IN a letter to His Majesty the King of Tonga on 25th October 2010, and statements to the local and overseas media, Mr. Sione Fonua, the New Zealand based leader of the Langafonua T'u'uloa Party and candidate for Tonga's coming Parliamentary election, took the unprecedented step of threatening to sue His Majesty the King of Tonga over the proposed sale of the "Atalanga" residence at Auckland, New Zealand.

This threat was based not on any substantiated evidence, but on what Mr.
Fonua refers to as his "understanding" that the property was held by His Majesty "on behalf of the people of Tonga". At the same time Mr. Fonua’s letter also impolitely required His Majesty to “advise me of the details of any legal authority" he may have for selling the property, and to do so within two days. Incredibly, what Mr. Fonua was also actually doing, was requiring His Majesty to provide him with the evidence for his threatened legal actions against His Majesty.

The facts

Firstly, contrary to the inferences that the intended sale of “Atalanga” was not made known to the public, Government had in fact already publicized the intention to do so, and the Prime Minister himself had made a public statement to that effect to Parliament.

As confirmed in writing by the previous owner of "Atalanga" Mr. Dennis Nathan, Her Late Majesty Queen Salote, having learned that the property was for sale, came to his home in 1952 and asked to purchase the property for her visits to Auckland. Her Late Majesty returned the next day and purchased the property with her own funds. Accordingly, the property was registered in Her name and Her heirs and successors, and consequently inherited by His Late Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV, and now as appropriate, by His Majesty the King.

Several years later, Her Majesty allowed Government's few women students and later male students in Auckland to stay at the residence Neither Their Late Majesties or His Majesty the King have ever charged any rental. Meanwhile, Government has appropriately maintained their students and the property.

Regardless of who bought “Atalanga”, to claim that such an expansive and high class property with antique furniture was bought to be a student residence and to accommodate only about ten students in its first ten years for example, is most ludicrous. There is no logic to such a purchase and expense. On the other hand, as the Royal Residence of Her Majesty the Queen of Tonga in New Zealand, the purchase then makes sense.

At the same time, Mr. Fonua has not informed the public that in Tonga, Government maintains both the Monarch’s official residences, as well as several personal Royal residences in the outer islands where Government has no official residence. Instead, Government’s maintenance of “Atalanga” is wrongly portrayed as conclusive evidence that it is public property, and this partial information and its derogatory implications are wrong and unjust to its victims.

Equally unjust is Mr. Fonua’s failure to tell the public, that since 2006 and the need for major repairs to the Royal Palace in Tonga, His Majesty has had no official residence, nor the official premises for the conduct of his official duties. Consequently, he has been forced to reside and undertake his official duties at his private residences. For these, he has not charged Government any rental either.

Quite clearly from the above facts, Mr. Fonua has been most negligent of his solemn duties to verify and assemble his evidence correctly, before attacking anyone’s reputation let alone that of the King of Tonga. Also, neither the Tongan nor the international public, to whom he had voluntarily broadcasted his unsubstantiated allegations, deserve such negligence.

Given the facts documented above, what is clearly owed to Their Late Majesties and to His Majesty the King, is our gratitude for the Christian charity which has always been the cornerstone of their leadership. For Mr. Fonua to reward such magnanimity with unsubstantiated “understandings”, ingratitude and the tarnishing of His Majesty's good name, reflects very poorly upon him indeed. And for Mr. Fonua to similarly misinform the public he aspires to lead does not augur well for both himself and the public.

But perhaps the most tragic feature of this unfortunate saga is that, because it has so seriously breached the most elementary courtesies and protocols which Tongan culture accords to the King of Tonga, one can be forgiven for mistakenly thinking that Mr. Fonua’s letter was not written by a Tongan at all. Ministry of Information and Communication, 04/11/10.