16/11 rioters motivated by criminal minds, 'Akilisi Pohiva tells court [1]
Thursday, November 8, 2012 - 17:25. Updated on Monday, September 9, 2013 - 18:40.
During 'Akilisi Pohiva's first two days of giving evidence, in an insurance case heard in the Nuku'alofa Supreme Court this week, he was questioned closely about the ingredients for violent demonstration that were evident on November 16, 2006, when the central business district was destroyed by rioters. He told the court he had no connection to the rioters.
Local companies, suing their insurance company for cover, have called 'Akilisi, a Tongatapu People's Representative, as a witness to their case.
The insurance company National Pacific Insurance Ltd. did not pay their claims for damage that happened during the riots.
Eight plaintiffs including Shoreline Group Ltd., Shoreline Communications Ltd., E.M. Jones Ltd., Jones Travel Ltd., E.M. Jones (Koloua) Ltd., Jones Industries Ltd., Joseph Ramanlal Vallabh Trading as Pacific Royale Hotel and the Free Wesleyan Church of Tonga are suing National Pacific Insurance (Tonga) Ltd. for insurance claims.
Witness
'Akilisi was called by the plaintiff to make a statement of evidence as to what he saw and observed during the riots. He read his statement on his first day in the witness box on Tuesday, November 6.
He said in his evidence in chief on November 6 that he established the People's Committee for Political Reform (PCPR) to discuss ways to bring about democratic change but it was always their objective that any changes made, be done lawfully and within peaceful means. He said they had put through a petition to parliament for democratic change before November 16, 2006, where it was tabled but was never deliberated on.
On November 16, he attended a parliamentary select committee meeting at 10:00am. He was later informed that parliament would not sit on that day, which was then communicated to the people at Pangai Si'i. In the afternoon, the former Prime Minister Dr Feleti Sevele requested a meeting with him and 'Uliti Uata a Ha'apai People's Representative.
'Akilisi said other MP's joined them at the Prime Minister's Office. After an hour-long meeting the PM asked him what they wanted. He told him they wanted for all members of parliament to be elected by the people. The PM agreed and said the Minister of Justice would make a public announcement on radio, but 'Akilisi suggested that a letter would be better so that it could be read to the people at Pangai.
"After 3:00pm we left with the letter and were met by rocks."
He said the rocks thrown, were not meant for them but at the Prime Minister's Office and he told people to stop. He said he went back to PM's Office to make clear in the letter that the number of members of parliament in a new parliament would not be more than 30. 'Uliti read the letter to the crowd, and after the riot was in full form, he said.
'Akilisi said after the riots he and some of the People's Representatives were charged with sedition in relation to the riots, and the Court of Appeal acquitted them of the charges after they established that the Crown had no prima facie case against them, in September 2009.
Criminal minds
He said they had no connection to the rioters and did not recognize the rioters as members of the pro democracy movement at Pangai Si'i. The rioters were not motivated by politics but by criminal minds. It was clear rioting was not planned or promoted by the movement but they were opportunists who looked to loot. "We had stressed change by peaceful means and pro democracy supporters had nothing to do with the riots," he said.
'Akilisi said a month before November 16, they held a number of meetings to explain to people their mission and steps in their attempt to bring about peaceful change and they had the support of the majority who accepted their proposals.
Angry and frustrated
During cross-examination by counsel for NPI, Michael Ring asked 'Akilisi about an article he wrote after November 16 which he said that people were angry and frustrated over delays in democratic reform which led to the upheaval against government. "Is that what you said in your article?"
'Akilisi said, yes, but disagreed with the counsel's suggestion that the damage to places like Shoreline were politically motivated. He said he could not read what was on their minds.
"You are a person deeply involved in political affairs and two things happened on November 16. At Pangai there was a political demonstration and thousands were there. And at some stage during the afternoon, about 200m down the road, a large crowd damaged Molisi, and then a large crowd damaged the Pacific Royale Hotel, Leiola Shop and the Nuku'alofa Club?"
'Akilisi agreed.
Michael asked him, "You are, seriously, not telling Your Honour that all those people in the crowd was just a coincidence, as the political rally was held at the same time?"
'Akilisi said people came to Pangai to show their support.
"But some went on and did the damages?" put the counsel.
'Akilisi said, yes.
The counsel referred him to an interview he made with an NPI investigator a few days after the riots. "He asked you about events that led to the upheaval and you referred him to the Civil Servants Strike."
"You had also told the investigator of other events such as OBN Television being told to move out of a building with no notice. And government's application to the Ministry of Lands for the Defence Services to lease Pangai Si'i?"
'Akilisi said, yes.
"So Government's attempt to lease Pangai Si'i to stop it from being available to protestors was an attack on the pro-democracy movement?" asked counsel.
'Akilisi said it was an attack on the People's Representaives and could be an attack on the Pro-Democracy Movement as PR's represented the voice of the people.
The counsel pointed out a letter 'Akilisi wrote to the Secretary General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat in July 2006, on behalf of his PCPR. 'Akilisi said his intention was to inform them of the situation in Tonga. "But you envisioned violence could arise?" asked counsel.
'Akilisi answered, yes, but said he he did not expect it to happen on that day.
"The Minister of Police, at the time, had told parliament that you made lies when you said you had the majority?" asked the counsel.
'Akilisi agreed.
"And the Speaker refused to convene parliament? And government was perceived by people as ignoring the will of the majority of people?" asked counsel.
'Akilisi said, yes, but people came to Pangai with the understanding that parliament would sit.
Angry
The counsel put to him that he knew when people found out parliament would not convene they would get angry and turn to violence.
'Akilisi said there was a possibility, but at the same time it was the People's Representatives responsibility, the Minister of Police to work together to make sure peace and order was in place. There were many police officers there and government could have called in the Defence Services, he said.
"Isn't it from your perspective that it is a pity it happened, but it was part of the process of change?" asked counsel.
'Akilisi said, yes, because he thought negotiations would continue and he did not expect upheaval on that day. "I thought, at the time, parliament would continue to debate," he said.
"Why did the violence happen?" asked the counsel.
'Akilisi said it was part of the process. It was a pity and they did not want them to do it but it all happened.
It was put to him, that on November 16, he faced three problems that included the need for parliament to sit to pass on democratic reform.
He said yes.
Counsel asked if this was the last chance to introduce reform in the last session of parliament for 2006.
'Akilisi said, yes, and their aim was to get change done in a peaceful way.
"The Select Committee met in the morning, the Speaker refused to call parliament?" asked counsel.
'Akilisi said, yes. They wanted the occupants to go home before parliament could sit.
"But the PRs refused to tell people to go?" asked counsel.
"Because we felt not good to tell people to move out. There were many police officers there at the time, it was their duty to ensure peace as well as us People's Reps. If government felt insecure it would be much easier for them to get the Defence to surround the area. That's what government should have done to avoid this," 'Akilisi said.
Counsel put to him, what they had at Pangai Si'i on this day were the ingredients for violent demonstration that he had predicted to the Forum in July.
'Akilisi said in July his intention was to inform the Forum of the situation and it did not mean violence would happen. "I still believed that us, the PRs, Police and Defence could provide and avoid any upheaval," he said.
"But that turned out not to be the case?" put the counsel.
'Akilisi answered that was only because government failed to carry out their duties to make sure peace and order was in place.
'Akilisi's finished his evidence this morning, November 8, after two and a half days in court. The civil case is continuing today.