Justice Paul Radich will tomorrow reveal his judgment regarding former Te Pāti Māori MP Mariameno Kapa-Kingi’s challenge of her expulsion from the party.
Kapa-Kingi, the MP for Te Tai Tokerau, appeared in the High Court at Wellington today seeking an interim reinstatement as a member of Te Pāti Māori after the party’s national council voted to expel her and fellow MP Tākuta Ferris last month in a process she claims breached the party’s constitution.
Kapa-Kingi was also looking to, through being reinstated, attend Te Pāti Māori’s annual general meeting in Rotorua this weekend, where she had intended to call for party president John Tamihere to be ousted.
Lawyers for Kapa-Kingi and Tamihere made their arguments to Radich in a hearing this morning. Radich said he would consider the matter before releasing his decision at 4pm tomorrow.
Speaking to reporters afterwards, Kapa-Kingi said she was glad to have aired her position even if she had been reluctant to resort to legal action.
She wouldn’t speculate on whether Radich would rule in her favour.
“I’m neither confident or not confident, but I’m glad to have had one’s day in court, I guess you might say.”
Kapa-Kingi also reiterated her view Tamihere was not fit to remain Te Pāti Māori’s president, building on her previous criticism of the party’s co-leaders.
“I think Māori leadership, it requires a certain way of being and practice, and from my experience and my point of view and my observations, those things aren’t evident.”
Tamihere was not present in court as he was returning from an overseas trip.
Te Pāti Māori secretary Lance Norman was in attendance and told reporters he was confident the party followed its constitution in removing Kapa-Kingi and Ferris, albeit conceding it was a messy split.
“Well, in hindsight, you always think you can do things better, obviously we would have rather have not been played out in the media or in the High Court.
“We would have liked to have had face-to-face opportunities but we weren’t really given that opportunity because the media had hit us and then social media hit us.”
During the hearing, Kapa-Kingi’s lawyer, Mike Colson KC, referenced an “insulting” invitation from the party for Kapa-Kingi to attend the marae hosting the AGM for two hours but not being able to take part in the members-only matters.
Norman defended the decision, reiterating Kapa-Kingi was no longer a member of the party. He added the party had also decided to bar media from the meeting.
Radich’s ruling would be an interim measure ahead of a substantive hearing on February 2 when the matter would be examined more closely.
That hearing would be just days before the annual Waitangi celebrations, in which Kapa-Kingi would play a central role as the MP for the local Māori electorate.
Norman said he was glad the issue would be resolved before Waitangi, noting campaigning for next year’s election would be a key focus.
Today’s hearing, which lasted several hours, featured an interesting dissection of the various claims that have been flung by the two factions in recent months as the relationship between the two expelled MPs and the party deteriorated in public view.
In expelling Kapa-Kingi, the party’s co-leaders claimed the MP had brought the party into disrepute by her public criticisms and alleged she misused funding for her own gain, which Kapa-Kingi has denied.
Colson, who stated he was working for Kapa-Kingi pro bono, led off by outlining Kapa-Kingi’s desire to have her membership reinstated and to challenge Tamihere’s “unlawful” presidency.
To endorse Kapa-Kingi’s belief she was expelled without proper process, Colson said the party had not sufficiently engaged with Kapa-Kingi, the expulsion vote being invalid due to some individuals not being present and the complaint process not being managed by a Disciplinary and Disputes Committee as outlined in the constitution.
Central to his argument was the role of the party’s national council, which featured party leaders including the MPs and members of the various Māori electorate executive teams.
Colson said the committee was the appropriate body to address complaints about Kapa-Kingi, not the council.
Kapa-Kingi’s use of Parliament funding was also a heavily litigated aspect. Amid the public tit-for-tat, the party had released documents showing Kapa-Kingi had been warned of a projected $133,000 overspend.
While her budget was resolved by bringing forward funding intended for next year, the party claimed she had drawn on funds intended for late MP Takutai Tarsh Kemp without its approval.
Colson stated the party had agreed initially for Kapa-Kingi to use Kemp’s funds while she battled kidney disease but then reversed its position.
He then contested Kapa-Kingi had used “party funds”, noting it was funding controlled by the Parliamentary Service.
Challenging the legitimacy of Tamihere’s presidency was also part of Kapa-Kingi’s legal action, with a claim the process by which Tamihere’s tenure was extended in 2024 did not comply with the constitution.
He also expressed concerns Te Pāti Māori had been advertising for its Te Tai Tokerau candidate for the 2026 election, a position Kapa-Kingi believed she held.
Davey Salmon, KC, Tamihere’s lawyer, opened his opposition to Kapa-Kingi’s reinstatement by noting how “politics hangs over this dispute”, later stating the court should be wary of involving itself too much in political matters.
Salmon was dismissive of Kapa-Kingi’s challenge to Tamihere’s presidency, saying she had voted for Tamihere in 2024 to affirm his position.
Citing Colson’s earlier comments about Kapa-Kingi wanting strong leadership, Salmon doubted how “chopping the head off the chook” would help shore up the party’s leadership.
On Kapa-Kingi’s expulsion, Salmon said the constitution did in fact empower the national council with the power to expel her, given its ability to revoke membership.
He also contested Colson’s claim not enough members were present as the council voted to expel Kapa-Kingi, highlighting how the constitution did not have a clear quorum requirement for such meetings.
One of the key issues likely to feature heavily in the February hearing was whether the process followed tikanga or Māori protocol.
Colson had maintained Kapa-Kingi had not been afforded natural justice, while Salmon said Kapa-Kingi’s public criticisms of the party and not distancing herself from stronger critique made by her son Eru did not align with the party’s tikanga.
Adam Pearse is the Deputy Political Editor and part of the NZ Herald’s Press Gallery team based at Parliament in Wellington. He has worked for NZME since 2018, reporting for the Northern Advocate in Whangārei and the Herald in Auckland.