With just three weeks to go before Tongans head to the polls, the debate over election issues is heating up.

Under the spotlight are the role of the palace in the country’s democratic process and calls for voting rights for overseas-based Tongans. The state of the economy and access to health care are also being examined.

Tongan political scientist Dr Malakai Koloamatangi said for many Tongans, bread-and-butter election issues remained important.

“People are just wanting to get on with life, and they want the best conditions . . .  for them to get a job, put their kids through school, a roof over their heads, vehicles and to meet their obligations around social [and] cultural [customs].”

Dr Koloamatangi, who is the registrar at the Tonga National University, believed voters wanted to see policies that addressed increasing living costs and fuel shortages, which have caused significant disruptions to daily life.

“We’re not seeing abject poverty in Tonga but things like wages need to be raised in order to meet the rising cost of the standard of living.

“And we’re still having issues with petrol and oil not arriving on time. So big queues at the gas stations and so on.”

Scrutiny over palace role
A former political adviser, Lopeti Senituli, said the role of the palace and its noble representatives in Parliament was under increasing scrutiny.

The Tonga Parliament is made up of noble and people’s representatives. On polling day, regular voters cast ballots to elect 17 people’s representatives to Parliament, while the kingdom’s nobles vote for nine noble representatives.

Senituli said King Tupou IV’s displeasure over the behaviour of previous noble representatives to Parliament was well known.

“Some of them have not performed like a noble, have not acted like a noble. Some of them, for example, have been investigated for being involved in drug smuggling from America,” he said.

He said candidates would be acutely aware of the power dynamic between the palace and Parliament, particularly since former Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni resigned in December last year ahead of a vote-of-no confidence.

Hu’akavameiliku reportedly clashed with King Tupou VI over key ministerial portfolios that were traditionally held by the monarchy.

“The King is, to put it mildly, not happy with the noble representatives in cabinet in previous governments. And of course, he was not happy with the previous prime minister.”

Top job not guaranteed
Senituli said, while Hu’akavameiliku’s successor, incumbent Prime Minister Dr ‘Aisake Eke enjoyed the support of the king, he was not guaranteed the top job again.

“Winning his actual electoral electorate is guaranteed in my view, but whether or not he can pull together a cabinet made up of 12 supporters from the nine members of nobility and 16 people’s reps is another matter.”

Both Senituli and Dr Koloamatangi believe the provision in Tonga’s Constitution, which states the Prime Minister can nominate up to four cabinet ministers who were not elected representatives, added another layer of complexity to Tonga’s governing processes.

Crown Prince Tupoutoʻa ʻUlukalala was appointed to his cabinet position in Dr Eke’s government through this mechanism. He holds both the foreign affairs and defence force portfolios.

Senituli believed that overlap in power between the palace and executive needed to be addressed as Tonga worked towards becoming a mature democracy.

However, Dr Koloamatangi disagreed, saying it was a long-standing tradition for future monarchs to hold cabinet positions.

“Most of the kings of Tonga, the monarchs, were trained in that way,” Dr Koloamatangi said.

‘Good training ground’
“While their fathers were still on the throne, they were given the responsibilities in government. So I think it’s a good training ground for the Crown Prince.”

Meanwhile, overseas-based Tongans are also keeping tabs on developments, with many calling for voting rights in their home nation. Under current rules, only those who live in Tonga are eligible to vote.

Kennedy Fakanaanaaki-Fualu, secretary for the Auckland Tongan Community organisation, said members of the diaspora like him contributed significantly to Tonga.

“If it wasn’t for the remittances [sent from overseas-based Tongans], Tonga would be in deep, deep trouble,” he said.

“We should be given the right to vote, especially if you’re a Tongan citizen.”

Tonga’s polling day is set for November 20.

About 65,000 people will be eligible to vote. Those casting ballots must do it in person, with no provisions for overseas or absentee voting.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

In a highly anticipated session of the Tongan Parliament to debate and vote on the second vote of no confidence (VONC) scheduled for last Monday, December 9, in Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni Hu’akavameiliku and the Cabinet, Hu’akavameiliku surprised everyone by announcing his resignation — even before the actual debate had begun.

