Government records say land at the northern end of the bridge went back to the estate holder. The family says the paperwork was never signed. The survey figures match the Government’s numbers almost exactly.

By Tuífua Vailena, Co-Editor · Oct 25, 2026

NUKUʻALOFA, TONGA: For almost 20 years, Mesia Fauolo says her family tried to get one signature.

In 2006 her late husband applied to give up part of the family’s land so it could pass to their second son. Cabinet approved it. But she says the estate holder, Lord Fakafanua, never signed the papers.

Today that land sits at ʻUmusī, the northern end of the Fangaʻuta Lagoon Bridge. Lord Fakafanua is now Prime Minister.

Documents filed with the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which is funding the project, show the Government says the land was surrendered in 2007 and went back to the estate holder. The family disputes this.

Following TIN’s first investigation into the bridge’s land and design problems, this report looks at one piece of land at the centre of the dispute.

The Government’s own figures, and two land surveys seen by Tonga Independent News (TIN), raise three questions. Who owns the land? Why did the bridge route change in 2026? And did the Prime Minister play any part in decisions touching land linked to his estate?

A signature that never came

According to an account by Mr Lavulavu of 88.1FM who spoke with the widow, she told him that the then Minister of Lands, Lord Tuita, accepted the Fauolo family’s application, lodged on 7 September 2006, to surrender part of their land. Cabinet approved it on 10 January 2007 under Decision No. 49.

The family says the surrender had one purpose: to give that piece of land to the couple’s second eldest son, Roy Salakielu Fauolo.

In Tonga, the eldest son is automatically the heir to all land held by his father. It passes down the line in order. A father who wants a younger son to have land of his own can surrender part of his allotment so it can be granted to that son, with the heir’s approval. The estate holder has to sign off for this to happen.

The eldest son and heir, Major Tuʻifaletahi Fauolo, signed his approval. The family says the only signature missing was the estate holder’s.

The family says the land was never meant to go back to the estate holder. It was meant for Roy.

Mrs Fauolo told Mr Lavulavu of 88.6FM  the estate holder never signed the surrender documents. She said the family asked many times over the years, without success.

The family says the missing signature meant the arrangement was never completed.

TIN has not yet seen the Cabinet decision itself.

The family’s complaint

On 14 June 2026, Major Tuʻifaletahi Fauolo the eldest and hier to the property lodged a complaint with the bridge project. He said part of his family’s land had been taken unlawfully. He also raised compensation and asked to deal directly with the Government, not through middlemen.

The complaint is recorded in the project’s Environmental and Social Monitoring Report, filed with the ADB.

The Ministry of Infrastructure’s Project Management Unit (PMU) looked into it with the Ministry of Lands. It replied in writing on 8 July 2026.

The Government’s position, as recorded in the report:

• 1 acre, 1 rood and 31 perches (about 1.44 acres) was surrendered by the Major’s late father in 2007 and went back to the estate holder.
• The family’s remaining land, 3 acres, 3 roods and 7.6 perches (about 3.80 acres), is not needed for the bridge.
• The surrender was lawful. Questions about who inherits the land are for the Ministry of Lands register.

The family was invited to send more evidence if it disagreed.

The report does not explain how the land could revert if, as the family says, the estate holder never signed.

The estate holder is Lord Fakafanua.

The numbers match

TIN examined two surveys of the parcel known as Lot 24 at the northern landing.

• The earlier survey shows Lot 24 at 121 hectares, or 5.24 acres.
• A survey dated May 2026 shows it at 537 hectares, or 3.80 acres.
• The difference is 584 hectares, or 1.44 acres.

Those figures line up with the Government’s own numbers.

The land the Government says went to the estate holder is 1.44 acres. The land it says the family still holds is 3.80 acres. Add them together and you get 5.24 acres. That is exactly the size of Lot 24 in the earlier survey.

In other words, the May 2026 survey appears to cut out the same 1.44 acres the Government says now belongs to the estate holder.

The surveys do not prove who legally owns that land. Only the land register can do that. They also do not show whether the new bridge route crosses it. That needs the engineering plans.

Land problems stopped work early

The ADB report shows land access was holding up the bridge well before the route changed.

An aerial photograph dated 30 November 2025 marks an area not yet handed to the contractor. A separate area on the same photo is labelled “1-Acre Section”.

The report says the contractor could not get into parts of the northern site because the land handover was not settled. Only temporary works could go ahead.

The photograph does not say whether this section is the same land as the Fauolo family’s complaint.

The route changes

As TIN reported in our first article, land problems stalled the project and the bridge route was changed in May and June 2026. A diagram in the ADB report says the route was reviewed “to avoid conflict with the land area” shown in the earlier aerial photo.

This is where the two accounts pull apart.

The Government’s diagram suggests the route moved to avoid the disputed area. The family says the opposite: that the route moved away from land first chosen for the project and onto land linked to the unsigned surrender.

The documents TIN has seen do not settle which is right.