The Tongan noble Veikune ceased to hold his title and his estates on January 25, 2006 when he was found guilty in the Supreme Court of having committed an indictable offence, a judge has ruled today.

A claim by Siosifa Fatafehi Fuatakifolaha that he still held his noble title Veikune, and therefore was entitled to his noble's salary and rents from his estates, was dismissed by Mr Justice Warwick Andrew in the Nuku'alofa Supreme Court this morning.

The judge said the Land Act enacted by the Tongan Legislature had ended Fuatakifolaha's right to hold the hereditary estate of Veikune.

Fuatakifolaha, a former Speaker of the Tongan Legislature who was found guilty on charges of bribery and attempting to evade custom duties on January 25, 2006, lost his nobles' representative seat in parliament, lost his entitlement to a noble's salary and the rents from his noble's estates.

However, Fuatakifolaha argued that he had not been officially notified in writing by the Monarch that he had lost his title, and he supported his claim by the fact that a successor had not been appointed.

Judgement

Mr Justice Andrew in his judgment said that in a hearing on October 30, the plaintiff claimed that since the date of his conviction, the defendant, the Kingdom of Tonga, wrongfully stopped paying him his salaries as a noble and all rent paid up on leases from his hereditary estates, and that it wrongfully purported to take away his noble title and hereditary estates.

He therefore sought an order that the Kingdom of Tonga pay his salaries due to him as a noble from the day of his conviction with interest and that all rent on leases from his hereditary titles be also paid with interest.

Justice Andrew said the issue here was to determine whether or not the plaintiff could lawfully be deprived of his title and estates following his conviction for the indictable offence, and it lay essentially in the interpretation and effect of Clause 44 of the Constitution and Section 37 of the Land Act.

Plaintiff...’s Argument

The judge said the plaintiff...’s argument was that a noble...’s title could only be taken away by the King under Clause 44 of the Constitution, when one is found guilty of treason.

He said in Section 37 of the Land Act it provides for the removal of title and estates following a noble...’s conviction for an indictable offence. The plaintiff argued that it is inconsistent with Clause 44 of the Constitution and because the Constitution is the Supreme Law, section 37 is void and inconsistent by virtue of Clause 82 of the Constitution. It interpreted that Clause 44 therefore means the King has the sole prerogative to take away or terminate a noble...’s title and only be removed by treason.

Justice Andrew on the other hand interpreted otherwise and said the king has a personal prerogative power to remove a noble for treason an that is not to say that a noble can only be removed solely by the king alone for an offence of treason and no other. Such a personal royal prerogative is in contradiction to Section 37 of the Land Act. The Land Act is an Act of Parliament and a state that has nothing to do with any personal royal prerogative.

He clarified Section 37, as a law of the Tongan legislature that is the law by which the plaintiff ceased to hold his title and his estate and that he looses those rights from the date of conviction.

"The king does not deprive the hereditary title holder by virtue of Section 37 of the Land Act. The ending of the right to hold the hereditary estate is by operation by law namely the Land Act enacted by the Tongan Legislature."

Dismissed

In conclusion the judge ruled the plaintiff had been deprived of the hereditary title of Veikune and the hereditary estates assigned to the Veikune title by operation of the law.

He ceased to hold his title and his estates on January 25, 2006 when he was found guilty in the Supreme Court of having committed an indictable offence.

"There is no conflict between Clause 44 of the Constitution and Section 37 of the Land Act. And the plaintiff has no claim to any emoluments as a noble from January 25, 2006 and to any rent on leases from his former hereditary estates as from this date."

He therefore dismissed the claim and ordered that costs be awarded to the defendant.

Last year, the then Chief Justice Robin Webster in the Nuku...’alofa Supreme Court fined Veikune $20,000, after he was found guilty by jurors of the offence of attempting to evade customs import duties on 600 cartons of Bounty Rum, and for bribery of a customs officer on January 25, 2006.

The plaintiff was represented by Tevita Tupou Sr. with 'Aminiasi Kefu as Crown Prosecutor.