The session began with the Speaker, Lord Fakafanua, announcing the procedure for the day which was to have each of the seven grounds of the VONC read out, followed by the Cabinet’s responses, after which each member of Parliament would be allowed 10 minutes to make a statement for or against.

Before parliamentary staff started reading out the documents, Deputy Prime Minister (DPM) Samiu Vaipulu moved that the VONC be declared null and void as it did not have the 10 valid signatures that the house rules stipulated.

He claimed that two of the 10 signatures were added on October 10, whereas an event included in VONC did not begin until October 21, thus making those signatures invalid. That event was the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting which was held in Samoa, October 21-26, and the VONC cited it in relation to alleged Cabinet overspending on overseas travel.

After an hour and half of debate on the DPM’s motion, the Speaker ruled that despite the technical shortcoming, he would proceed with the VONC at 2pm after the lunch break. Hu’akavameiliku immediately asked for a break, as only 10 minutes remained before the lunch break, but the Speaker sided with VONC supporters and ruled that the debate begin straight away.

That is when Hu’akavameiliku asked for the floor and proceeded to thank everyone from the King to the nobles and his Cabinet members and the movers of the VONC before announcing his resignation.

The second VONC had been tabled on November 25. The Speaker instructed the parliamentary committee responsible to scrutinise it for compliance with parliamentary rules and determine whether additional information was needed before making it available to the Prime Minister and Cabinet by November 29.

More time request granted
Hu’akavameiliku was initially required to submit his response by December 3 for debate and ballot. But on November 28 the Speaker granted his request for more time, rescheduling the debate to December 9. The movers of the VONC were not happy, particularly given that the first one submitted in August 2023 had contained 46 grounds (compared with seven in the second), to which the Prime Minister and Cabinet had responded to in detail within five days.

There is reason to suspect that there was more to the request for extension than meets the eye. The inaugural graduation ceremony for the Tonga National University, which opened in January 2023, was held over three days beginning December 4, with the University’s Chancellor, King Tupou VI, officiating. Hu’akavameiliku, as Pro-Chancellor and chair of the University Council and Minister for Education and Training, facilitated the first day’s ceremony.

That date, December 4, marked the 1845 coronation of King Siaosi Tupou I, the founder of modern Tonga. Notably, King Tupou VI was absent on the second and third days, with Lord Fakafanua and Hu’akavameiliku stepping in to play the Chancellor’s role.

In a media conference on November 25 after the VONC was tabled, Hu’akavameiliku defended the VONC movers’ constitutional right to introduce it, but also said that since he only had a year left of his four-year term, he would have preferred a dialogue about their concerns.

He gave the impression to the media that he had the numbers to defeat this second VONC. However, his numbers were tight.

As of November 10, his Cabinet had nine members, reduced from 10 after his Minister for Lands and Survey, Lord Tu’i’afitu, resigned after receiving a letter from the Palace Office saying King Tupou VI had withdrawn his confidence and trust in him as minister.

Of the nine remaining members, four were People’s Representatives (PRs), including the Prime Minister, two were Nobles’ Representatives (NRs) and three were Non-Elected Representatives who could not vote on the VONC.

Question mark over allegiance
o, with six votes in hand, Hu’akavameiliku needed eight more to beat the VONC. He could usually count on five PRs — Tevita Puloka, Dulcie Tei, Sione Taione, Veivosa Taka and Mo’ale ‘Otunuku — and possibly three NRs that could have sided with him, Lord Tuiha’angana, Lord Fakafanua and Prince Kalaniuvalu.

But there was a question mark over Prince Kalaniavalu’s allegiance as he had voted in favour of the first VONC in September 2023.

The movers of the second VONC were confident they had the numbers this time round. Lord Tu’ilakepa, who had voted against the VONC in 2023, was one of the signatories this time around. Previously, Lord Tu’ileakepa had almost always voted with the Prime Minister and was loathe to be associated with members of Parliament who had any pro-democracy inclinations.

