Censured

Very Gravely

Chief Justice on Tongan Treasurer

From Our Own Correspondent

Nukualofa, May 5.

AT a special session of the Supreme Court to-day, Uliti Balu, the young Tongan ex-clerk of the Treasury, who is serving a three years’ sentence for perjury, pleaded guilty also to three charges of fraudulent conversion of £877 of Government Savings Bank funds, to issuing false Savings Bank receipts for £1,214, and to forgery of Savings Bank withdrawal slips involving £337. He was sentenced to the maximum punishments of 10 years, 5 years and 7 years respec tively, to run concurrently.

The case has caused a stir in political circles, for it came out in evidence that, for the last four years, Uliti had been stealing money from the Treasury, where he was in sole charge of the Tongan Government Savings Bank, and of the cash used daily by the Tongan Government.

It appeared that, in 1937, as a result of a surprise audit, accused was found to be £6/16/- short in his cash. Instead of being dismissed, he was allowed to make good the shortage on the assump tion that it was accidental. According to the Treasurer (Hon. W. G. Bagnall) “it was an easy matter to be short in his cash, handling the amount of cash he was handling”. Accused was merely warned and again allowed privileges and freedom.

That this incident should have been handled in this way is criticised, in view of the Treasurer’s evidence. He was ob-

viously reluctant to give any information on the point, and it was only after the question, whether there were any ex traneous circumstances calculated to make him suspicious, had been repeatedly put to him that he said: “There were extraneous circumstances, because I re ported to the auditor, asking him to hold an audit. There were a couple of slips that had not been entered. I noticed that myself. When the slips were entered up, the cash was £6/16/- short”.

In giving judgment His Honour (Chief Justice W. H. Stuart) said that clearly the Treasurer knew the £6/16 - shortage was a misappropriation, and that clearly he failed in his duty, for instant dis missal was the only remedy. His be haviour in permitting this thief such privileges and freedom became the basis of serious censure in his departmental dealings.

His Honour went on to say that it was clear that the Treasurer was in a panic and was desirous of concealing all he

could; his demeanour throughout was only compatible with the grossest neg ligence in his administration of his of fice. The Court stated that, through out, the Treasurer’s attitude was that of someone who had something serious to hide, and was deterred by no scruple in hiding it; that as a result of the Treasurer’s negligence in permitting ac cused to do whatever he liked, accused was exposed to a temptation which only a man of sterling character could have resisted; and that the Treasurer’s in competence, and his failure to enforce the regulations and provide the most modest of checks, made the way easy for the accused. It was in view of these circumstances that the Court commuted the sentences to run concurrently.

The Chief Justice of Tonga—His Honour William Hemming Stuart, B.A. (Jurisp. Oxon.), B.A. (Cape of Good Hope). He is a Barrister-at-Law of Middle Temple, London, and Advocate of the Supreme Court, South Africa.