Mele Teusiva ‘Amanaki was awarded $50,000 in damages by the Nuku'alofa Supreme Court, after winning a long and winding defamation lawsuit against the Tonga Weekly newspaper and its former editor Faka'osi Maama, who published articles and a photograph on three occasions in 2014. The Lord Chief Justice had no hesitation in finding that both defendants were actuated by malice.

Mele ‘Amanaki, the plaintiff, is the Secretary General of Tonga's Public Service Association Incorporated (PSA).

She claimed that by three publications, both defendants published, republished, distributed and redistributed the photograph of the plaintiff that was 'not decent' and made “false and malicious statements and threats” to defame and discredit her character after her employer, the PSA, called on the then Prime Minister to resign over unlawful payments to Tongasat.

Lord Chief Justice Whitten said the newspaper was established in June 2012 by its sole shareholder, the first defendant, the Government of Tonga. Mr Maama, was the newspaper's editor. The fourth defendant, William Clive Edwards SC, was one of the newspaper's directors along with two others.

Edwards represented the two defendants.

Lord Chief Justice Whitten QC in a 50-page written judgment on 29 July, this year, ruled that it was the newspaper, which published the defamatory material, as a result and at the direction of Mr Maama's editorial decisions. Both are held liable for the loss and damage caused.

"The newspaper is also vicariously liable for Mr Maama's tortious conduct. In those circumstances, I see no basis for separate awards against the two for the same damage. Accordingly, the liability of the newspaper and Mr Maama for the damages assessed and costs is joint and several. On that issue, Mr Edwards agreed."

The Lord Chief Justice ordered that both to pay the plaintiff damages in the sum of 
$50,000 and her legal costs of the proceeding.

Government newspaper restored to companies register

The court heard in this proceeding, the plaintiff claimed damages for defamation arising from the publication by the newspaper of articles and a photograph on three occasions in 2014.

In December 2014, following a change of Government, the newspaper ceased operation and in 2016, it was removed from the Companies Register. 


The plaintiff's claims against the Kingdom of Tonga and Mr Edwards had been 
struck out. The plaintiff was reserved leave to re-plead but she did not do so.

He said the plaintiff applied, pursuant to s. 338 of the Companies Act to have the newspaper restored to the Companies Register, for the purpose of pursuing her claim against it.

On 3 August 2020, her application was granted.

He said earlier in a proceeding on 9 December 2019, judgment was entered against Mr Maama in default of defence with damages to be assessed.

Edwards' involvement

"Not withstanding Mr Edwards' involvement in the case throughout, both as counsel and as a party, it was not until March 2022, after the case had been listed for trial, that he filed an application on behalf of Mr. Maama to set aside the default judgment on the grounds that Mr Maama had never been served with the originating process."

The plaintiff also deposed that she and her husband, pursuant to an order for substituted service, had traveled to New Zealand in 2019 and effected service on Mr Maama, after others had attempted but he had allegedly evaded service.

Mr Maama said that he had not left Tonga during the relevant period and “had lived continuously” in Tonga since 2004.

However, the Lord Chief Justice said, an order was made requiring the Ministry of Immigration to produce Mr Maama's travel history. That information revealed that between 2015 and 2019, he had left the country on 26 occasions, mostly to New Zealand.

“The application was listed to be heard on 27 May 2022. That morning, the application [to set aside the default judgment] was withdrawn. 
The trial therefore proceeded as against the newspaper, and upon any finding of liability being established, for damages against the newspaper and Mr Maama,” he said.

It was also revealed that the timing of the publications corresponded with PSA's public pressure on the then Prime Minister in relation to Tongasat payments and then continued as Mr Maama and the newspaper waged public, reputational attacks on the plaintiff personally.

“On 17 August 2018, the then Lord Chief Justice Paulsen determined that the payments to Tongasat were indeed unlawful.”

Politically motivated

The Lord Chief Justice said for the reasons stated in the preceding sections above, the court had no hesitation in finding that in publishing the photograph on three occasions together with, at least, the third article, the newspaper and Mr Maama were actuated by malice.