The seven PR signatories were Dr Langi Fasi, Mateni Tapueleuelu, Dr ‘Aisake Eke, Piveni Piukala, Kapeli Lanumata, Mo’ale Finau and Vatau Hui. They were also guaranteed the vote of Dr Tanieta Fusmalohi, still making his way back from COP29.

So, they had 11 guaranteed votes, and 13 if the recently resigned Minister, Lord Tu’I’afitu, and Prince Kalaniuvalu sided with them. As with the first VONC, the NRs would play a crucial role, controlling nine of the 26 seats (more than 33 percent of the Parliament) despite representing less than 1 percent of the country’s population.

Since King Tupou VI withdrew his confidence and trust in Hu’akavameiliku as Minister for Defence and Fekita ‘Utoikamanu as Minister for Foreign Affairs early in 2024, the Prime Minister continued as Acting Minister in those two portfolios.

There was hope that substantive Ministers would have been appointed (from the Royal Family) by the time of the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders Meeting in Nuku’alofa in August 24, but it was not to be.

Relations remained strained
In spite of the hulouifi (traditional reconciliation ceremony) performed in February, relations between the King and Hu’akavameiliku remained strained. One cannot help but think that the Palace Office was at least supportive of the VONC, if not among the instigators.

As PIF chair until next year’s leaders’ summit in Solomon Islands, Hu’akavameiliku reportedly felt let down by King Tupou VI’s absence from the country during the Leaders’ Meeting — not least because his father, King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV, and his brother, Prince Tuipelehake, were instrumental in setting up the PIF (South Pacific Forum, at that time) in 1972.

Together with Fiji’s Ratu Kamisese Mara, Cook Islands’ Sir Albert Henry, Nauru’s Hammer De Roburt, Samoa’s Malietoa and Niue’s Robert Rex, they walked out of the then South Pacific Commission (SPC) when they could no longer stand being treated like children by the colonial powers (US, France, UK, the Netherlands, Australia, and NZ) at the annual SPC meetings and their refusal to include decolonisation and nuclear testing on SPC’s agenda.

The Speaker immediately recessed parliament after Hu’akavameiliku’s announcement. By the time it reconvened at 2pm he had a letter from the Palace Office saying they had received the PM’s resignation in writing.

In spite of vociferous opposition from some of the VONC movers, he announced that, under section 18 of the Government Act, DPM Samiu Vaipulu would be Acting Prime Minister (in an interim Cabinet of existing members) until December 24, when Parliament is scheduled to elect a new Prime Minister from its existing membership of the house.

Lopeti Senituli is a law practitioner in Tonga and is the immediate past president of the Tonga Law Society. He was Political and Media Adviser to Prime Ministers Dr Feleti Vaka’uta Sevele (2006-2010) and Samuela ‘Akilisi Pohiva (2018-2019). This article was first published by Devpolicy Blog and is republished with the author’s permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Parliamentarians in Tonga will meet on Christmas Eve to select the kingdom’s new prime minister, Speaker of the House Lord Fakafanua has confirmed.

He told RNZ Pacific that Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni’s resignation on Monday ahead of a second motion of no confidence was unprecedented.

However, he said the Tongan constitution was clear on what happens next.

Parliament will issue letters to its 26 MPs on Tuesday calling for their nominations for leader.

These must be submitted by December 23 and the election of the prime minister will be conducted by secret ballot on Christmas Eve.

To win, candidates will need to secure a simple majority of the total number of MPs eligible to vote.

This number is 13 if it is determined the Speaker has the casting vote. But 14 if it is decided he will vote as an ordinary MP.

Post-election scenarios
The constitution is unclear on this point as the rules for election of prime minister are based on a post-election scenario, where the King appoints an interim Speaker to oversee the election who is not an elected MP.

The current Speaker Lord Fakafanua is an MP. They have yet to make a decision on this point.

Hu’akavameiliku quit on Monday after delivering a teary-eyed statement in Parliament.

He told RNZ Pacific it was “better to leave”.

“Whoever the new prime minister is going to be will do a great job given that we only have another 10 months before the [next] elections,” he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tongan Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku Siaosi Sovaleni has resigned, the Tongan Parliament Office has confirmed.

