Editorial: Will Tonga’s Anti-Corruption Commission Deliver or Disappoint?
Published: July 2025
Tonga has taken an historic step forward with the formal establishment of its Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC), years after the enabling legislation first passed in 2007. Its arrival was long overdue and, for many, signalled a turning point in the country’s long and uneven fight against corruption. But in recent weeks, one question has begun to emerge more loudly, especially from the public and media alike: Is this new Commission already toothless?
A local online outlet recently claimed the ACC lacks the legal power to investigate government departments and instead functions more as a symbolic structure than a working one. At first glance, this critique seems harsh—perhaps even premature. But when examined more closely, it raises real concerns worth confronting.
According to the Anti-Corruption Commissioner Act, the ACC does indeed have statutory authority to initiate investigations, issue summons, obtain search warrants, and even prosecute corruption-related offences. These powers, on paper, align with international best practices, including those used in countries like Fiji and Samoa, where similar commissions have begun making inroads into high-level misconduct.
So why the accusation of toothlessness?
The reality lies in the disconnect between the law and its implementation. While the legal framework is promising, the Commission is still in its infancy. It lacks key infrastructure, including a dedicated Investigations Division, a fully operational Prosecution Unit, and a Community Engagement arm to enable public complaints and transparency. The most important tool of all—a robust whistleblower protection system—remains under development.
Equally troubling is the legal ambiguity around the ACC’s reach into the core of government. Can it compel cooperation from ministries? Can it subpoena Cabinet officials? Can it investigate Parliamentarians without interference? These questions remain unanswered—and until tested, they leave the Commission vulnerable to accusations of being deliberately designed to avoid stepping on powerful toes.
This is not to dismiss the effort or leadership behind the ACC’s formation. Tonga now has a Commissioner, an Executive Director, and a regional partnership with Fiji’s FICAC that offers valuable technical support. But none of this will matter if the ACC is hamstrung by silence, red tape, or political pressure the moment it tries to investigate misconduct in the highest offices of the land.
If the government is serious about stamping out corruption, it must do more than simply appoint officials and announce strategies. It must fully fund the Commission, staff it with qualified, independent professionals, and amend the law to remove any doubt about its authority to investigate public offices—no matter how senior.
Transparency is not a slogan. It is a system. One that must include clear accountability, timely public reporting, and measurable action against abuse of power.
The ACC must also open itself to the people—not just as a law enforcement tool, but as a trust-building institution. It must run public outreach campaigns, engage youth, respond quickly to complaints, and publish regular progress reports. Only then can it earn the public’s confidence.
Tonga cannot afford another institution that exists in name only. The time for cosmetic reforms is over. The Commission must be tested—not protected. And if it proves itself willing and able to act without fear or favour, it will become one of the most important instruments of good governance in Tonga’s modern history.
Until then, the burden of proof is on those in power. Will they strengthen the Commission—or shield themselves from it?
