NUKUʻALOFA, Tonga — Tonga’s constitutional framework raises a critical question for anti-corruption reform: can the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) independently prosecute cases, or does that authority remain with the Attorney General?
Clause 31A of the Constitution gives the Attorney General responsibility for criminal proceedings for the Crown, exercised at the Attorney General’s independent discretion.
The ACC’s first annual report identifies the absence of prosecutorial powers as a gap delaying effective enforcement. It states that granting the Commission full, independent prosecution powers would likely require an amendment to clause 31A(1)(b).
Under clause 79, constitutional amendments must follow a special process, including three passages through the Legislative Assembly and the required agreement of His Majesty and Cabinet.
A deadline is not prosecution power
Section 7(6) of the Anti-Corruption Commissioner Act requires the Commissioner to submit a report and supporting evidence when criminal proceedings should be considered. However, the report identifies no specific deadline for the Attorney General’s decision.
Whether an ordinary Act could impose such a deadline under the existing Constitution requires authoritative legal advice.
The distinction is crucial: a deadline could speed up decisions on referrals, but it would not automatically give the ACC independent prosecution powers.
Independent prosecution authority would require a clearly defined legal framework governing the Commission’s powers and its relationship with the Attorney General.
Ultimately, Tonga’s anti-corruption framework faces a fundamental test: whether allegations supported by evidence can move through a clear, timely and effective path to prosecution. Without clarity on who holds that power, how referrals are decided and what legal remedies exist when decisions are delayed, the gap between investigating alleged corruption and pursuing criminal accountability remains a critical concern.
The question is no longer simply whether Tonga has an Anti-Corruption Commission, but whether the law gives it a workable pathway to justice. The public deserves clear answers on what reforms are proposed, what constitutional changes are required, and how the system will ensure that credible corruption cases do not stall between investigation and prosecution