Hu’akavameiliku resigned in Parliament today, ahead of the no confidence motion.

“At the opening of today’s [Monday] session a teary-eyed Prime Minister asked the Lord Speaker if he could say a few words, before the Motion was tabled. He was permitted to address the House,” Matangi Tonga reports.

“I’ll be resigning immediately according to the Constitution,” he was quoted as saying.

The Prime Minister defeated a previous vote of no confidence in September last year.

According to Matangi Tonga, the motion for the no confidence vote had not been tabled and there was no debate on it.

Parliament has been adjourned for lunch and will resume at 2pm, local time.

Hu’akavameiliku will hold a news conference at lunchtime.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tonga’s Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni Hu’akavameiliku has resigned as Minister of Defence in order to appease King upou VI, says a senior government official.

The Tongan Independent reports that the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister ‘Utoikamanu had resigned from their portfolios.

Senior sources within the Tongan government have told Kaniva News they believed reports that the Prime Minister has resigned.

Kaniva News has contacted Prime Minister and Chief Secretary for confirmation of the report and was waiting for a response.

The Independent has adopted a strongly anti-Sovaleni tone, criticising the government’s involvement in Lulutai Airlines, claiming he was too ill to serve and that he and Utoikamanu were trying to usurp King Tupou VI’s authority.

It is understood that the Prime Minister had flown to Niuafo’ou to meet His Majesty

Relations between the Prime Minister and the throne have been tense since the king issued a memo saying he no longer supported Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku as the Minister for His Majesty’s Armed Forces and Hon Fekitamoeloa Katoa ‘Utoikamanu as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Tourism.

King’s memo ignored
The Prime Minister ignored the King’s memo.

As we reported earlier, the nobles responded by demanding that the Prime Minister and Hon Utoikamanu resign immediately in order to assuage King Tupou VI’s disappointment.

The nobles circulated a letter which described the Prime Minister’s refusal to accept the King’s show of power as “very concerning” and “intimidating the peace” of the country.

“We are the king’s cultural preservers (‘aofivala). Therefore, we propose that you and your government respect the King’s desire,” the letter read in Tongan.

“The king has withdrawn his confidence and consent from you as Defence Minister as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Tourism Fekitamoeloa ‘Utoikamanu.

“We urge you to resign immediately from the Ministry of Defence as well as Fekitamoeloa ‘Utoikamanu to resign from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Tourism”.

This is not the first time the King has directly interfered in the workings of a democratically elected government.

Heavily influenced
The King is said to have been heavily influenced by some of his Privy Councillors, including Lord Tu’aivakanō, who advised him to dissolve the government of the late ‘Akilisi Pohiva in 2017.

Lord Tu’aivakanō justified his behaviour by claiming that Hon Pohiva’s government wanted to remove the Privy Council’s role in appointing positions like the Police Commissioner and Attorney-General.

As we wrote at the time: “Lord Tu’ivakano said it was clear the government was trying to wear away the powers of the King and Privy Council, which he could not abide.”

Pohiva’s government was re-elected.

Lord Tu’aivakanō is said to have signed the noble’s letter criticising the Prime Minister.

Asia Pacific Report collaborates with Kaniva Tonga. Republished with permission.,

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

EDITORIAL: By Kalino Latu, editor of Kaniva Tonga

Tonga’s nobles have demanded the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs resign immediately in order to assuage King Tupou VI’s disappointment with their ministerial roles.

The letter, which was purportedly signed by Lord Tu’ivakanō, described Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku’s refusal to accept the King’s show of power as very concerning and intimidating the peace of the country.

“We are the king’s cultural preservers (‘aofivala). Therefore, we propose that you and your government respect the king’s desire,” the letter read in Tongan.

“The king has withdrawn his confidence and consent from you as Defence Minister as well as the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Tourism Fekitamoeloa ‘Utoikamanu.

“We urge you to resign immediately from the Ministry of Defence as well as Fekitamoeloa ‘Utoikamanu to resign from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Tourism”.

The letter demanded a response from the Prime Minister no later than February 27.

