The Falekaupule on each of the Islands of Tuvalu is the traditional assembly of elders or te sina o fenua (literally: "grey-hairs of the land" in the Tuvaluan language).
[4] The traditional island meeting hall where important matters are discussed and which is also used for wedding celebrations and community activities is also known as the falekaupule or maneapa.
As described in section 40 and Schedule 3 of the Falekaupule Act (1997) the general functions of a Falekaupule includes local government functions related to agriculture, livestock and fisheries; building and town or village planning; education; forestry and trees; land; relief of famine and drought; markets; public health; public order, peace and safety; communications and public utilities; trade and industry; and other miscellaneous functions.
When the Falekaupule attempted to enforce these directives through legal action, Ward CJ determined that the Constitution is structured around the concept of a parliamentary democracy;[11] and that “[o]ne of the most fundamental aspects of parliamentary democracy is that, whilst a person is elected to represent the people of the district from which he is elected, he is not bound to act in accordance with the directives of the electorate either individually or as a body.
Should he lose the confidence of the electorate, he cannot be obliged to resign and he can only be removed for one of the reasons set out in sections 96 to 99 of the Constitution.”[12] The Chief Justice also considered the question as to whether an MP's customary obligation to obey the commands of the island as expressed by the Falekaupule, overrides the MP's duties to Parliament.
The constitutional preservation of those traditional values is a vital part of present day Tuvalu but I cannot accept that a decision to implement them on one island is reasonable if it will seriously have an adverse effect on the whole country.
In the present case, I am satisfied that it was unreasonable for the Falekaupule to ignore the interests of the whole country over an affront to its dignity by one of the island community.”[13] The Chief Justice went on to state that “the carrying out of those threats by the orders banishing Metia and thus preventing him from properly performing the duties for which he was elected were clearly contrary to the spirit and intent of the Constitution and a totally unacceptable intrusion into the workings of the Tuvaluan Parliament.
Similarly, the order of falaesea, although a part of the customary practices of Nukufetau, was so extremely disproportionate to the actions of the Falekaupule in similar previous cases as to be unfair.”[14] Teonea v. Pule o Kaupule of Nanumaga is a case that raised issues in relation to the balancing the freedoms of religion, expression and association that are set out in the Constitution of Tuvalu against the values of Tuvaluan stability and culture that are also referred to in the Constitution.
The decision of Ward CJ balanced the freedoms of religion, expression and association against the values of Tuvaluan stability and culture, with the Chief Justice accepting the evidence of the unrest and tension on Nanumaga.
The decision of the Chief Justice was to refuse to grant the declaration sought by Mase Teonea – that the resolution was unlawful as it was contrary to the Constitution.
Tomkins JA provided a minority opinion in which he accepted the decision of the Chief Justice and would have dismissed the appeal.