Selection process of tribal title of Teaia Mataiapo needs clarification

The courtroom was packed on Thursday morning as Justice Hingston presided over the hearing to determine which of two applicants is the rightful person to hold the tribal title of Teaia Mataiapo.
The applicants are Atatoa Herman, who appeared without a lawyer and requested an adjournment and Tua Pittman who was represented by Tina Browne who wanted to go ahead with the case on the day.
Justice Hingston opened the mater by saying he had a good look at the file and would need clear evidence as to what the ancient custom was to select the Mataiapo. He said the facts were confusing and he was concerned that the Rangatira came into this and asked legal counsel if there is an agreed custom from time immemorial for the Mataiapo and if there is an agreed body to do so and whether there was agreement on that.
There was also some inconsistency where her client’s application referred to three candidates but minutes show nine nominations were put forward.
Justice Hingston commented that in the New Zealand courts, they do not have titles but do have problems re Maori reserve lands and in his view went too far, and ‘cut that out’ in his time.
In the court’s view, such matters belong to the people with the title and in his view it is not for the court to decide such matters but simply to confirm the family decision. What he did pick up in the file was that the family would prefer to have the matter settled as a Kopu Mataiapo as it was their title rather than the court, and he tended toward that view as well.
With that, the case proceeded with Rua Komono (Sir Fred Goodwin) called to the witness box where he read out his affidavit as to his position as the lead Rangatira for Teaia and outlined the various meetings and events leading up to the investiture of Pittman on 6 August 2009 on Auroa Marae in Muri. However, his claim to be descended from a Teaia lady called Tepaeru who married Tinomana Rurutini, but from a second relationship to Enoka Rua, but could not give a minute book reference to verify his genealogy.
Atatoa Herman in his questioning of Sir Fred said according the genealogies he has sighted, Sir Fred is not from Tepaeru Rurutini at all but comes from another person called Tepaeru married to a man called Teaia Takume from Mangaia. Also did Rua (Sir Fred) have any mandate for his actions and had he asked the wider Kopu that he said he represented. Sir Fred said he had acted to the hest of his ability and had not consulted others.
Mauri Toa was the next witness and also claimed to be from Tepaeru married to Tinomana Rurutini but also could not produce minute book evidence of his genealogy.
Pa Ariki was also a witness and said she had been disappointed that the guests had to stand outside the marae even though there had been an injunction to prevent any interference on the investiture day. She said she did not attend the investiture for Herman because she had not received an invitation but had received from Pittman and had attended in her capacity as one of the two paramount Chiefs of Takitumu.
Two other witnesses appeared: Harry Ivaiti and Mata Nooroa, who took part in the selection of Pittman. However, their right to do so was challenged because their genealogy shows that their lines are adopted into the family but not of the Teaia bloodlines.
Legal counsel for Pittman then made her final submissions to the court as to the selection process and referred to a petition written on 7th March 1904 by Teputiki Kainuku Vaine addressed to Chief Judge Gudgeon.
In her petition, Mama Teputiki complained that the adopted children occupied the Mataiapo house which is supposed to be occupied by the titleholder in order.
Browne said the letter was important because it also referred to who in the family had been Teaia from two generations back from 1904. The letter referred to Teputiki Auariki who passed the title on to her younger brother, Teariki Navao, then to his son, Tepou and then to her nephew, Tiori (who held the title in 1904).
Then she outlined the selection process of a new custom devised by Rua (Sir Fred) and tabled on 21 April 2008 and claimed to have unanimous support - apart from some minor changes – for a “new road map” for the future.
Soon afterwards, she was visited by reps of the Teaia family who said the family were not happy with the proposal which gave them only half a vote.
Ivaiti had already explained that was arrived at mathematically with the four children of Teaia Auariki: Teporoa (Teaia). Tepaeru (married to Rurutini), Teariki Akania and Katupu. Counsel said they did not accept any other families from Teaia Auariki. She ended her submission by referring to the ancient custom whereby if a person married into another tribe, they were considered to have married out of the family.
After she ended her case, Justice Hingston directed Herman to proceed that morning commenting that he had several months to prepare his case.
Herman said his research into the genealogies of the other two families from the Teaia Auariki by a second relationship.
Did they have minute book references asked the judge? Yes they did.
The applicant said his research showed that the whole approach was wrong by both applicants (Herman and Pittman) and asked that the court to adjourn the case to give the Teaia family to resolve their issues in an amicable way.
Herman then called for two witnesses, Papa Tearii Lucky Mave , the family chairman and Tupe Short, son of the late Teaia Maui Mataiapo.
Papa Mave pleaded with the court to allow the families to come together and sort out all the issues and they could come to a good conclusion.
Tupe Short, also known as Tairi-te-Rangi Rangatira spoke in Maori and asked the court to go by Akonoanga Maori and produced a Koutu Nui report which confirmed that it is based on piranga toto (blood right) to the Chief and those without (adopted children without blood right) were excluded.
Justice Hingston said he accepted all the evidence presented at the court and was troubled that Rua (Sir Fred) had not consulted to meeting with his wider family and the role of the Rangatira in the matter whereas it is for the Kopu.
The case has been adjourned to allow the families to come together to sort out the method of selection and come to good conclusion.