Audit

Mr Justice Niu said it was not disputed that this audit carried out on the first plaintiff ('Unuaki 'o Tonga) was done in accordance to powers of the Auditor General under the Public Audit Act 2008. 

That Act empowered the Auditor General to employ the persons that he instructed to carry out this audit and to determine their terms and conditions of employment.

The defendant's counsel’s opposed this application on reasons that included, even if it was applied for, it was out of time because it wa more than three months since the issue of the audit report in October 2016.

The judge said it was true that the plaintiffs had not properly sought the leave of the Court to file its application (statement of claim) for judicial review of the Auditor General's action and action of his audit team and to do so within three months of the date of issue of the report on October 5, 2016.

“But as I have stated, no disadvantage or prejudice has been suffered by the defendant because the plaintiffs immediately and continuously pursued their dissatisfaction with the report, right up to filing of their claim in this Court in January of this year,” he said.

"I consider that it is in the interests of justice that this Court hears the application of the plaintiffs for judicial review and that leave be granted for them to do so. There has been a good reason for the delay in bringing it, namely, the pursuit of other avenues open to them."

Meanwhile, the accused couple have pleaded not guilty to the all charges in February this year.