The election of Tatafu Moeaki as the Tongatapu No. 4 People’s Representative to the Legislative Assembly was declared void by a Supreme Court judge today, who found that he committed bribery on two occasions, in the lead-up to the November 2021 General Election. Moeaki, the current Minister of Finance, is the second Cabinet Minister the court has found to have committed the offence of bribery under the Electoral Act.

The election petition was filed by Mateni Tapueluelu [petitioner] who contested the same Tongatapu 4 electorate. 

He challenged the election of the respondent, Tatafu,  alleging that he committed five acts of bribery in breach of section 21(1)(a) of the Electoral Act and sought the court’s declaration that his election is void.

Hon. Mr Justice Niu issued a 40-pages wrtitten judgment today, after hearing evidence presented over three-days of trial on April 11-13, at the Supreme Court in Nuku'alofa.

He found that the respondent committed bribery in two occasions. One claim was not proven and another two were withdrawn by the petitioner. 

"Because it has been proved to the satisfaction of this Court at the trial of this election petition of the petitioner, Mateni Tapueluelu, against the respondent, Tatafu Moeaki, that the respondent is guilty of two offences of bribery under section 21 of the Electoral Act."

His election as the representative for  the Tongatapu 4 Constituency was therefore declared void.

The respondent was represented by Mrs. Tupou and Sione 'Etika for the petitioner.

Two allegations proven

The first claim proven was that the respondent committed bribery by giving $100 to Nikisoni Tomasi, an elector of Tongatapu 4.

The judge said, it was not disputed that Moeaki gave Nikisoni $100 within three-months before the election, because the gift was agreed to have been made on or about 14 October 2021 and the election was held on 18 November 2021.

“It is upon the respondent to prove that the gift was innocent. That is because S.21(3) of the Act has provided that a gift made within the said three-months period is deemed to have been made to influence the vote, unless the contrary be proved,” he said.

"What is disputed is what was said by the respondent to Nikisoni when he gave him the $100. Nikisoni said that the accused said, "use that for something for the kids and remember me at the election."

The respondent said that what he said to Nikisoni was, "use that for something for the kids, it has nothing to do with the election".

The judge said, the respondent's counsel submitted there was evidence that Tatafu did not know that Niki was a registered voter at Tongatapu 4 as it was known to him that Niki was residing within the Tongatapu 3 electoral boundaries at Halaleva, among other submissions in his defence.

"I have considered Mrs Tupou's submissions and I have also considered all the evidence which have been given in respect of this issue and I have found that Nikisoni's evidence is the more probable. Whereas Tatafu's evidence was generalised and verbose with explanations of justifications, when he described what happened that night in his affidavit. Nikisoni was specific about it in his affidavit."

The judge said Nikisoni was only a security worker at the hospital and a gift of $100 was substantial.

"The fact that he did not refuse the gift  and did not complain about it at the time does not mean that it is less likely that such gift was given to induce him to vote for the respondent."

“Was the gift out of character?” asked the judge.

Mrs Tupou submitted that Tatafu had established that giving to family and friends, as well as charitable causes for church, schools and clubs, he was involved with was not out of character for him.

"That may be so, but with regard to his gift of $100 to Nikisoni it was out of character because he accompanied his gift with the words: ‘Remember me at the election’.”

The judge concluded that this first claim had been proved and that he committed bribery.

"I am satisfied on the balance of probability, that the respondent gave $100 to Nikisoni Tomasi, who was an elector of Tongatapu 4 in which the respondent was a candidate for the general election which was to be held on 18 November 2021, to induce Nikisoni Tomasi to vote for him."

Promise of free water tanks 

Another claim was that the respondent committed bribery by making promises through a person to give free plastic water tanks to electors of Patangata, to induce them to vote for him.

The petitoner called only one witness Tepola Koula of Patangata. She said that she was an elector of Patangata for many general elections and that she was a well- known supporter of the petitioner and that another woman, Hua Latu was a well­ known supporter of the respondent.

Tepola also said that was close to election day and no tank was ever delivered to her and Hua Latu never came and saw her again.

The respondent said, he did not know Tepola Koula and that he did not know about any offer and he did not authorise Hua Latu to make any offer of donation of a water tank to Tepola Koula or to any person.

He also said that his sisters had not donated any dried foods to anyone for his campaign.

The respondent's counsel submitted, that the alleged bribery claimed by the petitioner is that Tatafu was conducting field surveys through his campaign leaders of the resident electors of Patangata who needed water tanks and distributing free plastic water tanks.

She said that it is denied that conducting a field survey is a valuable gift and that no evidence has been provided that it is a valuable gift.

The counsel further said, that there is no evidence that any of Tatafu's authorised campaign leaders conducted a field survey of resident electors of Patangata, who needed water tanks. She said that the only evidence was that Hua made a list, which included Tepola's name.

Proven

The judge said, after having considered all the evidence and the submissions of this claim by the petitioner, he was satisfied that the respondent did indirectly, through Hua Latu, promise to give free plastic water tanks to electors of Patangata to induce them to vote for him.

"Hua in carrying out Tatafu's instructions was thereby representing Tatafu to the people of Patangata. She was his agent for that purpose." <

The judge found Tepola's evidence more probable and more convincing, whereas Tatafu's and Hua's were not.

Unproven / withdrawn claims

Another claim was that the respondent made promises to procure loans for a group of female electors at Patangata to induce them to vote for him at the election.

The judge found that the petitioner had not proved this claim and dismissed it.

Another two claims were withdrawn by the petitioner. They alleged that the respondent made promises to build houses and upgrade roads.

He said, after the evidence for both sides were given in the trial, and when his counsel field his submissions, the petitoner withdrew the two claims.

“In view of the partial success of the respondent in 3 of the 5 claims against him, and because each claim involved a different amount of work, and bearing in mind s.39 of the Electoral Act, I direct each counsel to file memoranda within 14-days as to any proposed percentage of costs to be awarded to each party.

“This is unless a counsel requests a rehearing, then he will issue a decision as to cost,” ordered the judge.

Minister of Finance

Meanwhile, the respondent is a former long serving civil servant, having worked for Government over the past years, including as CEO for the Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Finance at various times. He then resigned from Government and took up other work.

In January 2021, he was appointed [from outside] to the former Prime Minister Dr Pohiva Tu'i'onetoa's Cabinet as the Minister for Trade and Economic Development.

He then ran in the 2021 General Elections and was successful in the TBU 4 electorate, before being appointed as Minister of Finance in the current Government headed by Prime Minister Hon. Hu'akavameiliku.

This is the the second Cabinet Minister found by the Court to have committed bribery in a string of election petitions. The other was the Minister for Internal Affairs, Sangster Saulala.