Legal challenges to Prudence Kapua’s re-election as Maori Women’s Welfare League president failed. A disaffected minority allege she manipulated constitutional changes to allow her re-election.
Auckland voluntary social worker, Pauline Rewiti led the charge seeking judicial review of changes made to the League’s constitution in 2013. Justice Ellis was moved to say this challenge was personal. Ms Rewiti is allied with Ripeka Evans and Materoa Dodd who stood against Ms Kapua in the 2017 League elections. Another ally is Sharon Reynolds, former general manager of the League. She resigned during Ms Kapua’s first term as president. Ms Rewiti has been a League member since 2013.
The League currently has about 3000 members. Founded over 65 years ago under the auspices of Maori Affairs, it was intended to help with social issues arising from the mass movement of Maori from rural areas into cities after the Second World War. The original constitution was based loosely on that used for the Returned Services Association.
The High Court was told this constitution was amended in 1957, prohibiting the president from serving more than one term. Some witnesses claimed this was to prevent founding president Dame Whina Cooper continuing in office for life. A 1978 amendment allowed presidents to run for office again, but not for consecutive terms. Then in 2002, another amendment saw presidents again limited to only one three year term. Ms Rewiti claimed a subsequent 2017 amendment allowing multiple terms was invalid. She alleges it was sneaked through without proper notice and that Ms Kapua’s subsequent re-election is unlawful.
Justice Ellis said ‘due notice’ of constitutional changes means ‘adequate notice’ and adequate notice was given. The 2017 amendments involved some 180 changes to the League’s constitution. Drafting was a collaborative process with a committee working through the existing constitution clause by clause. Draft changes were sent out to regions for consultation. “Due notice’ does not mean each and every one of the 3000 members need to be aware of and understand every proposed change, Justice Ellis said. It is sufficient they are aware of what is proposed and can engage if they wish. To suggest Ms Kapua manipulated the process and secretly made the term limit change for her own future benefit is simply not plausible, Her Honour said.
This is not the first time League presidential elections have wound up in court. In 2011, Destiny Church co-founder Hannah Tamaki successfully challenged attempts to remove her name from the ballot.
Rewiti v. Maori Women’s Welfare League Inc – High Court (19.10.18)
18.205