Ousted Member of Parliament, Mateni Tapueluelu, has successfully appealed against a declaration made by Lord Chief Justice Paulsen that resulted in him being removed from Parliament in December last year. The Court of Appeal of Tonga overturned the decision on Friday April 8.

Mateni lost his parliamentary seat last December after the Chief Justice declared that he had been unlawfully elected in the 2014 national elections because of outstanding debts from a court order in 2011. The ruling was in accordance to Clause 65 of the Tongan Constitution, a clause which disqualifies a person from running for election if that he/she has an unpaid court fine. In 2011 a Magistrate’s Court judgment held Mateni liable to pay William Clive Edwards $10,000 in damages and $4,500 in costs in a civil action for defamation.

Then in 2012 a Supreme Court Judge had given Mateni leave to appeal to the Appeal Court and ordered that the Magistrate’s Court’s judgment be stayed pending the Appeal decision. The stay remained in force when Mateni was nominated, elected and entered parliament as a People’s Representative.

However, the Court of Appeal also reasoned that because Mateni was a “mere debtor” and because his 2011 court order had been “stayed”, he shouldn’t be subject to disqualification from parliamentary elections.

Based on this fact, the Court of Appeal reasoned, “The debtor cannot be seen to be in default in the sense that he is simply ignoring the judgment or refusing to give effect to it. He has gone back to the court and it has agreed to stay the operation of the judgment so far as court processes are concerned”.

The Court of Appeal also stated that it was “influenced by the stark contrast between the position of someone convicted of a crime and the position of a mere debtor if a technical interpretation is given to Clause 65 of the Constitution.

Clause 65 disqualifies as a candidate anyone otherwise qualified to be an elector if on the date of nomination that person has been ordered by a Tongan Court to pay a specific sum of money any part of which “remains outstanding.”

The Appeal Court considered the word “outstanding” which was capable of more than one meaning. “Once a stay has been granted the judgment debtor is not in default.”

The court also believed that it was not intended that someone who obtains a stay in a civil case and wins their appeal against a civil judgment, should be in a worse position than a criminal.

The Appeal Court concluded that Mateni was not disqualified by Clause 65 as execution of the judgment against him was stayed, and therefore his appeal succeeds.

Attorney General

The Appeal court also reached a view that the sections 25-27 of the Electoral Act did prevent the Attorney General from bringing the present proceedings.

Section 25-27 limits who can bring a challenge and when it can be brought, as well as prescribing the procedure. Section 25 states that “No election… shall be questioned except by a petition…”

The judgment said the there was no indication that the Attorney General alone is able to bring a challenge by another means and outside the time limit after an election has taken place. However, the Attorney General can challenge a candidacy prior to an election.

The hearing was held in the Court of Appeal of Tonga was held from 30 March to 8 April before Justices Moore, Handley, Blanchard and Tupou.

Counsel for the appellant was Mr R. Harrison SC, while ‘Aminiasi Kefu SC for the respondent, the Attorney General.