Editor,

Matangi Tonga reported that the Deputy Secretary at the Palace Office had confirmed on May 31st that the "Princess Regent will take the King's place and officiate in the opening of the Legislative Assembly", I am sure Members of Parliament would have found out even earlier than May 31st that the Regent would open the House.

Subsequently, HRH Princess Pilolevu Tuita opened Parliament on June 1st and the Legislative Assembly (LA) proceeded to meet and began to conduct business in the order that has been followed for over a hundred years. As reported, all the plaintiffs drew their weekly allowances for two successive weeks.

On June 6, almost a week after the LA was officially opened, Clive Edwards on behalf of all the plaintiffs filed their claim in the Supreme Court that parliament was illegally opened by the Princess Regent. Why had they waited so long to file such a case? From the date of such filing, the law allows 28 days to the defendants to file their defense. The defendants obviously went ahead and retained professional counsels to work the case on their behalf.

On June 13, according to the Chief Secretary to Government, there was a Chamber hearing where both parties to the civil case were represented. Government had assured that their statement of defense will be filed on June 16th and both parties agreed on a hearing date on the following Wednesday, June 21st.

Clive Edwards for the plaintiffs turned around on June 14 (more than a whole week later) and filed an application to discontinue their civil action. In a press release right after, Clive accuses government of ...“deliberately dragging its feet on the matter...”. Both `Akilisi Pohiva and Clive Edwards claim that their main reasons were their ...“concerns over 2006-2007 budget being passed without being debated.

The defendants refused the application, and now the Supreme Court is hearing the case this Saturday. From the above timeline, it is more than obvious how unplanned and without foresight this whole exercise has been with the PRs who are the plaintiffs. How more absurd and unprofessional can you get?



This is the group that is actively agitating to lead the country and who are forever criticizing government for any move it makes. What are we going to expect next from these short sighted self-serving politicians who claim to represent the majority of the people?

Clause 43 of the Act of Constitution empowers the King when he travels abroad to appoint a Regent ...“who shall administer the affairs of the kingdom during his absence...”.

Clause 17 of the Legislative Assembly Act states that parliament ...“shall be opened and closed by the King either in person or buy a commission of 3 nobles appointed by him....”

The real issue here is whether we are supposed to so ...“narrowly...” interpret the Regent...’s delegated function to ...“administer the affairs of the kingdom...” so as not to include ...“opening and closing of the LA...”. Yet, all the powers of the King as given by the Constitution have been used by the Regents for over 125 years without question.

Can Clause 17 of the Legislative Assembly Act override the more superior powers of the Act of Constitution? We shall certainly hear from the Supreme Court very shortly, won...’t we?

`Ofa atu

Ofa-ki-Tonga

ofakitonga [at] comcast [dot] net