1. Closure of UTRI and Incarceration of the Lavulavus
The government’s reliance on the Auditor’s Report to:
- Permanently shut down the Unuaki-o-Tonga Royal Institute (UTRI),
- Prosecute and imprison its founders, ‘Etuate and ‘Akosita Lavulavu, and
- Dismantle their reputations across public, political, and educational spheres,
represents a grave overreach of executive power. The actions taken against the Lavulavus went far beyond enforcing grant policy compliance — they signalled a systemic attempt to destroy their lives, silence their contributions, and erase an institution that had opened doors for Tonga’s most disadvantaged youth.
At the heart of this is a fundamental question:
Was this about protecting public funds — or was it about punishing people?
This opinion piece invites readers, lawmakers, and advocates of justice to reconsider the narrative that has been built around UTRI’s operations and the Lavulavus’ leadership. UTRI was not merely a private institution; it was, for many, the only accessible educational lifeline.
2. Violation of Natural Justice and Right to a Fair Process
The process leading to UTRI’s closure and the Lavulavus’ incarceration raises serious legal and ethical concerns. If the Auditor’s Report:
- Did not allow adequate time or process for UTRI to respond with documentation,
- Dismissed legally permissible in-kind tuition arrangements under Sections 18 and 19 of the Education Act, and
- Made sweeping conclusions without proper investigation, verification, or community consultation,
then the report should never have been used as a basis for criminal prosecution or institutional collapse.
Such actions are in direct conflict with:
- Section 10 of the Tongan Constitution, which guarantees protection against arbitrary punishment,
- Principles of due process and procedural fairness, and
- The public’s right to balanced and unbiased governance.
Instead of correcting potential administrative flaws through collaboration or mediation, the government acted with haste and severity, demonstrating a lack of proportionality. Justice must be both firm and fair — in this case, it has been firm, but unjustly so.
Justice is not served by skipping steps. It is served by hearing both sides, acknowledging cultural and legal realities, and ensuring proportionate consequences.
3. The Education Act and Legal Flexibility for Private Institutions
Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the Education Act clearly grant registered private institutions the legal autonomy to set their own fee structures. This includes allowing for non-monetary forms of payment such as in-kind contributions or community service arrangements. UTRI, as a registered institution, legally accepted these alternatives — often as a lifeline for students from low-income or rural families who otherwise could not afford formal tuition.
The audit report, however, failed to acknowledge or assess these culturally and legally valid practices. By equating the absence of cash receipts with fraud, the report overlooked the genuine educational value delivered and the long-standing Tongan tradition of mutual support and flexible resource sharing.
Furthermore, the Auditor General appeared to audit UTRI as if it were a government institution. This mischaracterization ignores the core function of UTRI as a private provider operating under laws designed to accommodate the economic realities of its student base. The majority of UTRI students came from low-income families, and the institution’s fee structure reflected that. Fees could be paid not only in cash, but also through in-kind contributions or labour. In some cases, students helped with cleaning, gardening, or administrative duties, and these hours were deducted from their tuition balance.
This approach is not unique to Tonga. For example, Brigham Young University (BYU) in Hawaii has adopted similar systems, allowing students who are unable to afford tuition to work on campus in exchange for their education and accommodations. Such flexible payment models are recognized internationally as legitimate, especially when aimed at increasing access to education for the financially disadvantaged.
4. Professional Misconduct and Bias in the Audit Process
There is credible concern that the Auditor’s support team conducted their investigation in a manner that lacked cultural competence, objectivity, and adherence to professional standards. Witness testimonies, student records, and in-kind payment ledgers were either dismissed or ignored. Moreover, anecdotal accounts from students and community members were reportedly not considered.
This raises a critical issue: if the audit team had preconceptions or was under external pressure, their findings could have been shaped not by evidence, but by bias. When professional duty is compromised in this way, it undermines the credibility of the entire accountability framework.
5. Reputational Damage and the Need for Restorative Justice
Beyond the legal consequences, the impact of the government’s actions has been devastating for the Lavulavus personally and professionally. Their reputations have been destroyed in the public eye, and their contributions to education and community development have been dismissed without fair evaluation.
Meanwhile, the closure of UTRI has displaced hundreds of students — many of whom were benefiting from a second chance at education. Their future was abruptly and unjustly interrupted.
6. Broader Governance and Equity Concerns
This case has revealed a much deeper flaw in Tonga’s current approach to regulating private educational institutions. While accountability is essential, it must not come at the expense of fairness, proportionality, or cultural understanding. If this precedent remains unchallenged, other private institutions — especially those serving the poor — may become hesitant to innovate, adapt, or even operate for fear of arbitrary state retaliation.
There must be a distinction between financial mismanagement that results from intentional wrongdoing, and challenges faced by institutions trying to serve underserved communities with limited resources. The absence of that nuance has had damaging consequences in this case.
We respectfully call for:
- An independent investigation into the audit process and the motivations behind the actions taken against UTRI and its leadership,
- A reconsideration of the criminal convictions if due process was not followed,
- A review of legal provisions governing educational audits to ensure cultural and legal alignment with the Education Act,
- And a pathway toward restorative justice for those affected — including the many students who lost access to education as a result.
