On 10 October, Sangster Saulala, the People’s Representative for Tongatapu 7, introduced the Arms and Ammunitions (Amendment) Bill to the Committtee of the Whole House as a Private Member’s Bill. The Bill sought to amend The Arms and Ammunition Act 1968 (Cap 39) by reducing the term of imprisonment for specific offences under sections 4(2) and 4(3).
Under the 1968 Act, no person in the Kingdom is permitted to possess, use or carry any arm or ammunition except under a licence issued by the Minister of Police in respect of each arm and such ammunition so possessed, used or carried and in accordance with the prescribed conditions of such licence.
Under Section 4 (2), any person who possesses, uses or carries any arm or ammunition without such licence shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for either a term not exceeding 10 years (if the offence was committed in a prohibited area), or a term not exceeding 5 years (if the offence was committed in an area other than a prohibited area). The Bill sought to replace “a term not exceeding 5 years” with “a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to both such fine and imprisonment”
Under Section 4 (3), any person who is licenced to possess, use or carry any arm or ammunition, who then uses or carries such arms and ammunition in ways other than than in accordance with the conditions of such licence, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. The Bill sought to replace “a term not exceeding 2 years” with “a term not exceeding 1 year or to a fine not exceeding $2,000 or to both such fine and imprisonment.”
The PR for Tongatapu 7 informed the House he was presenting the Bill on behalf of voters in his constituency who own, “… small firearms and small guns which they use for the familiar chores of shooting pigs and shooting chickens . . .” (A Noble’s Representative speaking later in favour of the Bill made a glowing reference to the Second Amendment in the American Constitution which guaranteed the American citizen’s right to, “bear and use arms to gather food and to defend themselves against hungry bears and other wild animals . . .”) The Explanatory Note that accompanied the Bill stated, amongst other things, “The penalties are extremely high and there is only one form of penalty namely imprisonment. The purpose of the amendment is to rationalise, humanise and reduce the dragonian [sic] penalty of imprisonment only.”
But prior to the Tongatapu 7 PR’s opening remarks on 10 October, the Minister of Police, Hon Lisiate ‘Akolo, called on the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, Sifa Tu’utafaiva to defer debate on the Private Member’s Bill until the normal vetting process by his Ministry (as the Ministry responsible for the Act) and the Crown Law Office, are properly carried out. A dispute ensued on whether or not the Bill entered the Parliament system through the normal channel which entails having its prerequisite first reading in the House, before it could be submitted the Committee of the Whole House or to the Legislations Standing Committee for scrutiny. The Chair claimed, with the support of the Clerk of the House, that the Bill had not entered the House through the proper channel and had not had its first reading in the House.
He was contradicted by the Minister for Justice, Hon Clive Edwards, who counter claimed that the Bill was indeed submitted to the House, which in turn referred it to the Legislations Standing Committee which is chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, Hon Samiu Vaipulu. This dispute was only resolved on the morning of 11th October when the Speaker of the House, Lord Lasike, called for its first formal reading in the House. After its second reading the House agreed to submit it to the Committee of the Whole House for further deliberation.
In the ensuing deliberations it became obvious that the Bill, being a Private Member’s Bill, had apparently also not gone through the Democratic Party caucus process either. The President of the Party, ‘Akisili Pohiva, informed the House he was rather surprised when he found out that the Bill had been submitted by a member of his Party, and had the Party been able to discuss it in caucus it probably wouldn’t have made it to the floor of the House. He went on to move a motion that as the Bill dealt with matters relating to the safety of the public it should be submitted to a public consultation.
There was opposition to this motion from some of the Noble’s representatives and Ministers, but the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House informed them that under section 131 of the Parliamentary Rules and Procedures, the House is not permitted to debate a Bill for at least 2 weeks after its first reading in the House and this was designed to enable the members to review the Bill and for the members of the public to make submissions on the Bill. He said that the only exception to this rule was the National Estimates and Bills that are certified to be matters of national emergency.