The letter came after the King said earlier this month in a memo that he no longer supported Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku as the Minister for His Majesty’s Armed Forces and Hon. Fekitamoeloa Katoa ‘Utoikamanu as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Tourism.

PM still confident
Responding, the government said the Prime Minister was still confident in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that the King’s wish clashed with the Constitution.

While the King’s nobles are free to express their opinion on the issue, some people may think that the lack of references to the Constitution to support their argument in their letter was more provoking and inciting than what they allege Prime Minister Hu’akavameiliku has done.

This is because the Prime Minister said he was responding according to what the related clause in the Constitution said about His Majesty’s concerns. It is the Constitution which ensures that those who make decisions are making them on behalf of the public and will be held accountable to the people they serve.

Some people may see that the nobility’s departure from the constitution and citing the Tongan practice of faka’apa’apa’i e finangalo ‘o e tu’i (respecting the King’s wish) means the nobles are urging us to dump Tonga’s Constitution and live by the law of the jungle in which those who are strong and apply ruthless self-interest are most successful.

Our Tongan tradition of faka’apa’apa (respect the King no matter what) has no clear system of rules, limits and boundaries for us to follow, which leaves the door open for the powerful to practice immorality and unlawful activities.

Since the King’s memo was leaked to the public, some have argued that it was explicitly unconstitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution to say that the King has to show that he gives his consent or has confidence in a ministerial nominee proposed by the Prime Minister before he appoints them.

However, some argued that there was nothing wrong with the King expressing his wish as he did to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The problem with this kind of attitude is that it urges the King to publicly show his disagreement with the Constitution whenever he wants.

Breaching royal oath?
The King could be seen in such a situation to be breaching his royal oath which, according to the Constitution, clause 34, says: “I solemnly swear before Almighty God to keep in its integrity the Constitution of Tonga and to govern in conformity with the laws thereof.”

The word “integrity” included in the Constitution is worth mentioning here.

It is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as: “The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles that you refuse to change”.

Some people may believe that for the King to have integrity in the constitution, he must have a strong sense of judgment and trust in his own accord.

To keep the Constitution honest the King must desist from saying things to the public which are not written in the Constitution and may cause concern and confusion.

The best example was his memo. It has caused a stir among the public but what was most concerning is that no one knows what was the reason behind the King’s withdrawal of his consent and confidence in the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs.

We have previously seen His Majesty make several wrong decisions which are said to have been influenced by his Privy Councillors or his nobility members, including Lord Tu’aivakanō’s abortive advice to dissolve the government in 2017.

Do the right thing
The nobility must do the right thing and advise the King according to the Constitution and not our old fashioned cultural practices.

It was the Tu’ivakano government which hired Commonwealth Legal Consultant Peter Pursgloves to review our 2010 constitution, which he said was the “poorest written Constitution” among all Commonwealth countries.

The Tu’ivakanō government vowed to follow Pursglove’s report and made significant changes to the Constitution which was said to have been agreed by the King in 2014.

When the ‘Akilisi Pohiva government ousted the Tu’ivakanō government in late 2014 they processed the Pursglove report and submitted it to Parliament through six new bills to be approved. However, it was the same people in the Tu’ivakanō government who strongly opposed the submission from the Opposition bench. They went further and falsely accused Pōhiva of secretly trying to remove some of the King’s powers.

Critics argued that this was because of the nobility’s long-time hatred against Pōhiva because of his tireless campaign to remove the executive power of the King and give it to a democratic government.

The nobles later apologised and withdrew their accusation against Pōhiva in the House after months of debates and public consultations. They finally said they wanted to support the submission after Pōhiva revealed in the House his government  has lodged an application for a judicial review of the decision made by Lord Tu’ilakepa to block the new bills.

That submission has yet to be approved by the House and the nobility has a duty to push for it to be approved. This would bring Tonga a more democratic system that would help keep the King and the government at peace.

The nobles must refrain from using cultural practices to resolve our constitutional issues as that would send us back to the dark ages.

This editorial was published by Kaniva Tonga on February 29 and is published by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Dr Sitiveni Halapua, former deputy leader of Tonga’s Democratic Movement, has died aged 74.

