12-11-2007, 12:43 PM
Lopeti Sunituli, political advisor to the Prime Minister of Tonga, was left breathless and unable to speak when banned New Zealand barrister Christopher Harder accused him of lying in the witness box.
The critical evidence concerning the sedition allegation came from Lopeti Senituli himself. He alleged that pro democracy MP Akilisi Pohiva shouted out in the cabinet room;
“The people want an immediate answer to their demands and if the Prime Minister does not accede to their demands they will smash Nuku’alofa.”
Under cross-examination Mr Harder put it to the witness that Pohiva said something else. Three times Mr Harder put it to him that Pohiva had said “The people want an immediate answer to their demand for the assembly to be convened immediately and if the PM did not accede to their demand, the destruction could well continue” not that they will smash or burn Nuku’alofa. 3 times Senituli denied that Pohiva had said something different. At one point in the questioning, the Australian prosecutor Peter Little, stood up and asked if Mr Harder did not hear that the witness had said no 3 times.
Then in a scene fit for Boston Legal or Perry Mason Christopher Harder confronted the witness with a paper titled ‘attempted coup’ which the witness had himself written prior to his police interview. In this document Senituli had written and attributed the very words to Pohiva he had moments earlier denied to Mr Harder. Faced with his own article Sunituli had to admit that what Harder had alleged Pohiva had said was correct.
Harder went on to establish that when Pohiva claimed in the cabinet room that the ‘rule of law was a fraud’ he was doing no more than making a justifiable comment in criticizing the Government, not a seditious comment, because the Cabinet Security Committee had itself wrongly and unlawfully adjourned Parliament contrary to its own laws that day.
Harder told the Magistrate in submitting there was no prima face case made out that “Had I not had possession of Lopeti Senituli’s report entitled ‘Attempted Coup’ for my cross-examination, I shudder to think what those who engineered this plot to politically assassinate Mr Pohiva and his quest for democracy, would have done next. This Court must be fully alert to the dangers such Machiavellian works pose to the people’s hopes for a democratic Tonga.
Had Senituli’s evidence been accepted unchallenged, then the consequences for the Kingdom and the wishes of its people were grave in the extreme. Harder said that the falsely alleged threat alone stood to make out a prima face case against (and subsequently convict) the five Peoples Representatives of charges serious enough to prohibit them from standing for election. By virtue of Senituli’s perjured evidence the people of Tonga would have been deprived of the services of their elected representatives and the leading proponent of democratic reform in Tonga. Responsibility for Senituli’s false evidence lies directly at the feet of the Prime Minister on whose behalf Senituli gave evidence" claimed Harder.
In submitting that the Prime Minister was personally involved, Harder told the Magistrate he only to recall the evidence of the Minister of Police, who confirmed that he was not informed of the pro monarchy protest letter sent to the Prime Minister seeking permission to set up an opposition protest to disrupt the pro-democracy group. Harder said if there was a plot then it is obvious that the Minister of Police was left out of the loop because of his already publicly stated concerns. Previously the Minister of Police against a pro monarchy group being allowed to protest at the same time and place because he was afraid this may lead to violence or it may cause a division among the people which may affect the people of the land.”
Harder also pointed out to the judge that the Minister of Police, in his evidence said if the (Prime Minister’s) letter, agreeing to 21 Peoples representatives and 9 for the Nobles, was subject to Privy Council and Parliament then it was not done in a wrong way. The Minister also stated that he was now of the view, with the benefit of hindsight, that if the Police had moved the people to the other side of Pangai’ Si’i and had the army surround the Parliament before it reconvened, (as was suggested by Pohiva to the Parliamentary Security Committee) the riot would not have happened.
View full story: http://www.lawyermeup.com/wawcs0127697/i...ut%20Lying
The critical evidence concerning the sedition allegation came from Lopeti Senituli himself. He alleged that pro democracy MP Akilisi Pohiva shouted out in the cabinet room;
“The people want an immediate answer to their demands and if the Prime Minister does not accede to their demands they will smash Nuku’alofa.”
Under cross-examination Mr Harder put it to the witness that Pohiva said something else. Three times Mr Harder put it to him that Pohiva had said “The people want an immediate answer to their demand for the assembly to be convened immediately and if the PM did not accede to their demand, the destruction could well continue” not that they will smash or burn Nuku’alofa. 3 times Senituli denied that Pohiva had said something different. At one point in the questioning, the Australian prosecutor Peter Little, stood up and asked if Mr Harder did not hear that the witness had said no 3 times.
Then in a scene fit for Boston Legal or Perry Mason Christopher Harder confronted the witness with a paper titled ‘attempted coup’ which the witness had himself written prior to his police interview. In this document Senituli had written and attributed the very words to Pohiva he had moments earlier denied to Mr Harder. Faced with his own article Sunituli had to admit that what Harder had alleged Pohiva had said was correct.
Harder went on to establish that when Pohiva claimed in the cabinet room that the ‘rule of law was a fraud’ he was doing no more than making a justifiable comment in criticizing the Government, not a seditious comment, because the Cabinet Security Committee had itself wrongly and unlawfully adjourned Parliament contrary to its own laws that day.
Harder told the Magistrate in submitting there was no prima face case made out that “Had I not had possession of Lopeti Senituli’s report entitled ‘Attempted Coup’ for my cross-examination, I shudder to think what those who engineered this plot to politically assassinate Mr Pohiva and his quest for democracy, would have done next. This Court must be fully alert to the dangers such Machiavellian works pose to the people’s hopes for a democratic Tonga.
Had Senituli’s evidence been accepted unchallenged, then the consequences for the Kingdom and the wishes of its people were grave in the extreme. Harder said that the falsely alleged threat alone stood to make out a prima face case against (and subsequently convict) the five Peoples Representatives of charges serious enough to prohibit them from standing for election. By virtue of Senituli’s perjured evidence the people of Tonga would have been deprived of the services of their elected representatives and the leading proponent of democratic reform in Tonga. Responsibility for Senituli’s false evidence lies directly at the feet of the Prime Minister on whose behalf Senituli gave evidence" claimed Harder.
In submitting that the Prime Minister was personally involved, Harder told the Magistrate he only to recall the evidence of the Minister of Police, who confirmed that he was not informed of the pro monarchy protest letter sent to the Prime Minister seeking permission to set up an opposition protest to disrupt the pro-democracy group. Harder said if there was a plot then it is obvious that the Minister of Police was left out of the loop because of his already publicly stated concerns. Previously the Minister of Police against a pro monarchy group being allowed to protest at the same time and place because he was afraid this may lead to violence or it may cause a division among the people which may affect the people of the land.”
Harder also pointed out to the judge that the Minister of Police, in his evidence said if the (Prime Minister’s) letter, agreeing to 21 Peoples representatives and 9 for the Nobles, was subject to Privy Council and Parliament then it was not done in a wrong way. The Minister also stated that he was now of the view, with the benefit of hindsight, that if the Police had moved the people to the other side of Pangai’ Si’i and had the army surround the Parliament before it reconvened, (as was suggested by Pohiva to the Parliamentary Security Committee) the riot would not have happened.
View full story: http://www.lawyermeup.com/wawcs0127697/i...ut%20Lying