not punish Lavulavu as promised.

“That several petitions have been submitted to the Office of the Speaker that seeks to impeach various members of the Legislative Assembly and the Speaker feels spending time on these petitions would be a waste of time and resources.

“That Cabinet had deliberately misled the Legislative Assembly regarding the hosting of the Pacific Games in 2019 and after the legislation was passed authorising the collection of the foreign exchange levy tax in order to fund it, Cabinet cancelled the hosting of the Games and yet they continued to collect this tax.

“That Cabinet had recently approved a 5% salary increase for all Ministers in response to a recent increase in income tax, yet the tax increase applies to the whole country especially all the civil servants and people in private enterprises”.

1...660661662...951Page 661 of 951