On the third day of the Judicial Review, challenging the amendment to Clause 7 of the Tongan Constitution and the introduction of restrictive media laws, Dr Rodney Harrison finished his 77-pages submission.

Harrison said that after government failed in their attempts to ban the importation of the Taimi 'o Tonga newspaper it can be only conceived that it proceeded with a punitive and prohibition intention when it tabled Bills to amend Clause 7 of the Constitution and to introduce the Media Operator's and the Newspaper Bills.

He also stressed a belief that the Media Operator's Act was unconstitutional and therefore invalid because it was voted on three times by the House and passed before Clause 7 of the Constitution was amended.

With regards to the Newspaper Act he said that the Minister of Communication has an unfettered discretion with the issuance of Newspaper licences, but he said that the Act was not specific on what was considered to be fair, honest and independent in the content of a newspaper.

Defence opens submissions

In the afternoon session, Paul Radich, the leader of three legal counsel for the Defendant, the Kingdom of Tonga, started with his two-volumes submission.

Radich said that his learned friend's submission dealt with history and a comprehensive settlement (referring to a settlement out of court between Government and the the Taimi 'o Tonga over damages), and he will focus his submission on three areas ...–

1. Does the Tongan parliament have the sovereignty to amend the Constitution?

2. Was Clause 7 ever amended before?

3. Did parliament amend or not Clause 7 last year?

Radich then stressed the point that the Tongan parliament has the jurisdiction to amend Clause 7, because if it hasn't then it hasn't the sovereignty to make laws.

He said that the role of the court in a judicial review is to ascertain that the amendment of the Constitution follows proper procedures. He said that for the court to probe into the purpose and the motive of the amendment "is outside the jurisdiction of the Court."

Radich said that for the court to pass a decision on the purpose and the motive of the amendment would be an involvement by the court in making a political decision.