'Alisi Taumoepeau: My duty to correct statements [1]
Friday, February 12, 2010 - 11:34. Updated on Monday, September 9, 2013 - 18:40.
UNDER subpoena to the Commission of Inquiry into the sinking of the Princess Ashika, I gave a statement under oath to tell the truth including the circumstances of my resignation. The Prime Minister will have that same opportunity.
With due respect to the Commission, as my integrity has been directly called into account, I believe I have a duty to correct those statements, although I am unable by law and ethics to make public all the relevant advice that was given to Government.
The Prime Minister says that I resigned because I misled Cabinet over advice I gave in my role as Attorney-General and questioned some important matters. With respect, this statement reflects at best his continued misunderstanding of the facts and of the respective constitutional roles of the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, especially regarding the appointment of Judges.
The facts are that in relation to a judicial appointment, an official made a mistake in starting the process without my or any other authority. I corrected this mistake, then advised the Prime Minister and Cabinet to follow the law and the constitution for the appointment of judges. On this matter, and in relation generally to the role of Attorney-General, the Prime Minister appears to have disagreed with or misunderstood my advice. I resigned from Cabinet because of his response and for other reasons relating to the Rule of Law and Constitutional Reform, including the side-lining of the position of Attorney-General and its replacement by legal adviser positions unknown in the Constitution.
The paramount considerations at that point were the Rule of Law and the protection of the independence of the Judiciary. These are not matters for politics - they are fundamentals in the constitution. The Constitution requires that Judges be appointed by His Majesty with the consent of the Privy Council, and it has been established practice since the Judicial Services Commission was appointed, that the Privy Council acts on the recommendations of the Commission. There is no power or role for the Prime Minister in the Constitution regarding the appointment of judges.
By convention and law, the job of the Attorney-General is to offer advice on such matters. When the Attorney-General is also a Minister, the office has a special role and must give free and frank advice to the Prime Minister and Cabinet on legal matters. The Attorney-General is not bound by the collective duties of Cabinet in exercising this role.
It was also my duty to advise the Government that I had received independent legal advice which cautioned Government that the proposed method of establishing an independent office of A-G might not comply with the Constitution. That was also my view, and I put it clearly to the Prime Minister. Naturally, I have never questioned the authority of His Majesty to act within the Constitution. I was duty bound to advise His Majesty's Government on the law.
With due respect to all who exercise public authority, I say again what I said on oath. Tonga needs sons and daughters in the public sector who can give professional, frank and fearless advice to those in authority without fear of sanction. We need to ensure that a tragedy such as the MV Princess Ashika, where so many people failed to stand up, does not happen again. We owe this to our country.
I believe there is a culture of fear to stand up for what is right in the Public Sector because one may be forced to retire early, go on leave or sidelined. Some may say that this is an aspect of our culture of respect for authority. In my view, respect and fear are not the same and blurring them fosters bad decisions at all levels of government. This threatens the rule of law.
'Alisi Taumoepeau, 12/02/10.