under persecution?
p. 33 · Read in the full issue
Are Tonga’s MP's under persecution?
WHENEVER the subject of pol itical persecution in the Pacific is mentioned, many people would think that reference is made to the situation in Fiji, and specifically of the fate of the Bavadra government, its members and supporters. Or they would point at the case of Jimmy Stevens in Vanuatu, and episodes in PNG and the Solomons. But no one would believe there is political per secution in Tonga. Recently, however, that belief was rudely jolted by oversees media stories which led to a high powered debate and wide public con troversy in Tonga.
It all started in March when Mike Fields of AFP reported from Paris an interview he made with Akilisi Pohiva, People’s Representative in the Tonga parliament and leader of the Pro democracy movement. In the interview Pohiva was asked whether, in view of
recent legal actions which he lost and was heavily fined in, he considers the crown prince (the plaintiff in one of the libel suits against Pohiva) and the government are out to destroy him and his career by dragging him to court on every thing he publishes (in his news broadsheet, Kele’a) that distantly smacks of libel against the authorities and thus to cause his bankruptcy. Pohiva claims that he answered that this is not at all impossible though he would not vouch for it, adding that there are other issues of far greater importance which should concern the authorities more than playing watchdog on his broadsheet. But other news networks picked up the interview and rephrased here and there that in the end Pohiva’s answer to the question was possible of being interpreted as a categorical affirmative full stop, specifically that the Royal Family and Tonga government are systematically persecuting him.
When those newspaper reports reappeared in the local media, the Tonga deputy premier went public to deny any government plan of persecuting Pohiva implying that this never was nor is or ever will be part of government policy.
This brought Pohiva out to criticise the government-owned Tonga Radio for not offering him an opportunity to comment on the reports when it broadcasted the deputy premier’s reply. One or two more exchanges between the chief protagonists drew a lot of public attention and a public controversy ensued conducted not only through the print media but also within more traditional outlets like kava parties and village meetings. The source of all this excitement was a series of lawsuits three in all brought against Pohiva by first the speaker of parliament, who is a noble, and second by the executive group (headed by a prince) of a squash pumpkin exporting company and, lastly, by the crown prince. They all alleged that Pohiva’s broadsheet Kele’a printed libellous matter against them which were not only false but defamatory of their reputation and public
image. The Supreme Court judgments
were against Pohiva in all three law suits, and the accused was sentenced, in total, to the tune of almost $BO,OOO.
The circumstances of the court cases were of public interest also. In the first two cases, Pohiva claims, facts that were crucial to his defence were either not admitted or not taken into account.
The result was that he was found legally liable, being unable to substantiate to the court’s satisfaction that the libellous statements at issue were factual. The case with the crown prince was heard while Pohiva was absent abroad, first in Taiwan with a group of Tonga MPs on a parliamentary exchange visit then tarrying in Hawaii and Fiji for a week or so on his way back. Pohiva did not have any form of representation at this hearing, but this did not stop the court
from going through the customary motions. On his return Pohiva asked the court to set aside the first trial and a retrial be heard so he could present his case. This request was unsuccessful.
The court did announce the date of the last action. Pohiva says that because the waiting was going to be fairly long he lost track of his record and went to court to enquire again after the date. He was told by the court clerk that this information was not at hand but that he would make it available soonest. This meeting took place just before Pohiva left for Taiwan, and the court some days before the hearing told Pohiva’s wife of the pending trial. Pohiva was at the time spending a few days on Hawaii’s big island. And so the case was tried without the accused’s presence or a representative.
All the above information must have been available to at least some of the foreign journalist who dealt with the original interview. One can surmise that they concluded from appearances a line up of the plaintiffs, a noble and speaker of parliament, two princes with one being the crown prince and minister for foreign affairs that there is a conspiracy by the Royal Family and government to destroy Pohiva who has been for long the leading light in a group of pro democracy critics in parliament urging broad changes to the form of government and major reduction of traditional privileges. What Pohiva & co. have to remember is that to really fight big fish one must be prepared to take a lot of beating and survive it.
And although the deputy premier’s words could not be questioned, especially in terms of the fact that the foreign media could never prove that Pohiva is being persecuted, the actions of people, unbeknown to them, can still have persecution effect. The law of persecution, implicit in Machiavelli so long ago, is: all politics must involve some form of persecution. Its converse is also true: all persecution is ultimately political. □