Lord Chancellor: Abolished by the British but adopted by Tonga [1]
Sunday, September 5, 2010 - 15:12. Updated on Monday, September 9, 2013 - 18:40.
Editor,
MOTO KI LAU HOLA wants to ingratiate himself with government propaganda, but I prefer discussing democratic principles (A Lord Chancellor . . . 30 Aug 2010).
From his statement #1: "Constitutional Breaches"
How could Justice Ford be guilty of "Constitutional breaches" in a system setup for the King and Prime Minister to exercise arbitrary powers without transparent "due process?"
If there were "Constitutional breaches," where is the due process? Mr. Hola may want to advise this audience when and where was Justice Ford tried by "an independent and impartial tribunal?" His accusers (His Majesty and PM), would not be judges in an impartial tribunal.
Statement #2: "British Lord Chancellor comparable only in title with that in Tonga."
Mr. Hola pronounced that the Lord Chancellor of Tonga is better than the discontinued Lord Chancellor of England. However, he continued to detail exactly what the British Lord Chancellor did, ". . . the Lord Chancellor will recommend to His Majesty . . . to appoint as judges of the supreme court . . . "
An option for Tonga to establish the independence of the Judiciary Branch, and limits political influences was proposed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. On the eve of discontinuing the Lord Chancellor's role, Blair proposed adopting the American Judiciary selection process: The President nominates judicial candidates, Congress confirms and disciplines. Thus, the "voice of the people" influences the hiring and firing of their "independent and impartial tribunal."
Does Mr. Hola think that Tonga will do a better job than the British Lord Chancellor? After 1,400 years, former Prime Minister Tony Blair finally agreed in 2003 to close it down. It had run afoul of the law for many years, and had violated basic democratic principles.
Failed Basic Democratic Tests
Tonga's Judiciary Branch has been a puppet of the King and Prime Minister (a King appointee), instead of being a Third Branch of Government with equal powers. Thus, it disqualifies the Judiciary as "an independent and impartial tribunal," nor does it preserve the separation of the Three Branches of Government.
Mr. Hola wants us to believe that he understands what "accountability" and "checks and balances" are. However, he failed to identify them as the functions of "separation of powers." The three branches of Government must all be independent of each other.
Sione Akemeihakau Mokofisi
samokofisi [at] email [dot] phoenix [dot] edu ( samokofisi [at] email [dot] phoenix [dot] edu)