The Prime Minister has the power and the duty to sack his Police Minister. Hesitation only undermines public trust.
The fundamental contract between a government and its people is built on one unwavering principle: that no one, no matter how powerful, is above the law. This principle is not a mere slogan; it is the bedrock of public trust and the very legitimacy of a democratic government. The recent actions of the Honourable Piveni Piukala, Minister of Police and Public Enterprises, have shattered this contract. In allegedly facilitating his friend, Pita Hopoate, to flee the country in direct contravention of a court order, Minister Piukala has demonstrated a breathtaking disregard for the judiciary and the rules he is sworn to uphold.
The Prime Minister now faces a critical test of his leadership. Some may argue he must seek extensive legal advice from the Attorney General before acting. This is a delay tactic, a retreat into procedural obscurity when moral and political clarity is what the moment demands. The Prime Minister does not need a lawyer’s permission to understand a fundamental breach of ministerial responsibility. He has the authority, and more importantly, the duty, to act now.
The Prime Minister has publicly stated that he has sought advice from the Attorney General prior to making any decisions regarding Minister Piukala. While it is proper for the Prime Minister to ensure that his actions are legally sound, the seriousness of the allegations demands more than procedural caution. In matters that strike at the heart of public trust and the rule of law, leadership requires both prudence and immediacy. The Prime Minister can respect due process while also demonstrating accountability by suspending the Minister pending the Attorney General’s advice. Such an interim step would uphold the integrity of his government, reassure the public that no one is above the law, and reinforce confidence in the independence of the police and judiciary.
The Power is Already in His Hands
The Cabinet Manual and the conventions that govern our system are clear: Ministers serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. They are expected to adhere to the highest standards of probity and judgment. Minister Piukala’s actions are not a minor misstep or a simple error in judgment. They strike at the heart of two of his core portfolios:
As Minister of Police: He leads the institution responsible for enforcing the law. By allegedly assisting someone to evade the authority of the courts, he has actively subverted the very system he commands. How can the public and the police force have any confidence in a minister who places personal loyalty above his constitutional duty?
As Minister of Public Enterprises: He is the steward of public assets and trust. His actions demonstrate a profound lack of the integrity and accountability required to manage the people’s business.
This is not a matter for a protracted inquiry. The facts, as they are publicly understood, present an open-and-shut case of a minister violating his oath of office. The Prime Minister can, and should, invoke the cabinet ruling that holds ministers accountable for their conduct. To hide behind a need for further legal advice is to misunderstand the nature of the transgression. This is not a legal nuance; it is a catastrophic failure of ethical leadership.
