The trial of a 75-year-old man charged with sedition is drawing to a close after counsel completed their final submissions at the Nuku'alofa Supreme Court today.

Sione Halafuka Vea appeared for the second day of his jury trial presided over by Mr Justice Warwick Andrew, when final submissions were made by Defence counsel Sifa Tu'utafaiva and Crown Prosecutor Peter Little.

Defence counsel Sifa Tu'utafaiva proposed to the court there are two elements the prosecution should prove before the accused can be declared guilty. Firstly, is that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused made a speech on November 15, 2006, which they do not deny the fact, that he did. Secondly, the Crown must prove that the accused had the intention to excite or encourage disaffection against the Tongan Parliament. He proposed that the Crown had not proven beyond reasonable doubt this element and he submitted that the accused be declared not guilty.

Defence counsel added that this was based on two reasons, firstly the words said by the accused, ...“to enter Parliament and bring two heads...”, was for reform and this attempt for reform was supported by the People's Representatives to Parliament.

"You saw the speech on the DVD played in court, this was done as an attempt for reform. And there were two members of the PR's who were present at Pangai Si'i when the speech was made on this particular day."

Defence counsel proposed there was a testimony by one of the witnesses that people were laughing during the accused's speech and it was also shown on DVD. One witness also gave evidence and said that the speech made by the accused did not encourage any disaffection in her towards Parliament.

"If his intention was to excite disaffection against Parliament why was he not arrested by the police on this exact day instead he was arrested a month later on January 15, 2007?" the defence counsel asked.

Defence counsel then submitted that the accused had no intention to urge disaffection instead it was to stand firm and continue with the reform.

Crown submissions

Crown Prosecutor Peter Little told jurors that there are two types of evidence. One is what one said and heard, which is direct evidence and the other is what one can draw an inference from the evidence presented.

The Crown suggested to jurors to make an inference based on the words said by the accused, the way he said it, the tone he said it in, then they would infer the intention required and they could see the intention of what was said by the accused.

He also advised the jurors against judging the case on sympathy or as a pro-supporter of reform, a pro-supporter of the monarchy but to decide the case on the evidence in court and use their common sense.

He also submitted that the defence had submitted that one witness said she laughed during the speech by the accused. He put forth to the court that this was because she was a pro-reform person.

"We heard the laughing on the DVD and that laughter and ridicule was successful," he added.

The prosecutor also put forth that another point by the defence was that the speech made by the accused was to encourage people for reform. He said this was a technique of the defence counsel trying to divert the case from the fact in question.

He then submitted that in the way the accused made his speech he was encouraging disaffection against Parliament.

The accused was doing what was required for intention in this charge and "the Crown submits that the intention is made out and I ask you to live up to your duty and if satisfied beyond reasonable doubt then find the accused guilty," the prosecutor concluded to the jurors.

The trial will continue tomorrow with the final summing up of the case by Justice Warwick Andrew before the jurors are let go to decide on their verdict.

The trial began on Monday, July 23.