He said this included, that the initial use of the photograph was clearly an attempt to defend the newspapers owner, and its leader, the then Prime Minister.

"In other words, that publication was politically motivated; in refusing and/or failing to publish the plaintiffs letters, the newspaper's subsequent articles incorporating the photograph lacked balance in reporting;

“When the plaintiff drew the attention of the newspaper, through her letters to Mr Maama, to the true context of the photograph, he failed to acknowledge her request for "corrections" to be made, nor did the newspaper issue a retraction or apology for any of the defamatory imputations."

“The newspaper's third publication of the photograph on the front page in greater size and in full colour together with its calls for the plaintiff to resign as Secretary General of the PSA on the basis of the untrue and misleading allegations conveyed by the photograph and commentary on it in the articles was clear evidence of animus towards the plaintiff personally,” he said.

On liability, he said the publications of the photograph and impugned articles were defamatory.
 He said the unqualified publications of the photograph and commentary on it in the 9 May 2014 article conveyed (of those pleaded) imputations that the plaintiff was an irresponsible mother, a bad and irresponsible leader, a bad woman, a party girl and that she had acted wrongly; and more generally, of unchastity and impropriety and that she was having an illicit relationship with Mr Urai. 


"The subject matter of the publications were not matters of public interest; 
the newspaper and Mr Maama did not meet standards of reasonable 
journalism or publication and the defence of qualified privilege was not available to justify the publishing of the defamatory material."

The photograph

The Lord Chief Jusice said on 20 March 2014, the newspaper published a two page article by Dr Fisi'iahi together with a photograph of the author in academic dress and another photograph depicting the plaintiff sitting cross legged on the knee of a man seated on a couch in a room with a bed in the background.

That photograph was the subject of the plaintiffs claim. 


He said Dr Fisi'iahi deposed that he did not provide the photograph to the newspaper, that he respected the plaintiff as a classmate from high school and a work colleague in Government, that her brothers were his friends whom he respected and that he "would never do such a thing as publishing an indecent photo of her in any newspaper'.

The plaintiff’s evidence on the photograph was she and another person attended a one week Pacific Meeting in China funded by the China Defendation Trade Union Congress, as the plaintiff was the then Chair of the South Pacific Council of Trade Unions.

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Congress hosted a farewell reception.

After the reception, which the plaintiff described as a "happy night", a group of about eight 'trade union friends' including the plaintiff finished their drinks in one of the participant's rooms in the hotel where they were staying. One of the group was Daniel Urai, the then President of the Fiji Trade Union Congress. Mr Urai was the man depicted in the photograph asleep sitting on the couch.

He was said to have "passed out too drunk". One of the topics during the leader's meeting was sexual harassment in the workplace, particularly by employers against employees.

Therefore, the photograph of the plaintiff sitting on Mr Urai's knee was "intended to be a joke" and aimed at him for passing out.

The photograph was taken by the then President of the Tuvalu Trade Union Congress. It and other humorous photographs taken that evening were sent by email to Mr Urai "to surprise him".

The photograph was never intended to be distributed beyond the group and the Plaintiff never gave permission for it to be published anywhere, said the plaintiff.

However, on November 2012, and unbeknown to the plaintiff, the photograph appeared on a website by the name of 'Fiji Coupfourpointfive, a website that was self-styled as a “blog” as a result of the heavy censoring 
[of news media] in Fiji.

The balance of the article was dedicated to denigrating Mr Urai and another man by the name of Aseri Rokoura. When he was asked how he came across the photograph, Mr Maama explained that one of his staff found it online.

During cross-examination, Mr Maama was asked why he chose to publish this particular photograph of the plaintiff instead of any other in the public domain, such as the one earlier published with the Prime Minister's letters.

He eventually agreed with the proposition that he published it because he considered that it was "consistent with the title of the article". By that, he explained, he saw a connection between the title to Dr Fisi'iahi's article and the photograph because it showed that the plaintiff "had lost her moral course or compass".

