The petitioner failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt that MP Piveni Piukala allegedly committed five instances of bribery contrary to section 21 (1) (a) of the Bribery Act.
These were the alleged giving of cash prizes for poetry competitions at Mr. Piukala’s campaign events, the giving of cash prizes at an event at the Golf Club and, lastly, the giving of groceries to Mamata Kohinoa.
Piukala stood against an unsuccessful candidate, Feleti Fā’otusia during the November by-election. A supporter of Fā’otusia, Feleti Ulakai then brought an election petition before Judge Cooper, claiming that Piukala violated the electoral regulations by allegedly giving out $100 to a few voters of Tongatapu 7.
He accepted he had not enquired from whom that money had come. He had seen money given and so believed there had been acts of bribery.
“He had not checked and asked whether a prize winner felt bribed or induced by prize money, but he believed that was the effect of what had taken place because Mr. Puikala was present while those distributions were made.
“Because the Master of Ceremonies had mentioned sponsors would donate prizes and Mr Piukala was there with his supporters he equated the giving of the gifts with the Respondent.
“Of the event at the Golf Club, he had watched the broadcast and those people in the image were not golfers yet had won a prize. He did not know how much but the envelope handed over had a dollar sign on it, so he assumed that was a bribe.
He had not heard Piukala asking the winners to remember him at election day, but the giving of these prizes was made within the months of the by-election”.
Piukala gave away prizes and gave out free beer.
“As far as he was concerned this did not happen regularly, as was suggested, if it had he would have expected to see more live-stream broadcasts of him giving away prizes, which he hadn’t”.
In his defense, Mr. Piukala made a single submission to cover each of these events. These points included what he submitted to be three essential arguments:
a) None of the poetry competitions had been demonstrated to be organised by him.
b) The prizes had not been proved to have been given by him or on his behalf.
c) It was not with the aim to induce people to vote for him.
d) What other people post on their social media pages is out of his control.
In his summing up Judge Cooper said that regarding the golf club event that “allegation also has failed to be proved”.
In his comment on the poetry competitions Mr Cooper said: “There is no evidence how this event was organised, for example whether there was a program of activities or not.
“Without a more careful and detailed presentation of available evidence that shows, for example, positive links between the sponsors of the prize money and Mr. Piukala as well as a plan between them for this to have taken place, the only evidence being his attendance at the event where it happened.
He also said: “None of the allegations as set out in the Petition, on the evidence called, was proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so to the required standard. So the case for the Petitioner has not been proved.
The petitioner is to pay the costs of, and incidental to, the proceedings, to be taxed in default of an agreement”.