Born on February 13, 1949, he was a respected academic, a pioneer of Tonga’s democratic reforms and pioneer of a conflict resolution system based on traditional practices.

Halapua earned a doctorate in economics from the University of Kent in the UK and went on to lecture in economics at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji.

He was director of the Pacific Islands Development Programme at the East-West Centre at the University of Hawai’i for more than 20 years.

It was while working at the East-West Centre that he developed a conflict-resolution system based on the Polynesian practice of Talanoa, known as the “Talanoa conflict-resolution” system.

It has been used in the Cook Islands, Fiji and Tonga.

In November 2005, Dr Halapua was appointed to the National Committee for Political Reform, aimed at producing a plan for the democratic reform of Tonga.

Blame over report
In October 2006 the commission recommended a fully elected Parliament. He later accused Prime Minister Feleti Sevele’s of hijacking the report and blamed this for the 2006 Nuku’alofa riots, which destroyed much of central Nuku’alofa.

Dr Halapua was elected to Parliament as a People’s Representative for Tongatapu 3 in the 2010 elections.

Four years later, he was ousted as candidate for the Democratic Party after party leader and Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pohiva’s newspaper, Kele’a, accused him of being at the centre of a plot to seek the premiership.

As Kaniva News reported at the time, Kele’a claimed that three Democratic Party members, including People’s Representatives Semisi Tapueluelu and Sione Taione planned in 2012 to replace Pohiva with fellow parliamentarian Dr Sitiveni Halapua.

Kele’a alleged that the plan was made in 2012 when the Democratic government lodged a motion of no confidence against the Prime Minister, Lord Tu’ivakano.

Both Taione and Halapua denied the story.

Relations between Pohiva and Halapua had been strained since October 2013 when Dr Halapua abstained from voting for a bill that would have let the Prime Minister be popularly elected.

Popular bill lost
The bill was laid before the Tongan Parliament by Democrat MP Dr ‘Aisake Eke and had received massive support from many of the 17 popular electorates, nine of which elected Democrat Members of Parliament. However, the motion was lost 15-6.

Dr Halapua’s abstention drew strong criticisms from the local media and the Democrats.

Kele’a lashed out at Dr Halapua’s behaviour, with the editor saying he no longer trusted him as one of the front benchers of the party.

Dr Halapua had long been an advocate of what he called Pule’anga Kafataha or “Coalition Government”.

Under the proposal all parliamentarians, whether nobles or commoners, would work together as a coalition.

In 2010 Halapua told Kaniva News that Democratic Party Parliamentarians voting as members of a coalition could elect a noble rather than his party leader, ‘Akilisi Pohiva, but still keep their allegiance to Pohiva and the Democratic Party.

After he was removed as a Democrat candidate, Dr Halapua said he would stand as an independent at the next election, but did not run. He stood unsuccessfully in the 2017 election.

Republished from Kaniva Tonga with permission from the authors.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Tonga’s Parliament has elected a new prime minister to replace Dr Pōhiva Tu’i’onetoa.

Siaosi Sovaleni, 51, the current Minister of Education, has won convincingly with 16 votes, against former Minister of Finance and MP Dr ‘Aisake Eke, who got 10 votes.

The Interim Speaker, Lord Tangi, announced the results this afternoon after he first informed King Tupou VI about the winner.

The results showed what appeared to be the nobility MPs’ votes being split with apparently four of them supporting Sovaleni while the remaining five voted for Dr Eke.

Sovaleni, who was a minister in good standing in the Tu’i’onetoa government, recently crossed the floor to form his new bloc and gain the support from a united group of independent MPs and PTOA Party MPs.

Three other MPs who were part of Tu’i’onetoa’s PAK party, also crossed the floor and joined Sovaleni.

The only People’s MP and interim cabinet minister who supported Dr Tu’i’onetoa was the Niua MP Vātau Hui.

The defection of the four members meant Dr Tu’i’onetoa was forced to withdraw his candidacy for the premiership election because he did not have the number of MPs required by law to support and nominate him as a candidate.

