People's Reps should pay costs of parliamentary challenge, claims Tonga govt. [1]
Friday, August 25, 2006 - 18:08. Updated on Monday, October 6, 2014 - 10:00.
Tonga's Chief Justice Robin Webster reserved his decision of the issue of costs in a case that challenged the opening of the 2006 Tongan Legislature by the Princess Regent.
Eight People's Representatives lost a legal challenge to the government, and the government wants the plaintiffs to pay their court costs.
The Chief Justice this morning after hearing four separate submissions made by counsel for the plaintiffs and the defendants in the case brought by the eight members of parliament, told the court that his judgment will be made in a written form and there will be no need for a further hearing to be held. The judgment may be passed within the next two weeks.
The three counsel for the defendants were Harry Waalkens for the Prime Minister Hon Dr Feleti Sevele; ...Aisea Taumoepeau for the Speaker of the House Hon Tu...iha...angana; and Linda Folaumoetu...i for the Government of Tonga.
Mana Kaufusi appeared for the plaintiffs on behalf of Clive Edwards.
Scandalous, says defence
The defence counsel were united in their submissions that the payment of their legal costs should be awarded to them, the successful parties in the court case.
Counsel for the Speaker submitted that the court has the discretion on awarding costs and it should be exercised judicially based on reason and justice and the successful parties should be paid their costs unless there are special orders.
He said that the first defendant was successful in the judgment passed on June 19, 2006 that the opening of the Legislative Assembly by the Princess Regent was lawful, and they should be awarded costs with no special grounds for the court to order otherwise.
"The nature of the case is scandalous because it was brought by the plaintiffs to scandalize the power of the Princess Regent to open Parliament," said ...Aisea.
Counsel for the Prime Minister, and the Government were united in their submissions and said that this "was plainly not a constitutional case but more of a personal interest vendetta than that of public interest."
Harry Waalkens said that by looking at the claim there was no statutory reference to the constitution, the fact lies in the Legislative Assembly Act, which made it hardly right for the plaintiffs to say that it is a constitutional case. The interpretation of the constitution does not necessarily turn it into one and no individual liberties or public issues were at stake. it was case with personal intentions whether done individually or collectively to politically stir disruption, said Harry.
Constitutional interpretation
Mana Kaufusi said in his submission that it was clear that the case was an interpretation of the constitution.
And the plaintiffs bought the action on their rights and role as People's Representatives and the action was not one of personal interest but that of the people of Tonga.