A ballot was called, and the motion for a public consultation on the Bill was defeated by a vote of 9 in favour with 12 against. It was interesting to note that Lord Fakafanua, the First Nobles Representative from Ha’apai was the only repsentative from the Nobles and Cabinet to vote in favour of a public consultation, whilst the Minister for Health, Hon ‘Uliti Uata, and the Minister for Labour, Commerce and Industries, Hon ‘Isi Pulu, both of whom are members of the Democratic Party, voted against it. The Tongatapu 7 PR, who had submitted the Bill, and the Minister for Police, who had asked for time for his Ministry and the Crown Law Office to properly vet the Bill, did not cast ballots.
During the deliberations in the House on the 11th of October no statistics were presented to justify why there should be a reduction in the punishment, nor was there any court cases cited that indicated that the judiciary of the country felt that the existent Arms and Ammunition Act of 1968 was flawed or that the punishment meted out in the Act should be reduced.
The statistics that are available, but which were not raised in the deliberations, would have suggested that the Arms and Ammunition Act 1968 should be retained as is, if not reinforced in light of the proliferation of illegal firearms. In December 2010 the Tonga Police initiated a month-long Firearms Amnesty during which owners of unlicenced arms and ammunition were encouraged to surrender them to the Police. A total of 11 firearms and ammunition were surrendered, including a 12-gauge shotgun, a rifle fitted with a sniper-scope and several .22 rifles. Ten of the surrendered rifles were never licenced and police suspect they were smuggled into Tonga over the years in consignments of items for personal consumption, imported vehicles, and visiting yachts or through the postal system. No automatic weapons, which are prohibited under law, were handed in but Police suspect there are several in the country.
In 2010, according to former Police Commissioner, Chris Kelley, there were a total of 2000 licenced firearms in the whole of Tonga with 850 registered in Tongatapu. (In the debate in Parliament on the Bill, the total number of licenced firearms in Tonga according to the Minister for Justice, Clive Edwards, was 1400, but no one including the present Minister for Police saw fit to correct that figure!)
During the fist six months of 2010, the Police recorded a total of 20 firearms related offences, in comparison to 16 in 2009 and 43 in 2008. In the three week period between 16 August and 5 September 2011 there were four reported incidents of firearms related robbery including: the armed-raid on the Phoenix Supermarket on Fatafehi Road on 16 August; the attempted armed-holdup of the Western Union vehicle returning from Fu’amotu Airport on Taufa’ahau Road on the morning of 27 August; the unsuccessful attempt to smash and steal the safe from the office of the Church of Tonga in Kilikali on the morning of 5 September and: the successful armed-holdup of the Westpac Bank branch at Ma’ufanga, also on 5 September, which netted thousands of pa’anga.
The deliberations in the House spent an exorbitant amount of time on inane arguments on improbable legal scenarios such as whether a spent cartridge accidentally dropped by a licenced firearm owner in a place other than his home amounted to an offence under section 4(3) of the Act.
But the House can thank the Lord Tu’iha’ateiho, the Second Noble’s Representative from Ha’apai, for cutting to the chase and pointing out that under Clause 23 of the Constitution, “No person having been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for more than two years, shall hold any office under the Government whether of emolument or honour nor shall he be qualified to vote for nor to be elected a representative of the Legislative Assembly unless he has received from the King a pardon together with a declaration that he is freed from the disabilities to which he would otherwise be subject under the provisions of this clause.”
Therein lay the real reason for the Bill. Two of the Nobles Representatives are currently awaiting trial, one relating to the unlicenced possession of ammunition and the other to unlicenced possession of firearms and ammunition and their possible conviction could mean the loss of their seats in Parliament amongst other civil liberties.The Bill was put to the ballot and was adopted by a vote of 10 in favour and 8 against, with the two Ministers members of the Democratic Party as well as the PR for Tongatapu 7 voting in favour, whilst the Minister of Police abstained.
The Arms and Ammunition (Amendment) Bill is selfish and myopic, and the way it was sneaked in and processed were a blatant misuse and abuse of the democratic legislative process. Such Bills should be swiftly greeted by His Majesty the King’s power to veto Parliament. Kava kuo heka . . . !
“Kava kuo heka!…” is the call made by the Angaikava, the 2 assistants who sit on either side of the Tou’a (Kava-maker), signaling to the officiating herald (Matapule) that the cup-bearer is ready to serve the next cup of kava so could he please indicate who should drink next. The Matapule obliges by calling out the name of the next drinker in the Kava circle, beginning with “’Ave ia ma’a …” (Take that cup to so and so . . .).