As Kaniva News reported this week, Dr Tu’i’onetoa complained about being dumped by his own interim cabinet ministers, saying he just found out after the general elections on November 18 that his unity with his interim ministers in the past four months had been “fake”.

Education, health and climate among priorities
In his speech before the election today, Sovaleni said people, the chiefs and the king lived under what he described as one house. He said people had to learn to know how to live together.

He said education, health, economic developments, e-government, climate change, war on illicit drugs, natural disasters, youths and women initiatives and good governance were some of his priorities.

In his vote of thanks after he was declared the winner this afternoon, Sovaleni was emotional and congratulated his supporters and all MPs.

He also thanked his unsuccessful rival candidate Dr Eke and said they had previously worked together in the Ministry of Finance.

Republished with permission as part of a collaboration between Kaniva News and Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Kalino Latu, editor of Kaniva News

The government of Prime Minister ‘Akilisi Pōhiva has planned an audience with the King of Tonga after a New Zealand legal expert advised that the king had no right to judge the merits of legislation passed by Parliament.

A government spokesperson said the plan was made after cabinet accepted the New Zealand lawyer Dr Rodney Harrison’s recommendations.

Pōhiva told Kaniva News in a recent interview that six Amendment Bills were submitted by the Tu’ivakanō government in 2014 and were passed by Parliament.

However, when submitted to King Tupou VI in Privy Council for his approval and signature he rejected the new laws.

These amendments included Acts of Constitution of Tonga (Amendment Bill) 2014, Judicial and Legal Service Commission 2014, Tonga Police (Amendement Bill) 2014, National Spatial Planning and Management (Amendment Bill) 2014, Magistrate Court Amendment Bill 2014 and Public Service Amendement Bill 2014.

Pōhiva said the Amendment Bills 2014 were submitted by the Tu’ivakanō government after the constitution was reviewed by a Commonwealth constitutional law expert, Peter Pursglove.

-Partners-

As Kaniva News reported, Pursglove said that Tonga’s 2010 constitution did not uphold democracy, the Privy Council lacked any democratic composition or accountability and the judiciary lacked accountability and transparency.

Amendment bills left
Pōhiva said when his government came to power in November 2014, the Tu’ivakanō government had left these amendement bills for them to complete working on them.

He said they pursued some of these bills, including some that concerned the assignment of the Attorney-General to the Privy Council, which Pursgrlove said was unconstitutional.

In a response to a request by the Prime Minister’s office for an opinion on the legality of the Royal Assent Order 2011, Dr Harrison said it appeared there was a misconception that the king had the “power to grant or refuse the Royal Assent conferred by Clause 56 of the Constitution”.

Dr Harrison recommended that the government try to get the king to alter his views on his powers by “reasoned persuasion”. Seeking a judicial ruling is also an option.

The government spokesperon said the Prime Minister wanted to talk to the king first as he wanted to make sure the constitution was correctly interpreted and followed through.

He said the Prime Minister believed the king would consider Dr Harrison’s advice favourably.

Vetoed by king
Minister of Justice Vuna Fa’otusia said many of the amendments to laws and the constitution passed by Parliament were vetoed by the king because of the Judicial Committee.

The Judicial Committee was comprised of some law lords and was chaired by Lord Dalgety of Scotland. The minister said if the committee did not agree with laws and amendments to the constitutions which were already passed by the Parliament the king would reject those laws.

Dr Harrison said the Law Lords played no specific constitutional role and they did not have any constitutional function or role as scrutineers of legislation or the legislative process.

Royal Assent 2011:
56 Power of Legislative Assembly

The King and the Legislative Assembly shall have power to enact laws, and the
representatives of the nobles and the representatives of the people shall sit as one
House. When the Legislative Assembly shall have agreed upon any Bill which has
been read and voted for by a majority three times it shall be presented to the King
for his sanction and after receiving his sanction and signature it shall become law
upon publication. Votes shall be given by raising the hand or by standing up in
division or by saying “Aye” or “No”

This article is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Philip Cass of Kaniva News

The King of Tonga has no right to judge the merits of legislation passed by Parliament, according to a New Zealand constitutional legal expert.

