Vol 3 No 2, November 1996

'WE DIDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL'

COMMENTARY: By Kalafi Moala.

The Tongan Times ... the "freedom" issue.

DESPITE the fact that we were given an opportunity to address the Parliament and our (Moala and Akau'ola) legal representative was permitted to pose questions relating to the legality of the proceeding, I already felt that we would be found guilty, based on the statements and arguments made by the members of Parliament. One of the major questions I raised was: How could I and my colleagues expect a fair trial/hearing from a group, the majority of whom I have evidence to prove, hate the Taimi Ôo Tonga, newspaper, and especially me as its editor. If Parliament felt that it had the legal authority to pass judgement on this issue then it was absolutely necessary for Parliament to then separate itself from the witness, the prosecutors and especially those members of Parliament who had already publicly declared that we were guilty. In any case this historical "trial" conducted by the Tongan Parliament proves the following:

• It is possible for Parliament convert itself into a court of law despite the fact that the majority of its members are not equipped or educated to deal with legal issues and matters to be able to guarantee a fair trial.
• It is possible for Parliament to haul by force before it any member of the public, put them on "trial" and send them to jail.
• No one who questions the Government can expect to get a fair "trial" in Parliament because 21 of its 30 members are most likely to vote on the side of the Government because their allegiance is with the Government.
• The vote in Parliament on whether one is guilty or not is not guided by some superior legal principles but is based on personal inclinations - e.g. how one felt at that time; how one regarded the persons charged; how the Crown Prince or other senior members of Parliament voted and its effect on other members of Parliament and various other reasons.
• It is not appropriate/correct for Parliament to put on trial a person who is not one of its members.
• 'Akilisi Pohiva was not permitted to be in Parliament when the debate and vote was being conducted yet the Minister for Justice who instigated the case against us was allowed to participate in the debate and even in the vote. Where is the fair trial?
• One cannot appeal a decision of Parliament in a parliamentary trial even if one is dissatisfied with the outcome of the process.

It is a great pity that events have taken this turn, taking up a lot of Parliament time, but the editor, deputy editor and the Member of Parliament firmly believe they did not do anything wrong in publishing what was published.

What was published was factual and truthful. It is true that the People's Representative had already signed a petition calling for the impeachment of the Minister for Justice because he travelled to the Olympics even though his request for leave was refused.

It is true that this petition was taken to the Parliament Office and was duly registered and was placed in the Deputy Speaker's files. So the petition had been put into the machinery that is called the Parliament of Tonga. As to where in the machinery the petition ended up in depends on how that machinery usually functions.

This newspaper only reported that the petition had been submitted and the contents of that petition was published indicating those that had signed it. This newspaper has never received any directive from Parliament then or now not to publish these. Yet they now say that we acted inappropriately, put us on trial and put us in prison.

Kalafi Moala is publisher and editor of the Taimi 'o Tonga. This commentary was published on 25 September 1996 and translated by Lopeti Senituli.

Copyright © 1996 Taimi 'o Tonga and Pacific Journalism Review. This document is for personal use and academic research. Inquiries to the editor: drobie@pactok.peg.apc.org

Return to current issue contents Return to Pacific Journalism Review index