Auditor General Sefita Tangi vs Lavulavus
In a democratic society, public institutions are only as strong as the public’s trust in their fairness, transparency, and integrity. The case of the 2016 audit report on the Unuaki o Tonga Royal Institute (UTRI), conducted by the Office of the Auditor General (OAG), raises fundamental questions about the credibility of that office, its adherence to due process, and whether it remains fit for purpose in upholding accountability in the Kingdom of Tonga.
Etuate Lavulavu, the Director of UTRI, wrote a formal letter of complaint to Auditor General Sefita Tangi after the release of the audit report. In that letter, Lavulavu raised a series of detailed, serious concerns about procedural misconduct, misapplication of the law, lack of proper communication, and potential political interference. To this day, the Auditor General has failed to respond.
Breaking the Silence
For decades in Tonga, the Office of the Auditor General has been treated with unquestioned respect. Its reports were taken as gospel, rarely challenged, and never investigated. The Auditor General’s findings were seen as final, regardless of whether they were complete, fair, or accurate. This tradition has created a dangerous culture of immunity and unaccountability, where institutional silence is mistaken for strength.
Lavulavu’s letter broke that tradition. In his bold and pointed correspondence, he alleged that the audit process was flawed from the outset. The most troubling claim? That the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) — the government body that had the legal agreement with UTRI for the disbursement of TVET funds — was completely unaware of the audit. No complaints were made by MOET. No official request for audit review was lodged. And yet, the Auditor General proceeded to conduct a full investigation, based largely on a Cabinet Decision (CD No. 637) that was never shared with UTRI and was never meant to serve as a basis for auditing the Institute.
How is it possible that an audit was initiated without informing or involving the agency responsible for the very funds under investigation? If MOET was not the complainant, who was? Where is the documentation trail? These are questions the Auditor General has failed to answer. And the silence is not just unprofessional—it is deeply damaging to public confidence.
Procedural Breakdown
Lavulavu outlined a number of key failings:
- No prior notice was given to UTRI before records were seized.
- No Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed to govern the scope and conduct of the audit.
- Records were removed without written permission and reportedly not returned.
- Students were interviewed, and their testimonies allegedly used out of context, without verification.
- The audit report did not reference the formal agreement between MOET and UTRI, which should have been the guiding framework.
Worse still, the Public Audit Act of Tonga requires the Auditor General to provide notice to an audited entity if information is missing or unclear. UTRI claims this never happened. Instead, a damning report was released without any opportunity for the institution to review or respond to the findings.
This is not just a breakdown of professional standards. It is a fundamental breach of procedural justice and a violation of natural law principles.
Misapplied Law and Political Overtones
There is growing concern that the Auditor General may have used the wrong legal framework to justify the audit. If the investigation was based on a Cabinet Decision that neither implicated UTRI directly nor was ever formally communicated to them, then the legal standing of the audit itself is questionable.
Lavulavu argues that any legitimate audit should have been conducted based on the MoU between UTRI and MOET, which detailed the roles, expectations, and financial management of the TVET grants. Bypassing this legal agreement and inventing an alternative foundation for the audit is, at best, sloppy; at worst, it is unlawful.
Given Lavulavu’s political history and visibility, it is not hard to see why he believes the audit was politically motivated. He alleges that the audit was orchestrated by individuals still active in politics today, aimed at discrediting him and the institution he leads.
This is an explosive accusation, but it cannot simply be brushed aside. Transparency requires that such claims be investigated openly, not ignored.
The High Cost of Silence
So why hasn’t the Auditor General responded?
Some insiders say it’s because the office believes its work speaks for itself. Others say it’s a strategy to avoid fueling further controversy. But neither reason is acceptable.
Silence in the face of credible allegations is not professionalism; it’s cowardice. It erodes public trust and raises even more questions about the integrity of the audit. And by failing to respond, the Auditor General has allowed the perception of bias and incompetence to harden into public belief.
The Auditor General’s unwillingness to front up and address the criticisms is deeply problematic. This is a public office that wields immense authority, yet appears unable to defend its actions when challenged. If the OAG is confident in its methods and conclusions, why not explain and clarify? The refusal to engage fuels suspicion and undermines the moral authority of the institution.
This case is not only about UTRI. It is about how we hold public institutions accountable in Tonga. It is about whether we are mature enough to confront uncomfortable truths and demand better from those in power.
Government Must Step In
Successive Tongan governments have been reluctant to intervene in such disputes, fearing accusations of political interference. But there is a difference between interference and responsible oversight.
It is the duty of the government to ensure that public watchdogs like the Auditor General operate within legal and ethical bounds. When there is evidence of serious misconduct or process failure, government must not stay silent. The same applies to the judiciary.
The fear of interfering with supposedly independent institutions has become a barrier to reform. But oversight is not interference—it is stewardship. Just as the government would act if a school, hospital, or ministry failed its duties, it must do the same when the Auditor General’s office falters.
We saw this same institutional paralysis during the Ashika tragedy, where layers of government failed to act until it was too late. That cannot happen again. The culture of “wait and see” must be replaced with a culture of accountability and timely intervention.
Judiciary and Legal Advisors Must Step Up
This matter also calls into question the role of the judiciary and legal representatives within the public service. If lawyers involved in the process had acted earlier to question the legality and process of the audit, the matter might have been resolved much sooner—saving time, money, and public embarrassment.
The judiciary must avoid the temptation to delay proceedings under the pretense of protecting institutional face. Justice delayed is justice denied—and if the courts allow flawed processes to proceed unchallenged, they become complicit in the erosion of public trust.
A Call for Institutional Courage
It is time for Tonga to grow up and face this situation with maturity and resolve. We need:
- An independent investigation into how the audit was initiated, conducted, and finalized.
- Clarification from the Auditor General on the legal basis of the report.
- Parliamentary oversight through the Public Accounts Committee.
- Public assurance that such procedural failings will not happen again.
- Legal reforms to require pre-audit consultations, signed MoUs, and clear complaint pathways before audits proceed.
This is not about politics. This is about protecting the integrity of our institutions and restoring public faith in governance. It is about ensuring that no institution is above scrutiny—not even the Auditor General.
Conclusion: Only the Truth Can Heal
By failing to respond, by hiding behind silence, and by allowing legal processes to drag on in the hope of “saving face,” we are not serving justice. We are hurting Tonga.
The Lavulavu-UTRI case has exposed uncomfortable truths about how our systems work — or don’t work. But that exposure is not the problem. The real danger lies in what we do next. Do we retreat into fear and silence, or do we confront this moment with courage?
The answer will define the future of transparency and governance in our Kingdom.
For Tonga, it is time to step forward, not shrink back. Because only truth can heal. And only justice can build a stronger nation.
By Melino Maka
