Responding to social media commentary, Tonga's Acting Attorney General 'Aminiasi Kefu came out to set the record straight that the King's personal Royal prerogative to dissolve Tonga’s Legislative Assembly "is not limited by law and any legal action taken against this dissolution will be dismissed immediately by the Courts."

The Acting Attorney General said that he was speaking out in order to correct error, "when statements are made on a wrong interpretation of the law, that creates a real risk of misleading the public and which may lead to contempt or ridicule of the Constitutional institutions of the Kingdom."

He was responding to views circulated by Lopeti Senituli a former Govenment CEO, who was urging the government to take legal action against the King's  decision to dissolve the Legislative Assembly. Mr Senituli opined that the government should apply to the Court for an injunction against the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, and also apply to the Courts to review that decision.

In a six page statement issued by the Attorney General's Office today, in both Tongan and English, the Attorney General set out the reasons "why this view is flawed and the misconception should be desisted immediately."

The Acting Attorney General said that no one is barred from taking any legal action in the courts. However, he pointed out that the exercise of the King's personal Royal prerogative to dissolve Tonga’s Legislative Assembly "is not limited by law".

The Attorney General said he was correcting errors and misconceptions.

"It is not customary for the Attorney General’s Office to engage in public debate over the law, especially when it is made in social media," he said 

"However, when such statements are made on a wrong interpretation of the law, that creates a real risk of misleading the public, and it has resulted in some traction with the public, especially with the international media, then it is a fundamental duty of the Attorney General to speak out to correct that error and potential misconception."

He said there is no provision in Constitution or laws of Tonga to support this opinion. "Mr Senituli did not refer to any legal provision in the Constitution or the laws of Tonga to support his opinion."

Immune

The Acting AG pointed out case law where in Tonga, as in England, the King in person (subject only to Clause 49) is immune from all actions at law whether civil or criminal.

"No proceedings are maintainable against the King in person. The Courts are the King's court and the Courts have no jurisdiction over him".

Limitation by law 

The Acting AG clarified a land court case that dealt with a personal Royal prerogative, that is limited by the law and includes the appointment of successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates.

He asserted that the personal Royal prerogative to dissolve parliament is not limited by the law

"The power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution is a personal Royal prerogative that has no parameters prescribed by any law, unlike the personal Royal prerogative to appoint successors to hereditary titles and hereditary estates."

He said accordingly, there is no basis for the Courts to analyse whether the decision taken by His Majesty the King to dissolve the Legislative Assembly has exceeded any legal parameters prescribed by the law.

He said the wording of clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution puts this principle beyond doubt.

Clause 38 provides that the King may dissolve the Legislative Assembly at his pleasure and command that new representatives of the nobles and people be elected to enter the Assembly. Clause 77(2) also provides that, it shall be lawful for the King, at his pleasure, to dissolve the Legislative Assembly at any time and command that new elections be held.

“The Attorney General’s Office wishes to confirm that it is of the view, that the decision by His Majesty the King to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under clauses 38 and 77(2) of the Constitution was an exercise of a personal Royal prerogative that is not limited by the Constitution or the laws of Tonga, and therefore such decision cannot be reviewed by the Courts.”