Opinion: The Crown Can’t Win at Any Cost — The Lavulavu Case and the Fragility of Justice in Tonga
By Melino Maka
Tonga Independent News
Published: 19 May 2025
In what continues to be one of the most politically charged legal sagas in modern Tonga, the Court of Appeal has partially allowed the Crown’s appeal and dismissed the Lavulavus’ cross-appeal — paving the way for yet another retrial of former Cabinet Minister ‘Akosita Lavulavu and her husband, ‘Etuate Lavulavu. But behind the legal jargon and court protocols lies a troubling reality: can the Lavulavus ever receive a truly fair trial in a system that seems committed to convicting them at all costs?
This isn’t just about legal procedure. It’s about the integrity of Tonga’s justice system, the use of state power against political rivals, and the public’s right to equal treatment under the law.
The Court Spoke — But the Questions It Raises Are Louder
On 16 May 2025, Justices Randerson, Harrison, and Morrison delivered a meticulous judgment. The Court rightly upheld constitutional protections for the accused by rejecting inadmissible hearsay contained in the Auditor-General’s Report. These included out-of-court statements from students’ family members, village officers, and others who were never called to testify. The Court reaffirmed that Clause 11 of the Constitution demands the right of an accused to confront and cross-examine witnesses.
But here’s the problem: why did the Crown rely so heavily on evidence that clearly violated these principles in the first place?
The Crown’s strategy, cantered around invoking section 89(o)’s “interests of justice” exception to admit hearsay, signals more than a legal miscalculation. It reveals a troubling mindset: that the Lavulavus must be guilty — and the law will simply have to catch up.
A Political Hit Job in Legal Clothing?
From the outset, this case has smelled of selective prosecution. The charges allege that the Lavulavus fraudulently inflated student numbers at their private institution, ‘Unuaki ’o Tonga Royal Institute (UTRI), resulting in over T$553,000 in government overpayments. Serious allegations, yes — but far from unique.
Here lies the double standard:
The Lavulavus’ defense has long argued that other private schools — especially those run by influential churches — received even larger overpayments. Yet no charges were ever laid against those institutions. No audits by the Auditor-General. No raids. No media trials.
Only UTRI was singled out — and not just for overpayment, but for criminal fraud.
So why the selective enforcement? Is the real fear not the alleged fraud, but the political influence the Lavulavus were gaining?
Their critics won’t say it aloud. But those who follow Tonga’s political tides know exactly what’s at play.
Crown Law on Trial?
Ironically, it’s not the Lavulavus, but Crown Law that now appears to be on trial — at least in the court of public opinion.
They pressed ahead with a prosecution built around weak foundations, relying on untested third-party statements and procedural shortcuts. The Court’s decision exposed these tactics. And while it did admit parts of the report based on internal UTRI records and auditors’ direct observations, the bulk of the narrative the Crown depended on has been discredited.
Even more concerning is that no bad faith was found in the audit process, but it was also made clear that documents were voluntarily handed over, not unlawfully seized — undermining a central claim in the Lavulavus’ defense.
But what was left unsaid in the courtroom — and continues to echo outside it — is that the Audit Office came in without any referral from the Ministry of Education, despite MOE’s own audits having passed UTRI. This unannounced audit raised alarm bells, particularly when no similar audit or legal action was brought against church-run schools with larger irregularities.
Why the sudden intervention — and why only them?
A Trial Colliding with the Ballot Box
Adding fuel to the fire, ‘Etuate Lavulavu has declared his intention to run in the 2025 general election — sparking outrage from critics who question the ethics of a candidate facing criminal charges. But legally, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and as long as he is not convicted, he has every right to stand.
Yet this sets up an explosive convergence: a retrial of a political figure during an election season. Can we really believe the courtroom will be shielded from the political theater outside its doors? Can we expect jurors, witnesses, and even judges to ignore the very public narrative crafted by media outlets and political actors who’ve already written the Lavulavus off as guilty?
If Tonga’s legal system is to mean anything, then this retrial must not just be fair — it must be seen to be fair.
The Bigger Picture: Rule of Law or Rule by Precedent?
The Court of Appeal’s judgment, to its credit, attempts to restore the integrity of the judicial process. It limits the use of unreliable hearsay, confirms the boundaries of lawful evidence collection, and sets a precedent for more disciplined prosecutorial conduct in the future.
But even that may not be enough to undo the damage already done.
The Lavulavus have been publicly condemned before any final verdict.
Certain Tongan media outlets have reinforced a one-sided narrative.
And the public, influenced by years of incomplete information, has been primed to accept guilt as a given.
This isn’t just a miscarriage of justice waiting to happen — it’s a referendum on whether Tonga still believes in justice at all.
Final Thought: The Case Is Still on Trial — But So Is the System
The upcoming retrial will not only determine the fate of ‘Akosita and ‘Etuate Lavulavu — it will test the strength and impartiality of Tonga’s entire legal and political framework.
If we allow prosecution by assumption, trial by media, and conviction through procedural shortcuts, then we’ve traded our Constitution for convenience.
The Crown cannot afford to win this case at the cost of fairness, transparency, and the rule of law. Nor should the public let them.
Because in the end, if justice is not equal, it is not justice at all.