He conceded, however, that neither he nor his staff had made any enquiries to confirm or verify the source of the photograph, the context in which it was taken (such as when, where or why it was taken) or what it actually depicted…. that they "were negligent in not following up" on those matters.

“The newspaper, through Mr Maama, gave inconsistent and somewhat dissociative evidence about whether the photograph was 'indecent'.

"Despite what it had pleaded, and was contained in his affidavit, Mr Maama eventually conceded, as was pellucid from the text of his article in the third publication, that he considered the photograph to be evidence or suggestive of the plaintiff having an illicit relationship with Mr Urai, so much so, that he publicly called for her to resign from her position in the PSA because he considered her to be a 'disgrace to Tonga.’ ”

The plaintiff said she was shocked to the photograph being published as it was to the best of her knowledge the first and only time it had been published in Tonga.

She also stood as a candidate for Tongatapu 3 at the General Election in November 2014 and one of the other candidates was Mr Edwards. In the lead up to the election, she became aware of the publications of the photograph being circulated, which she considered harmed her campaign. 


Public interest

The Lord Chief Justice said the Reynolds approach strikes a balance, and seeks to harmonize the common tension, between, on the one hand, the need for the news media to be able to freely communicate with the public on matters of government and politics (including matters relating to the conduct of individuals holding or seeking election to positions in Government) and ensuring that freedom of expression is not curtailed (whether by Government, the fear of litigation or public opinion) beyond what is necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. This includes, the protection of personal reputation as an integral and important part of the dignity of the individual and which forms the basis of many decisions in a democratic society, which are fundamental to its well-being, on the other.

"In Tonga, those decisions cover all aspects of people's lives including such matters as whom to employ or work for, where to worship, whom to marry, whom to do business with and whom to vote for. Unfounded allegations published widely can damage one's reputation forever." The Lord Chief Justice said in his view, and for the reasons ,which follow, the photograph (as published by the newspaper) was not a matter of real or sufficient public interest, nor was it reasonable to include the photograph, with the articles in the three subject publications:

“The photograph and what it depicted (either in truth or supposition) had nothing whatsoever to do with the initial issue, which resulted in the first publication, namely, the PSA's call for the Prime Minister to resign on account of the Tongasat payments.

“While there can be no doubt that the allegations concerning the Tongasat payments, any supposition by Mr Maama that the photograph showed that the plaintiff had 'lost her moral course' was not connected with the title to Dr Fisi'iahi's article because it specified the PSA (not the Plaintiff) as, in his opinion, having lost its course. 


“A plain reading of particularly the third article shows that the ‘story’ was never about the plaintiff’s behaviour at the trade union conference in China in 2010. In fact, that fact was never faithfully reported. Had that fact been appreciated by Mr Maama,” said the Lord Chief Justice.

Diverting attention from Tongasat payments

He said the real purport of that article (and so far as the available evidence suggested, the second article too) was to discredit and disparage the plaintiff personally through the suggestion in the historical photograph and thereby attempt to deflect and defeat the gravamen of the plaintiff’s well-founded complaints and divert public attention from the issue of the Tongasat payments.

"The ensuing feud between the newspaper and the plaintiff, in her personal capacity, was not a matter of public interest. I have found, the imputations were untrue."

“In the above circumstances, the nature of the photograph was a matter of significant personal concern to the plaintiff and, as explained above, was used to falsely conjure public concern. 


“The timing of the publications corresponded with the PSA's public pressure on the Prime Minister in relation to the Tongasat payments and then continued as Mr Maama and the newspaper waged public, reputational attacks on the plaintiff personally.

“The plaintiff also gave evidence that copies of the defamatory photograph, as it appeared on the front page of the newspaper were distributed for free to almost all the homes in her father's village of Ma'ufanga in the Tongatapu 3 constituency in the last week of the campaign before the November 2014 general election, in which she was a candidate.

“She was later informed by a relative that someone had been distributing the photograph on behalf of another candidate, she realized that, as a candidate, she had been shunned by the voters because of the photograph. ”

The defamation suit was heard on 11-13 July 2022 at the Supreme Court in Nuku'alofa.