Tonga’s Prisons boss Sēmisi Tapueluelu is facing accusations of lying over his denial of prisoner and fraudster ‘Etuate Lavulavu’s attending a meeting to seek financial assistance for his legal expenses.
On August 8, a statement which appeared to have been released from Mr Tapueluelu’s office said that it “wishes to correct the media misinformation suggesting that Prisoner ‘Etuate Lavulavu’s Leave of Absence (LOA) was approved to attend a meeting with Ports of Authority Tonga (PAT) on behalf of Inter-Pacific Ltd (IPL)”.
“We would like to clarify that prisoner ‘Etuate Lavulavu’s LOA was not approved to attend a meeting on behalf of IPL with PAT”, the statement read.
However, a court document seen by Kaniva News this week proved otherwise.
In his response to the Lord Chief Justice on June 22 after Justice Whitten raised his concern after a complaint from a senior lawyer over Lavulavu’s LOA in question, Mr Tapueluelu confirmed that Mr Lavulavu was indeed granted a leave of absence (LOA) to attend the meeting at the Ports Authority Tonga office.
“In particular to your concerns Mr Lavulavu as per his LOA conditions requested permission to attend a meeting at Ports Authority Tonga for financial assistance which was granted”, Mr Tapueluelu told the Lord Chief Justice.
“This is in reference to his meeting with Inter Pacific Limited which owes a debt to Mr Lavulavu”, he also said.
“Based on your email we issued a revocation order of his LOA and he was escorted back to Tolitoli Prison on the same day. He was given an opportunity to provide an explanation and we conducted a brief investigation of the case”.
Our report yesterday on Lavulavu’s LOA and the email exchanges between the Lord Chief Justice and Mr Tapueluelu had attracted criticisms from local media denouncing what appeared to be Mr Tapueluelu’s false denial of the media reports at the time.
Lord Chief Justice concerns
As Kaniva News reported yesterday, the email exchanges between Mr Tapueluelu and the Lord Chief Justice appeared to show Mr Whitten was seriously concerned after he received the complaint against Mr Lavulavu’s leave.
Mr Whitten emailed Tapueluelu and said: “I bring this to your attention, in case you were not aware, as Mr Lavulavu is currently supposed to be serving a prison sentence.
“Could you kindly explain the basis upon which Mr Lavulavu was granted a leave of absence for this purpose?” Mr Whitten asked Mr Tapueluelu.
“My reading of the Prisons Act, and the purposes specified for a leave of absence, such as medical examination, assessment or treatment; to attend an educational or training course; to participate in paid employment or community service; or compassionate purposes, makes it difficult to see how a business meeting might fall within the last of those prescribed, namely, ‘any other purpose as the Commissioner thinks fit.”
The Lord Chief Justice also wanted to know about prisoners medical leave grounds and entitlements. He asked the Commissioner to explain the prison food after Lavulavu’s health practitioner Dr Sione Lātu’s repeated recommendation of a ‘home care’ for him. Mr Whitten also asked Mr Tapueluelu whether this needs a leave of absence be granted for the entirety of Mr Lavulavu’s sentence.
“On the basis of Mr Lavulavu ‘s visit to the Ports Authority being for the indirect purpose of procuring funds for his legal expenses on his appeal (in which he is now representing himself), can any prisoner be granted a leave of absence for the purpose of working to earn money for his/her legal expenses?” asked Mr Whitten.
Mr Tapueluelu did not respond to these concerns by the Chief Justice.
Regarding Lavulavu’s LOA, Tapueluelu said: “I talked to the Ports authority Chief Executive Officer Mr ‘Alomailesini about Mr Lavulavu ‘s involvement in this official meeting. He asserted that it was not a board meeting nor an official meeting. It was a ten-minute follow-up on any debt owed by PAT to IPL. Mr Lavulavu ‘s presence was simply to inquire of the debt owed by IPL to him to pay for his appeal.
“Mr Lavulavu did not breach his LOA conditions.”
The judge said it was not clear why Lavulavu had to visit the Ports Authority simply because he claimed that Inter Pacific owed him money.
“One would have expected such matters to be dealt with by further correspondence or telephone and by Inter Pacific ‘s own lawyer,” Lord Chief Justice Whitten said.
“It is not clear why a “Revocation Order” of Mr Lavulavu’s leave of absence was issued upon receipt of my enquiry if the reason for him being at the Ports Authority was known to the Prison in advance and had been approved.”
‘Etuate and his wife Akosita Lavulavu, who was then a Cabinet Minister, were convicted of three counts of obtaining a total of TP$558,600 by false pretences.
They were sentenced last year to six years imprisonment with the final year of Mrs Lavulavu’s sentence being suspended for two years on conditions. They appealed against their sentences which was expected to be heard next month.
Mr Whitten’s concerns come after critics were seriously concerned about the timing of the temporarily release of the Lavulavus in August last year, just about a month after Mr Whitten denied their bail bid on July 9, 2021 while awaiting their upcoming appeal application.
It was reported at the time that the release was made under the Prisons Commissioner’s legal discretion.
