Opinion: Lavulavu Case – Playing the Man, Not the Ball?
Tonga Independent News, 29 March 2025
In the case that has captured headlines and political attention for years, the public deserves the truth — not just the headline. The criminal prosecution of Hon. ‘Akosita Lavulavu and ‘Etuate Lavulavu is being widely referred to as “fraud,” a word that evokes deceit and criminal intent. But that’s not the legal charge they face, nor is it an accurate reflection of what has happened.
At the heart of this case is a private educational institution, ‘Unuaki ‘o Tonga Royal Institute Inc. (UTRI), registered with the Ministry of Education and Tonga National Qualifications and Accreditation Board (TNQAB). It is this institution that received TVET grant funds, like many others across the country — and it is this institution, not the Lavulavus personally, that administered those funds.
Yet, the Lavulavus, not the institution, stand accused. Why?
⚖️ What Are the Actual Charges?
According to the Crown’s opening submissions, the Lavulavus are charged under Section 164 of Tonga’s Criminal Offences Act, specifically for “obtaining money by false pretences.”
To convict under Section 164, the prosecution must prove:
The defendants (Akosita and Etuate)
By false pretence
Knew the pretence was false
And obtained money as a result
But here’s the problem: the funds were not paid to the Lavulavus as individuals. They were paid to Unuaki ‘o Tonga Royal Institute Inc., a legally registered entity, responsible for delivering education services and employing staff. The grants supported operations, salaries, and school materials — as stipulated by Cabinet guidelines.
If there was a dispute over eligibility or administrative procedures, the appropriate body to investigate or sanction should have been the Ministry of Education, not the Supreme Court. If there was overpayment, the matter could have been resolved via civil process or recovery, not criminal prosecution.
This isn’t just a legal technicality. It goes to the very core of justice: Can you charge an individual for the actions of a legal entity?
🧑🏫 A School, Not a Scam
Much of the case — and the public narrative — has been twisted around how tuition was paid. The audit team claimed UTRI allowed students to use non-cash forms of payment, including commodity exchange (like root crops or services), and that some students were not eligible based on these methods.
But let’s be clear: UTRI is a private institution. It is not bound to accept only cash, and non-traditional payment methods are a common and practical approach across the Pacific, especially to ensure access to education for low-income families.
The media ran with a narrative that students didn’t pay and were falsely listed. Yet the audit relied heavily on unsigned and second-hand interviews with students’ relatives, gathered years after the fact — hearsay evidence that the Court of Appeal ruled inadmissible before being controversially allowed back in under legal exception during the Voir Dire.
And still, no evidence was produced showing that the Lavulavus personally benefited from the funds. In fact, their defense made it clear: they had other businesses that sustained their income, including farming, kava plantations, quarrying, and contracting.
🧮 The Bigger Picture: Overpayments and Double Standards
Even more disturbing is that overpayments and miscalculations occurred in many schools. Some received larger grants than UTRI, yet none of their administrators were prosecuted.
The question becomes: Why were the Lavulavus targeted?
If all schools were treated equally, and all discrepancies were prosecuted under Section 164, the courtrooms would be overflowing. But they’re not. The Lavulavus stand alone.
That suggests this isn’t about justice — it’s about playing the man, not the ball.
🧭 Media Must Correct the Record
To be clear: the Lavulavus were not charged with “fraud” in the generic or sensational sense. They are charged under a single legal provision — Section 164 of the Criminal Offences Act, which requires intentional deception for personal gain.
Yet media have repeatedly used the term “fraud” without legal basis, misleading the public and damaging reputations. No charge sheet accuses them of theft. No evidence has proven personal enrichment. And no ruling has found malicious intent beyond reasonable doubt.
That matters — especially when the court of public opinion can be as harsh as the court of law.
🔍 What’s Really on Trial?
Ultimately, this case is not just about TVET grants or audit reports. It’s about how power is used — and against whom.
It’s about whether a person in public life — especially one who dares to speak independently or challenge established political orders — can expect a fair trial, equal treatment, and balanced scrutiny.
Because if public officials can be prosecuted based on policy disputes, audit inconsistencies, or hearsay, while others are left untouched, then we no longer have a justice system. We have a political tool.
And that should worry every Tongan — not just the Lavulavus.
📣 Let justice be blind, but not selectively so. If this case is truly about public interest, then let all institutions be audited, all discrepancies reviewed, and all persons treated equally under the law.
Until then, we must ask the hard question: Is this justice — or just politics?
By Melino Maka
