Editor,

MOKOFISI chooses to neglect and evade recent Constitutional breaches violated by the Judiciary in Tonga.

The subject at issue here, is not the millennium intense history of the Lord Chancellor of England, comparable only in title with that of Tonga, rather, the question and overriding factor, is, if there is accountability, check and balance and applicable fundamental administrative principles in place, to determine, who the Lord Chancellor will recommend to His Majesty in Council, to appoint as judges of the supreme court, in addition, its differing judicial functions.

The direct responsibility to check procedures exercised by the Lord Chancellor, is vested with the Prime Minister, in attendance to Privy Council as advisor to His Majesty. It is the Prime Minister’s responsibility, to be aware and be contended with procedures taken, to allow him to inform and assure his Majesty, as head of state, that suitable or appropriate vetting process was applied. Accordingly, it also rests with any Prime Minister in the future, to establish and give confirmation or not, to His Majesty in Council, that suitable measures was applicable in determining the person who will be Lord Chancellor, or commission of Lord Chancellors.

The Lord Chancellor in England was restricted in person, to a sitting member of the House of Lords. Deemed unconstitutional, it’s, functions, with reform, was dispersed between a member of the House of Commons and judiciary, and significantly now tied to the responsibility of the Prime Minister.

I would maintain there is accountability with check and balance in place with the appointment and functional duties of the office of Lord Chancellor and others, to ensure independence of the judiciary.

The repealed Judiciary Services Commission, glaringly lacked accountability with the required check and balance in place, to ensure, as Mokofisi has relayed, it does not run afoul of the law. Regardless of title, be it, Judiciary Services Commission, Lord High Chancellor or Judiciary Secretariat, principles, human rights and others, is guaranteed only by appropriate process in place.

In most countries, Head of state or head of government appoint by recommendations, judges to their supreme court, with different vetting process in each country. Some countries the vetting process is done before the appointment is made, in others, the appointment also by recommendation is endorsed subject to vetting process. It is worthy to note in this exercise, Tonga differs from other countries as it is reliant on qualified judges from other countries to preside over its judiciary. Notice of vacancy is advertised overseas for available judges to apply and they serve only at their convenience, moving on after a couple of years to better pastures or retirement. The core functions of these visiting judges is to preside in litigation process and to uphold the constitution when challenged or breached. They are not interested, most, and have not the time and should not be wrapped up with administrative responsibilities and decision making.

Regards

Moto Ki Lau Hola

motokilauhola [at] yahoo [dot] com [1]