Why the Lavulavu Case Is a Crucial Test of Transparency and Due Process in Tonga
Editorial – Tonga Independent News
19 May 2025
The criminal case against Mr and Mrs Lavulavu — former operators of the Unuaki’o-Tonga Royal Institute (UTRI) — is more than a matter of alleged fraud. It is a test of the strength of Tonga’s legal institutions, and of whether the principles of due process and fairness can prevail, even in high-profile and politically sensitive circumstances.
At the core of the charges is an accusation that the Lavulavus overstated student enrolment numbers to unlawfully secure hundreds of thousands of pa‘anga in government education grants. An audit by the Auditor-General’s Office claimed that 942 “ghost students” were listed, resulting in a $553,800 overpayment. The allegations are serious — and if true, they represent a clear abuse of public funds.
But as the Court of Appeal has now ruled, allegations alone do not amount to proof, and the Crown must adhere to strict rules of evidence when prosecuting any citizen — regardless of their status. In this case, the court found that many parts of the Audit Report relied on hearsay: second-hand statements from villagers, family members, and others who were not available to testify. That kind of evidence, the court said, cannot be used to convict anyone unless those individuals appear in court and can be cross-examined.
This ruling is not a technicality — it is a powerful affirmation of the rule of law.
Too often, especially in small island societies, the temptation to rush to judgment is strong. Public opinion demands justice, and quickly. But legal systems must move carefully and deliberately. The Lavulavus — like all accused persons — are entitled to a fair trial. That includes the right to challenge their accusers face to face, a right protected by Tonga’s Constitution and reinforced in this judgment.
At the same time, the case raises uncomfortable questions for our oversight institutions. The Audit Office plays an essential role in protecting the public purse. But it must operate with procedural discipline. Conducting interviews in villages without proper records, relying on statements from unidentified persons, and failing to notify the institution under investigation — these are practices that undermine the integrity of the audit process, and ultimately weaken the Crown’s ability to hold wrongdoers accountable.
The decision by the Court of Appeal to allow only directly proven evidence, while excluding hearsay, strikes the right balance. It reinforces the idea that justice in Tonga must be fair, not convenient. No matter how compelling the narrative or how widespread the suspicion, prosecutions must stand on the firm foundation of admissible, reliable evidence.
The Lavulavus will face a second trial. This time, the Crown must rely on first-hand testimony from audit officers, UTRI staff, and original records. That is how it should be. A conviction — if one is to come — must be earned through due process, not speculation.
Tonga’s democracy is still evolving. This case has shown that our courts are willing to stand firm in defence of constitutional principles. That should give every citizen, no matter their politics or position, renewed faith in the independence of our judiciary.
Justice must be seen to be done. And in Tonga, that means doing it the right way.
