The PRs on sedition charges await judge's decision [1]
Friday, June 1, 2007 - 09:52. Updated on Monday, July 20, 2015 - 16:55.
The Preliminary Inquiry Hearing of five People's Representatives on sedition charges relating to events that took place in Nuku'alofa on November 14 and 16, 2006 concluded on Wednesday, May 30 at the Nuku'alofa Magistrate's Court.
Following the final submissions by the defence counsel and the Crown Prosecutor, the Police Magistrate Peau Pifeleti adjourned his decision to Wednesday, June 6.
Five People Representatives, 'Akilisi Pohiva, 'Isileli Pulu, William Clive Edwards, 'Uliti Uata and Lepolo Taunisila have been charged with sedition, relating to an incident during a meeting at the Cabinet Room on November 16, 2006.
A second sedition charge was also levelled at Pohiva, Edwards and Uata, relating to speeches they made at Pangai Si'i on November 14, 2006.
During the hearing of the second sedition case on Tuesday, May 29, the prosecution showed a videotape recording of a meeting at Pangai Si'i on November 14 the next day. The videotape was recorded by the police from an OBN television program that was shown on the evening of November 14.
The court saw and heard Edwards's and Uata's speeches but there was no audio sound for Pohiva's speech. In the afternoon the prosecution submitted to show a DVD recording from the Tonga Defence Services of the same program, that was copied at the Prime Minister's office from a tape obtained from the OBN television by army officers.
Final Submissions
On Wednesday the hearing continued to the final submissions by the defence and prosecution sides of their case in relation to events that took place on November 14 and 16, 2006.
Clive Edwards who represented himself and 'Isileli Pulu stressed the importance for the magistrate to look at the speeches they made, he argued that they were telling the people what they had done in Parliament. Speeches about their proposal for political change, "which is slightly different from the wording of the summons, where only a fraction of the speech was extracted.
"My number one point is that no one could be convicted if they come from Parliament and relay what was said in the House. The People's Representatives were carrying out their duties and obligation as representatives of the people.
"The speeches the court heard today did not show that we told anyone to commit any offences," he said.
Clive Edwards said that the prosecutor had not provided any evidence to prove that these alleged seditious comments caused or encouraged disorder.
"One thousand people were arrested in relation to the riots - the prosecution has provided not one witness to prove that the speeches made by the representatives influenced them to do what they did."
He also told the court that he was not present when 'Akilisi Pohiva spoke on November 14 as shown on tape but to him it was the most remarkable speech that he had heard this year.
"He recollected the history of the PR's work in parliament, updated what we were working towards, as well as informing the people of the repeated adjournments in the house, he asked for peace and ended by saying sorry if he had made any wrong comments, is this a seditious comment?"
In relation to the event in the Cabinet Room on November 16 Clive Edwards told the court that the important factor in that incident was the fact that they were invited to the meeting and the Deputy Secretary of the Prime Minister's office Paula Ma'u gave evidence that he was instructed by the PM to get them.
"The meeting in the cabinet room resulted in the letter; this letter is the essence of the summons because it is was an attempt for political change. The evidence showed that the letter was subjected to Privy Council's endorsement, and that is the lawful procedure."
Harder
Christopher Harder, the lawyer for Pohiva and Uata told the court that there was no plan for a riot on 16/11.
He said the police thought the level of threat was low so did the army, "when things went out of order Lepolo Taunisila spoke to the people to sit down and 'Akilisi Pohiva on several occasions assisted the police and told the crowd to return to Pangai Si'i.
"If 'Akilisi said in the cabinet room to 'burn Nuku'alofa' and he had no basis on saying the rule of the law is a fraud I could understand the prima facie case that would put him up for trial at the Supreme Court.
"But the fact of the matter is the allegation against my client came from the PM's political advisor himself. He was caught out because no other witness gave evidence that the accused said 'burn Nuku'alofa'. This was a plot from the Crown that arose from the PM's office when they ignored the Minister of Police's advice do not put the two groups (meaning the pro monarchy and those at Pangai Si'i) together because there will be friction.
"Despite this public warning the Minister of Police said in Parliament that he would not sanction these two groups together and Lopeti testified that he received a letter from a protester, which went to cabinet and forwarded to the Ministry of Land because he was in charge of Pangai Lahi.
"That single ill advised action contributed greatly to what happened on 16/11," said Harder.
He said that any person who watched the full speeches of the three accused on November 14, "one can only applaud the courage and articulate words of these three men in their endeavour to make this a more democratic country."
In relation to the incident in the cabinet room one has to look at the fact that the Minister of Police was not told by the PM that the reps were invited to the meeting at his request. "And you remembered the Minister of Police's shock at the witness box when he was told this," he said.
Harder added that two witnesses of the prosecution said that if the letter the PM wrote was subject to the Privy Council and Parliament then it was not done in a wrong way.
"These plotters against democracy failed to understand that Pohiva would call a spade a spade and say the rule of law is a fraud when parliament was adjourned contrary to their own clause.
"But in the end the Law has little to do with a prima facie case, it is the field of evidence taken at its highest by the crown and it is the people that had been lied about and there were attempts to deceive the court and blame that the accused uttered the word to burn Nuku'alofa was false.
"So I say in my closing there is no prima facie case and you should be in the side of justice when make your decision and justice should lie with the accused because they were only doing their duties as PR's."
Masao
Masao Paasi, the lawyer for Lepolo Taunasila told the court that the hearing was about disorder in the Government and the question was, who caused the disorder.
"This is a historical hearing, a rare case, different from cases that we are accustomed to in this country," he said. Masao's main point in his submission was that the PR's were performing their duties as Members of Parliament and that they were campaigning for a more democratic form of government.
He also added that the prosecution had also not provided any evidence that the speeches made caused the damage on 16/11.
Little
Crown Prosecutor Peter Little told the court that a number of the submissions made by the defence counsel, "were really emotional political statements, rather than on the law or the evidence."
He said there were various submissions made that the accused were doing their duties, but by carrying out their duties as PR's they should not infringe sections under the Criminal Act.
Little reminded the court of evidence relating to the events on November 14, the television broadcast on November 15, the events at Pangai Si'i and in the cabinet room, and the PR's victory speech on the radio on the evening of November 16.
He said that seditious comments reflect seditious intention and the intention here was to excite disaffection towards Government and encourage disorder. "It's intention was to procure the laws of the country and like one had said to take by force", said Little.
The prosecutor also pointed out to the court that another main submission from the defence was that there were no evidence provided to show that their comments caused the damage.
"In the Evidence Act it states that one can look at the time and nature of the comments made. On November 16 at the time of the destruction one said, 'let's go to the PM's office, lift your hands up', one should think what happened at Pangai Si'i and their consequences. To blame the disturbance on the people at Pangai Lahi for an event between 3:30 to 4:00pm does not have any basis.
"To blame the police for not doing anything at Pangai Si'i, it was clear from the evidence presented that the police could not control the 500 or more people there. The army could not do anything unless the civil power could no longer control the country, I put that this is an attempt to change your attention from where we should go," said the prosecutor.
With regards to Harder's submission that 'Akilisi Pohiva used a bullhorn to dismiss the crowd, he reminded the court that evidence given stated that it was a different person who did this, and the crowd did not pay much attention to what 'Akilisi Pohiva was saying because it was too noisy.
"Likewise, the PR's were invited to the cabinet room - what is important is what happened prior and what occurred after", said Little.
The preliminary inquiry ends after nearly three weeks in court.