Dr Rodney Harrison said that under the 2010 Constitution, review and evaluation of the merits of legislation passed by the General Assembly did not fall within the scope of the king’s powers of sanction and signature.

Dr Harrison said the king had withheld or deferred his signature from a number of pieces of legislation because it was deemed to be inappropriate or unconstitutional.

He said the new Constitution excluded the King and Privy Council from the role of governing the Kingdom.

He said judgements about whether legislation was constitutional went against the doctrine of the separation of powers and the role and independence of the judiciary.

He said the Royal Assent Order 2011, under which the King and Privy Council purported to act, was therefore invalid.

-Partners-

Dr Harrison was asked to give an opinion on the legality of the Royal Assent Order 2011 by the Prime Minister’s Office.

Real problem
However, Dr Harrison said challenging the validity of the Order in court would not solve the real problem, which was the regular deferral or refusal of royal assent for legislation that had been approved by Parliament.

“The underlying problem is not the legal validity of the Royal Assent Order as such,” Dr Harrison said.

“The underlying problem is the view currently held by His Majesty or at least by the Privy Council and, in particular the Law Lords as His advisors, as to the extent of the King’s power to grant or refuse the Royal Assent conferred by Clause 56 of the Constitution.

“It is that in my respectful opinion erroneous view of the King’s constitutional powers that needs to be addressed, hopefully by reasoned persuasion or if not, by judicial ruling.”

Dr Harrison said the old Tongan constitution made it clear that the three arms of government had to be kept separate as a safeguard for the proper running of the country and the safeguarding of the liberties of its people.

The Royal Assent Order 2010 challenged the underlying assumptions of the Tongan constitution. The Order allowed the King to appoint privy councillors as advisers and a Judicial Committee had also been established by the Privy Council in 2011.

Dr Harrison said any powers and functions conferred on any such committee, must be consistent with the overall scheme of the Constitution and any other statutory or fundamental legal principle.

King’s signature
Clause 41 of the Constitution required that “Acts that have passed the Legislative Assembly” must “bear the King’s signature before they become law”.

He said that under the new Constitution the king did not have complete discretion to refuse to sign an Act that had been passed by the Legislative Assembly.

He said changes to the constitution in 2010 had shifted the balance of power from the king to Parliament. This meant that the king should exercise his veto on legislation only in “truly exceptional circumstances and for compelling reason.”

Problems had arisen because the king had deferred assent to legislation passed by Parliament on the advice of Privy Councillors and the Law Lords appointed by the king to the Judicial Committee.

Dr Harrison said the Law Lords played no specific constitutional role, other than that of providing the King with advice.

They could not be permitted to operate de facto as judicial officers and did not have any constitutional function or role as scrutineers of legislation or the legislative process.

“The most fundamental problem with the Royal Assent Order is that it purports to confer on the Judicial Committee and ultimately the Privy Council power to review Acts duly passed by the Legislative Assembly and ultimately to determine whether each such Act is an ‘appropriate’ or ‘inappropriate’ recipient of the Royal Assent; and whether any such Act is or even may be unconstitutional,” Dr Harrison said.

Merits of legislation
“Under the new Constitution, review and evaluation of the merits of legislation passed by the General Assembly do not fall within the scope of the King’s powers of sanction (and signature).

“The ‘inappropriateness’ assessment falls foul of the new Constitution’s exclusion of the King and Privy Council from the role of governing the Kingdom. The constitutionality assessment does likewise, and in addition offends against the constitutional separation of powers and specifically the role and independence of the judiciary.

“If the assessments which the Royal Assent Order purports to authorise fall outside the constitutional powers of the King Himself, it necessarily follows that they cannot be empowered by means of the Royal Assent Order, as a mere Order in Council purportedly made pursuant to Clause 50(3) of the Constitution. On that basis, the Royal Assent Order must be seen as invalid.”

Dr Harrison said the Royal Assent Order was also invalid because it purported to confer the ultimate power of decision and assessment on the Privy Council, when it was only intended to provide a mechanism for giving advice to the King.

Media academic Dr Philip Cass is an adviser to the Kaniva News website. This article is republished by arrangement.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz