PNG LAWYERS ROCKED BY COMPO SCAM

The Australian, Apr 30, 2010

Rowan Callick Asia-Pacific Editor

A judicial commission of inquiry into corruption in Papua New Guinea's core public offices has revealed that a disturbingly large section of the country's legal profession has for years been plotting and reaping massive cash rewards from scam compensation claims against the government.
The commission's report recommends that 14 prominent lawyers be subject to criminal prosecution, and that they and a further eight lawyers be referred to the Lawyers' Statutory Committee.
Former solicitors-general and attorneys-general are among those named as prime movers in the cabal.
It operates by concocting false claims against the government which are approved by top bureaucrats, such as Finance Secretary Gabriel Yer, and payment is implemented rapidly.
Among the subjects covered by these false claims are land leases, police raids, civil works payments, job contracts, procurement of goods and services, and even cabinet decisions that have been altered and Prime Minister Michael Somare's signature forged.
The commission of inquiry, established by Sir Michael, was chaired by former PNG judge Maurice Sheehan (a New Zealander), Justice Cathy Davani, and senior businessman Don Manoa.
It was originally established in August 2006. But in the next two years it was suspended and reestablished five times, due to "active opposition" from those ultimately named as the prime culprits in the cabal, says its report.
Sir Michael, who is now struggling to wrest back control of the nation's finances from its own top bureaucrats accused of being corrupt, said the work of the inquiry had faced "frivolous legal challenges and administrative hurdles", which were continuing.
He said in tabling the report in parliament, that "public monies have been paid out falsely, fraudulently, improperly".
Former solicitor-general Zachary Gelu and lawyer Paul Paraka, who are named throughout the inquiry, obtained a court injunction from Justice Bernard Sakora in Alotau, in Milne Bay province, immediately after Sir Michael tabled the report last month.
This injunction bans its publication and distribution anywhere in PNG, and its implementation. But The Australian has obtained a copy of the 812-page report.
In all but five of the 783 cases investigated, the sham payments were made on default judgments or out-of-court settlements.
It is a crucial element of this rort that the claims are not tested in court - without, the report says, "any challenge as to whether they were founded on fact or fiction".
The inquiry says "the court has too often been the unwitting instrument legitimising settlements of wholly untested claims concluded unlawfully by officers within the departments of Finance, Justice and AttorneyGeneral".
Lawyers are prominent among the beneficiaries. Paul Paraka Lawyers received $16 million in "brief-out" fees, payments for handling such compensation claims from core government departments, from January 2003 to August 2006. A ministerial inquiry into the propriety of such brief-outs was itself injuncted three years ago, and the inquiry says "it is a sad commentary on the Attorney-General's office that it has takenn no steps to set aside that temporary order".
The Attorney-General must, it says, ensure the cabinet is able to receive the report of its own inquiry into this unexplained practice.
Government compensation brief-outs "have provided a sure income for small law firms which have now grown on state business to five and 10 times the staffing of the Justice Department".
The inquiry describes a deterioration in "the capacity and integrity of the Justice Department", with solicitors-general "assuming to themselves the authority to decide liability and compensation, to the detriment of the state".
A typical case detailed in the report is that of lawyer Simon Norum of Mount Hagen, who organised the filing by 130 people of a claim over alleged losses from a police raid of Kulimbu village. All 130 were heard on a single day by the district court, which awarded them $550,000.
Norum, whom the inquiry wants referred to the fraud squad, received an additional $186,000 costs, and set up another scam in which a district court in Mendi heard on one day 113 cases involving an alleged police raid, from which he was awarded $171,000 costs.
Controversial former politician Peter Yama has long been claiming $6m for alleged loss of business from leasing government land in Madang, where he runs a security company.
Yama's claim - for compensation because disgruntled villagers occupied land he said he wished to develop - was settled by the Attorney-General's office last week, while Sir Michael was out of the country, visiting New Zealand.
Acting Prime Minister Puka Temu said: "There is a standing cabinet decision to fight this case. It would appear that it is being undermined."
The $6m claim by Yama - who engineered the arrest of two Australian Bank of South Pacific executives for allegedly hampering another payment over a compensation claim earlier this year - is one of the cases highlighted in the report as "baseless and patently flawed".
The report says that the cabinet ruled in 2003 that it must approve all out-of-court settlements of more than 1 million kina ($400,000), and that the Attorney-General must take questionable claims, or those above $200,000, to the courts for judicial review.
It says: "The directions of the cabinet, the government with the authority to administer the state and to control the funds budgeted by parliament, have been ignored by key officers. Public funds have accordingly been disposed of without lawful authority."
The Claims Act, the commission says, "specifically excludes the courts from making any order of execution against the state to enforce payments". Yet the national court has in several actions, "contrary to the provisions of the act", issued such orders - including, the report says, in the case that involves the two Australian bank executives.
The commission says that state lawyers, "having failed to defend a claim, whether for lack of instructions or otherwise, took upon themselves the settlement of those claims without instruction".
The reliance on default judgments in all but five of 783 cases examined means the courts are by-passed and "the claimant and state officials agree to a compensation figure themselves, leading to massive losses of public funds".
Officers of the Attorney General or Solicitor-General have regularly, the report says, accepted "unproven assertions as fact".
Although the Attorney General is handling 11,000 claims against the state the department has a litigation staff of just 11 lawyers. "Application of even a fraction" of the $4m in excess of the budgets of the Justice Department and Attorney-General for law firms "could have done much to ensure an effective and operational law office".

Someone should post the whole Finance Inquiry report on Wikileaks - like the Moti inquiry was.

Who knows more about the scams these lawyers were up to?

Read the friken article!

My friends,
It is a total disgrace we hear everyday from the press just about everything negative in PNG...corruption, rapes, theft, hold ups, tribal fights, compensation, natural disasters, poverty ete etc
Be reminded, folkes - PNG is not the country with a vibrant democracy we saw in the 1980's. It's all but gone..noken ting we have anything to hold us back..eg is this classic case of Yama. All Yama has to do is to give a call to Yer, Lupari, Paraka or other crony - catch up at one of the old Asian run pubs,with a few teenage girls from POM schools, drink the hell out, have group sex and basically plan the deal...next morning Yama fronts up the boys at Waigani and the deal is done. Yama already knows who the court will be..., let me say this =The Judiciary is gone - judges are politicised, lawyers are the root causes of most corruption in PNG, if one does a good research on corruption vs person vs profession - lawyers,policemen and accountants will be up the top followed by others...politican is not a profession, it is a honorary job but in PNG - we take it to be an envied profession.
So let's not get our heads crazy - one thing must happen - assisinate politicans and public servants, foreigners eg Asians etc who are in dubious deals....FOR YOU ALL, IAM TIRED OF READING HOUSE WIFE winges - Lets start it; please watch out on a recruitment drive in the press calling for "expression of interest" there's a plan in place now, enough is enough - forget any crap and join the fight..we'll start in POM, then move to other centres...please, please - all you need to do is to have the guts and you will be trained, equiped to execute the plan.....we will weed out the rotten apples, I am prepared to take the challenge - how about you?

KKK, Paradisea executions

as long as we don't use bottles as our weapon of choice ^^

-PeaceOut-

Pardisea Excution send me your email...

I want to join........

anyone been to thr march?Tell us what happen

I'm truly saddened at the generality of the comments on the legal profession and also the lack of confidence I the Judiciary. Guys, those lawyers mentioned represent only 2% of the legal fraternity. There are over 2000 law graduates and at least 1700 practitioners. Furthermore, the judiciary is perhaps the only functioning arm of government that for quite some time has been able to instill democratic values in our other arms of government. Major constitutional crisis have been resolved in our courts (Re Somare 1981 on PNGDF Deployment, Pias Wingti 1992 Reference) and even outlawing custom practices because they are repugnant to the general principles of humanity (re: trading a young girl as compensation on tribal fight).

Scapers fail to give recognition to the men and women in the judiciary, Public Prosecutors office, Ombudsmen, Public Solicitor's who have been shot, harassed and even in tragic cases, killed, because of pursuing justice. There are even lawyers active in the NGO sectors fighting against multinational companies in logging and fishing rights as well as those that are in the bush advocating for gender and equal empowerment.

I have stated in other posts that I am a lawyer and do not hide my bias but folks, it’s important we all understand that the profession and the men and women that serve in the majority are just as angry and upset as you are. Abusing a privilege always is at the detriment of others in the profession.
Like many other legal colleagues, we are appalled at our fellow colleagues actively partaking in these activities and they deserve conviction and sentencing.
I
f there is anything I am extremely proud of my colleagues, is that they are partaking in a justice system that is civilized, orderly and independent. The country I am currently residing has nothing of the sort and it's tragic to see the misuse of justice occur.

Our system is vibrant, what PNGns need is to access the other 97% lawyers who are ready to help them.

So will we see any charges and convictions? The Police can't even investiagte the Finance Inquiry recommendations because of legal action brought by Yer and Paraka etc.

Yeah, those were the good old days then, now we have no trust in these 3% so called lawyers. They take advantage of the illiteracy and ignorance of the PNGeans uneducated, twist and complicate the legal jurgon....some claim to be trustees of vunerable people and siphon their funds, claim also loud mouth christains too....what a shame...No wonder our concerned PNG lawyers have never made into other civilised jurisdictions in the commonwealth or developed countries..what a shame...comparatively, quiet achievers in other professions have excelled and do us proud, look at our pilots, engineers, geologists, surveyors doing it well all over..as for you lawyers, you can dip your dirty fingers only in PNG and live in your rat hole!
Paradisea Executions, let me in..we'll sort 'em out..

All for it!
Jay

corruption is strong.Thats our bigproblem

Thank you for your responses and I’d like to collectively comment and answer them. With regards to Gabriel Yer and others implicated in the Finance Inquiry, the triggering mechanism on commencing investigations may either be the endorsement of the recommendations by Parliament as the Inquiry will be presented to them by the PM (as he is responsible for initiating them in the first place and has the onus to report on its findings) or secondly, the RPNGC be preemptive and lay charges on those implicated under offences in the Criminal Code.

I have not read the recommendations in the Inquiry but if they are indictments such as misappropriation, fraud etc.. a high burden of proof is required to prosecute them and this would require extensive evidence and financial forensic collections which the Inquiry will already have “bagged.” Admission to court will be the next application. Please note that all these crimes will be heard in the National Court and trails will occur there. Prosecution will either be from the RPNGC or the Public Prosecutor. Therefore, interagency collaboration is paramount in this where the RPNGC, PP and the Inquiry consultants (financial forensic experts and investigators) build a string case on prosecution.

This is where the 97% of the legal fraternity is there. The Legal Branch of the RPNGC has FBI and AFP trained counsels to formulate a legal case. The PPs also have senior prosecutors that are seasoned counsels in misappropriation and fraud cases. If the path seems difficult to use these institutions, the Ombudsman Commission’s counsels are also present. The key to commence the process is the laying of the charges. So those scapers that have evidence and I mean strong compelling evidence beyond reasonable doubt (not the antidotal crap some of you rant on about on this site) then kindly tender it to the RPNGC, PP or the OC.

With regards to the post on taking a jab on the profession whereby lawyers are incapable of working outside the PNG jurisdiction and comparatively assessing us with other professions, dude, I really cannot comprehend your ignorance and furthermore, the lack of respect of men and women that have given so much to this country, who are themselves, are lawyers admitted to the Bar in PNG.
Let me enlighten you:

• Late Sir Anthony Siaguru (Class of 1974 Bar Admission) – in his time as the Deputy Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, over saw a proactive dialogue to fight against the injustices of despotic regimes in Africa and Asia and was the chief architect on sanctions in these countries;

• Dame Mek Taylor (Class of 1975 Bar Admission) – she is currently the World Bank’s DBE, Vice President, Compliance Adviser Ombudsman for the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). Under her leadership, important international law enforcement negotiations are taking place to prosecute investors who violate labour, environment, corruption and other national laws detriment to the Host State;

• The Late and Former CJ Mari Kapi (Class of 1974)– was part of the historical Privy Counsel that presided on the Prasad Case that brought the rejection of justification of military coups by the use of the international principle on the Doctrine of Necessity in the 2002 Fiji Coup. This case has been used all over the world and CJ Kapi had the majority decision;

• Blaise Kuemlangan (Class of 1983) – Legal Officer for UNFAO in Rome. Blaise is currently involved in a major international treaty facilitating food security for the billions of people all over the world.

• Ms. Masio Nidung (Class of 1985) – she has facilitated the enactment of major maritime legislation throughout most of the pacific island countries that are bringing them to greater compliance on international standards so that environmental oil spills, ship and passenger safety are in place. She has also assisted through the International Maritime Organization the training of lawyers in the pacific;


• HE. Ambassador Robert Aisi (Class of 1983) – facilitated the emergence on the Coalition of Rainforest Nations to progress changes in the Kyoto Protocol on the inclusion of natural forests in carbon trade. The Coalition of Rainforest nations has over 30 member states;

• UPNG Professor Eric Kwa (Class of 1994) – apart from facilitating the amendments of the 22 women reserved seats in parliament, he has pioneered a legislative genre in fusing cultural practices into the legislative mechanism in environmental protection and sustainability in the LLGs of Talasea, Bogia and Manus, which is now used in many indigenous communities around the world;

• HE. Ambassador Ivan Paki (Class of 1998) – facilitated the Clinton Foundation and other major US initiatives to PNG in health and medical sciences. These include the supply of ARVs to HIV/AIDS patients and USS Mercy to PNG;

• Ms. Anne Karjer (Class of 1999) – not only has she been recognized internationally for her environmental litigation on multinational logging corporations in PNG, she is actively supporting indigenous communities in Asia, America and other parts of the world who are also suing developers for the destruction of their livihoods;

• Prof Alphonse Kambu although not a graduate in PNG, has excelled in the international circles, especially in the area of genetic resources, traditional knowledge foras. He is one of the foremost experts in the UN dealing with transactions on these issues.

There are countless others in major international organizations, firms and corporations around the world who in their own time and energy, are making changes to the world we live in. Yes, they may not get the centre fold in Post Courier, National and Paradise Magazine, they are out there making change and making us proud.

It is quite interesting to note opinions expressed by various commentators in regard to some PNG lawyers, mostly senior public office holders who have been implicated in the Finance Enquiry.
I do not wish to elaborate on the comparasion of professions, and in particular names listed. There were ten people quoted and I am sure the list will be endless if the other profession (s) equally put the names down.Surely this is not a forum to justify. Rather the output and competitiveness be measured by the outside world in their various capacities. After all, I don't think they have authorised their names to be compared in anonomous forums like this.
The point raised is on the filth and corruption and shocking nature of involvement by lawyers who are supposed to uphold the highest intergrity of state institutions. This has to be condemned and not divert from the issue.
Do these lawyers have affiliation to a PNG governing body wherby they could be disciplined? If so, have they been disciplined? The typical notion of " innocent until proven guilty" and the "catch me if you can" mentality frustrates the whole system. Delay tactics dilute the issues.Is this real justice when we know the process is frustrated by court injunctions and unnecessary delays. Let the system flow and these lawyers explain themselves of the accusations.
So whether it be lawyers, pilots, engineers..whatever profession, we want a fair and honest deal. Any person implicated must face the courts and clear himself. Then we will know issues have been settled. Nau yet, the perception from the latest newsflash paints a terrible hatred on the legal fratenity and however, one tries to categorise the 3% from the rest, public perception and opinion is what it is now...

The context of my response was in relation to the attacks made on the profession and in some cases, misleading perception that all lawyers are unable to uphold principles of justice, equality and furthermore, they are unable to gain employment elsewhere. These comments do require detail responses and furthermore, commentators have to know PNGns from both the Bar and Bench are one of the greatest success stories in our country.

I don’t apologize for the unauthorized use of names of dear colleagues others and I greatly admire. Readers have to know we have men and women who work tirelessly to not only improve the living standards of PNG but humanity as a whole. The legal profession is an instrument of change in PNG and unfortunately public perception only consume the filth of only a few who indulge in unethical and criminal activities.

I do however agree with your notion that the thread should realign to perhaps comments on how those implicated may be brought to justice. As mentioned in my previous post, if indictments are charged (misappropriation or fraud) then prosecution may follow.

From an administrative law perspective on suspending their license to practice, this may come about through the Statutory Committee within the PNG Law Society. They meet every quarter on complaints laid against lawyers. They may further establish a committee to discipline the lawyer and apart from suspending their license, the highest form is to strike there name of the “role” which disbars the lawyer for life. This is triggered by compliant and so fellow scapers, you’re most welcome to tender your complaints to them.

On your comment on the notion of “innocent until not proven guilty” and catch me if you can, well welcome to the great world of democracy. You can’t pick and choose democracy, might as well go and live in Iran, North Korea and Burma. The Judiciary will determine their innocence and guilt. So fellow scapers, use the PP, OC, RPNGC.

But like any commentator, you’d complain on another defect and again blame the profession. While you’re indulging in this cyclic non coherent debate, a Prosecutor at Tisa Haus will be liaising with his RPNGC colleague on possible evidence to tender in the filing of a “Nolie Prossique” in the National Court. Which subsequently will be heard by a competent Judge. Although the action is taken through ex parte appearance, those implicated will have been served a notice on the indictment charges. They will then have the benefit of counsel to appear in court to defend the charges. In all, the entire exercise will include brave men and women, mostly lawyers, to uphold justice and seek the truth. This is the Papua New Guinea that I know.

I have had a lot of confidence in the Judiciary as one of the legitimate arms of the government, not so much in the Executive or Legislative arms of government in a democratic system such as ours. But the latter two have lost their credibility and are on the verge of collapse.This perception was summarised well by the National's editorial last week that showed the behaviour of MP's making parliament as a market place, with no cohesion in its operation. we continue to hear the speaker being manipulative and gagging debate,"noken lus tingting long ol plasma screens he bought and the infamous tree that cost well ove K200,ooo to cut. Such is the rot we hear time and time again.
All hopes rested on the Judiciary until we heard of cracks, eg the revelation by long time chief magistrate John Numapo or unpopular trends like the delay in decisision on the Organic Law on Integriry of Political parties. Other suspicious circumstances were the K1000 fining of Enga governor Ipatas when he was found guilty of most counts of misconduct. In the old days, a politican would be dismissed or jailed under these circumstances. This suspicions were not helped when some lawyers trusted to run very prominent state institions filthy scam was revealed, here in PNG and all over Australia and where the internet can be read the world over. The fear now is whether the Judiciary is following the same trend as the other two arms of govt. Therefore Papua New Guineans have every right to speak out and express the frustration on these lawyers and the current comments somewhat divert from this. We need to see the rotten lawyers like Paraka et al dealth with so please, if you are a lawyer, educate us on this forum what can be done to get these guy (s) dealth with.
We want to see the hey days, and my favourite one is that of Wingti vs Haiveta which totally changed the political climate we see. I recall the courage the late Narakobi showed when he took it upon himself to take on the case. In the end, the spirit of the constitution prevailed and dubious politicans vanished. That was during the Kapi-Kidu days and we salute these great men of the Judiciary. Not only that, the Kapi-Kidu team emphasised on developing PNG's underlying law and developing case presdents here that going back to medevial England to rule on contemporary PNG cases. Is the current Judiciary maintaining that trend? We wonder and watch with eagerness on how this is settled....

We pay tax, this is stolen, then we have to fund another K26m to find the thieves and NONE IS DEALTH WITH!!!! STOP THIS BULL ****..Read below how it sucks...




PRIME MINISTER¡¦S STATEMENT TO PARLIAMENT ON THE TABLING OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
National Parliament, Friday 05 March 2010
Mr Speaker and Honourable Members
Introduction
I am pleased to table this important Report for the consideration of the elected members of this Honourable House. The final report is over 800 pages and contains more than 75 recommendations.
But firstly, I wish to inform this Honourable House that this important Report could not be tabled earlier because I wanted to thoroughly read the report, its findings and understand fully the recommendations.
The gravity and importance of the issues raised cannot be underestimated.
Mr Speaker
Word of Appreciation to COI
I wish to also thank the members of the Commission of Inquiry, the Chief Commissioner Maurice Sheehan, his Commissioners, Legal Counsels, and their support staff for the excellent work they have done in compiling this Report.
Difficulties encountered by COI
Their task was by no means easy.
Since gazettal, and even after the Commission of Inquiry was constituted, it experienced unprecedented delays, opposition, and interruptions in various forms. Even the Commission¡¦s jurisdiction was questioned.
Individuals involved in some of the cases that came under the scrutiny of the Commission mounted a concerted and deliberate effort not only to frustrate the orderly conduct of the proceedings of the Inquiry but actually to stop the Inquiry from ever taking place.
2
This unenviable situation was compounded by initial administrative disagreements on who controls and how to expend funds allocated to the Commission.
Despite these roadblocks, I was committed to ensuring that the Commission of Inquiry proceeded to do its task.
The intermittent start-stop work of the Inquiry, brought about by these frivolous legal challenges and administrative hurdles, caused the Commission to take over three years to complete its task and produce this Final Report.
I must however acknowledge that a Preliminary Report, containing three volumes, was submitted in May 2009.
The actual cost of the COI
At this point, let me just correct some misreporting on how much this Inquiry cost. The Inquiry cost K26 million over 3.5 years and, may I add - it is money well spent. It is not over K40 million as reported.
Mr Speaker
Terms of Reference of the COI
Members of this Honourable Haus will recall that the Commission of Inquiry was initially set up in August 2006 to enquire into serious allegations of misuses, abuses, and manipulation of public monies at the Department of Finance.
The Inquiry covered financial claims against the State for the period 2000 to 1st July 2006.
Serious questions have been raised about the accountability of the Department of Finance in relation to the Public Finance Management Act.
It is obvious that this Act was being abused, misused, manipulated and corrupted by persons who knew the system quite well.
The controversies surrounding the Department of Finance, particularly in relation to out-of-court settlements, default judgments, consent orders or other claims against the State, have not been done in accordance with good management and accounting practices.
Simply put, public monies have been paid out falsely, fraudulently, improperly or in a manner not authorized by law.
The overarching intention of this Inquiry was quite specific:
3
„« Look into the way key government agencies responsible for managing public funds and advising on payments resulting from court orders had conducted their business for the period January 1st 2000 to 1st July 2006.
The terms of reference intended to establish the origin of these claims, who made them, their legality, the amounts involved, and the name of persons authorizing or certifying these payments.
When I reinstated it on 12 May 2008 ¡V after yet another of those misconceived interruptions ¡V I tasked the Commission with 14 Terms of Reference which are set out on pages three to seven of the Report.
As a way of providing the backdrop for the findings of the Commission of Inquiry, and to allow Honourable Members to appreciate the context of the findings, please allow me to highlight some of these Terms of Reference.
They were to:
„« Determine the extent of illegal and improper claims; judgments, or out-of-court settlements against the State;
„« Identity persons who have made or been paid such claims;
„« Determine the value of such claims for each year for the period 2000 to 1st July 2006;
„« Establish the degree and extent of involvement of legal firms in the making and payment of illegal claims against the State;
„« Establish consent and default Judgments entered against the State, and the number and value of these judgments and the circumstances in which they were entered against the State;
„« Enquire into the systems that protect public monies from illegal claims and to identify the core failures that have exposed the State to liability;
„« The role of the Department of Finance in screening all claims for payment by the State and detecting and rejecting illegal, false or improper claims;
„« Establish the extent of the Department¡¦s responsibility in this regard and conclude whether it complied with these obligations; and
„« Determine the involvement of the Office of the Attorney-General, the Solicitor General, the Department of Finance, and the Registry of the
4
National Court in the making and payment of illegal, false or improper claims or Judgments against the State from 2000-1st July 2006.
Mr Speaker
The findings
I have taken time to highlight some of these Terms of Reference so Honourable Members would appreciate the intricate and complex nature of the investigation; how massive amounts of public monies were mismanaged and misappropriated by individuals and groups throughout the country.
The majority of these payments comprised of liability incurred under default judgments or out-of-court settlements.
The Commission looked at claims that the respective Attorney-General and Solicitor-General resolved in a number of ways. These included:
1. Contested hearing on liability and quantum;
2. Uncontested hearing on liability which result in either default judgments and consent judgments; and
3. Out-of-court settlement.
When the Inquiry was established in 2006, there were 783 Claims made against the State for which some K780 million was paid out between 2000 and 2006.
When it re-commenced deliberations after 12 May 2008, the Commission identified 539 Claims that warranted further investigation.
The payments of these 539 Claims amounted to a massive K572, 591,348.70.
These were paid out as follows:
ľ 2000 K38,646,701.44
ľ 2001 K44,835,549.77
ľ 2002 K89,462,673.55
ľ 2003 K70,666,461.76
ľ 2004 K152,428,905.38
ľ 2005 K121,716,446.76
ľ 2006 to July K54,834,610.34
Total K572, 591,348.70
5
In addition to the payment of these 539 Claims, the Commission before concluding its investigations, the Finance Minister directed that 244 outstanding claims, valued at K211 million, be returned to the Department of Justice & Attorney-General for further assessment and verification.
Mr Speaker
These exorbitant payouts mean that massive amounts of public funds have seeped through the formal government system without due diligence on the part of government officials and agencies tasked with the responsibilities of protecting these funds.
The findings and recommendations of this Report are before this Honourable House for the people of Papua New Guinea to examine. The Summary of the Commission¡¦s Findings are on pages 23 to 29 and the Common Findings in Respect of Claims are contained in pages 59 to 63.
While Honourable members will have the opportunity to read the Report and what it contains, allow me to highlight some of the main findings of the Commission of Inquiry.
The Report details a litany of breaches to established processes, procedures, financial regulations, abuse of authority, deliberate refusal to implement Government directives, collusion between agents of government departments and agencies ¡V including lawyers, etc, to facilitate and expedite fraudulent claims against the State.
This is a sad indictment on the commitment to duty, professionalism and integrity of the individuals that hold public offices of trust.
Mr Speaker
One of the most disturbing issues identified by the Inquiry was that even specific NEC decisions stating the limits that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General could pay for out-of-court settlements and default judgments were blatantly ignored.
They were grossly negligent in not vetting documents in accordance with the law and set guidelines under the Public Finance Management Act and other best financial and accounting practices before approving payment.
Equally disturbing is the fact that people outside government and other ordinary citizens used law firms and accountants to pursue false claims against the State even to the extent of falsifying court documents.
For far too long, political leaders have been unfairly and grossly criticized for being corrupt.
6
When you read this report, you cannot help but shudder in awe at the level of corruption that has permeated key government departments and agencies tasked with managing public monies.
Mr Speaker
Let me make mention of some instances. The Commission examined 68 claims that were resolved through out-of-court settlement by either the Attorney General or the Solicitor General, which amounted to K133 million.
As many as 783 claims amounting to some K780 million, paid or certified for payment demonstrates the massive losses of public funds that uncontested claims against the State had generated.
All of these payments have been processed without due regard to standing Government decisions restricting the powers and discretions of the offices concerned.
Let me illustrate this point.
In 2002, 2003, and again in 2006, the NEC decided to address the abuse of powers and discretions of the Secretary for Finance, Secretary for Justice & Attorney General, and the State Solicitor by giving specific notices detailing the courses of action these officers must take when deciding on claims against the State.
A specific NEC directive in 2003 stated that ¡¥all out of court settlement in excess of K1 million are to be approved by the NEC prior to any payment by Department of Finance.'
Mr Speaker
This and other related NEC directives were inexplicably ignored by the very people who were supposed to enforce them.
Other interesting facts which stand out clearly from the Report relate to systematic misapplication of laws and gross abuses of procedures and guidelines.
These relates to non adherence to procedures for claims against the State under the Claims by and Against State Act 1996.
The apparently high rate of default judgments and brief-out of cases reflects poorly on the performance of the Attorney General's Department in respect to defending the State.
Defendable cases were settled out of court or were not defended at all resulting in default judgments.
7
Mr Speaker
Recommendations of the COI
The Commission gathered information on 212 cases but due to time limitation, was only able to hear and make recommendations on 45 of them.
The recommendations are in four broad categories; Administrative Actions, Legislative Changes, Litigation and Referrals. These are contained in pages 763 to 799.
Under Administrative Actions, the Report recommends a number of administrative actions and changes to be undertaken by the following departments and agencies.
„h The Department of Finance;
„h Department of Justice & Attorney Generals (including the Office of the Solicitor General);
„h The National and District Court Registry;
„h National Court and Judicial Services;
„h Department of Lands;
„h Department of Prime Minister & NEC;
„h Central Supply & Tenders Board;
„h the Department of Works; and
„h The Department of Personnel.
In respect of Legislative Changes, a number of amendments to various Acts have been proposed such as the Claims By and Against the State Act, the Attorney Generals Act, Public Service (Management) Act and the Public Finance (Management) Act, the development of a Whistle Blowers Act and complemented with a Freedom of Information Act.
These proposals will be considered first by the relevant Departments and Ministers before advising NEC for further consideration, and then onto Parliament.
With regards to Litigation, the Commission recommended for the State to immediately commence proceedings to set aside a number of deeds of settlement and certificates of taxation, and take recovery action.
8
As for Referrals, the Commission also recommended that a number of individuals be referred to the relevant authorities such as the Police, Ombudsman and Lawyers Statutory Committee.
Mr Speaker
The Way Forward
The findings in the Report are very alarming and of serious concern to my Government. This blatant waste of precious public monies must stop.
I want to assure our people that the finding and recommendations of this Report will be implemented.
The NEC has already established an independent Implementation Team, headed by the Chief Secretary to Government, to implement the recommendations of the Report.
This Committee has been given adequate financial backing to do its job.
This demonstrates this Government's commitment and resolve towards combating corruption. We intend to further strengthen the Government¡¦s capacity eliminate fraud and corruption in public offices.
On the basis of the recommendations, we intend to bring about better and safer measures that guarantee improved governance and transparency in our public financial systems.
Often large reports are left to gather dust but not this time. My Government is taking immediate action to address the findings of the Inquiry.
The Implementation Team has already begun to implement the findings of the report.
Mr Speaker
The NEC has also put in place procedures to ensure that Ministerial approval is sought before any claim over K100, 000 is settled.
It will no longer be possible for junior public servants to execute unfavorable settlements that cost the State millions of kina.
I wish to also inform this Honourable haus that immediately after the tabling of this Report, the Implementation Team will proceed to refer lawyers who have been implicated to the Lawyers Statutory Committee and the Police.
9
The Implementation Team is now working closely with the Police Fraud Squad to ensure that individuals implicated in the report are dealt with by the criminal justice system.
This will take some time and will not be easy but my Government stands committed to reducing corruption and recovering those unlawful payments of State funds.
Mr. Speaker
The Department of Justice & Attorney General has already established a fair and transparent process to brief out state litigation.
Previously a single law firm had obtained the lion¡¦s share of state litigation and received, what appears to be, exorbitant fees for this work.
The new system on brief out will be complimented by standardizing of legal costs, which are set at a fair and reasonable rate, and work is awarded to law firms based on a commercial tendering process.
Furthermore, the Department of Justice and Attorney-Generals has now instituted a case management system, which provides a single authoritative source of information on all judgments and costs.
All payments have now been centralised at the Department of Justice.
This means that there is no incentive for claimants to pressure the Department of Finance to make payments or opportunity for double claiming.
This is a significant improvement and will dramatically reduce the opportunity for fraudulent and corrupt activity.
The implementation of the recommendations contained in this report is a high priority for the Government for this coming year.
Mr Speaker
Conclusion
The plain conclusion is that statutory processes have been grossly abused, allowing illegitimate and improper claims and excessive payouts to be legitimized.
Worse is the ease with which this was allowed to occur.
As well, the granting of ¡§priority¡¨ or ¡§urgency¡¨ to one claim over another, clearly demonstrate how the offices of the Attorney General and Department of Finance have succumbed too easily to the demands or pressures of claimants.
10
There have also been evidences of officers benefiting in these overly prompt and expedited settlements.
Mr Speaker
I know our people have been waiting patiently for this day and I want to assure you that the Somare/Temu Government is committed to addressing the problem of corruption in the country.
I commend the Final Report of the Inquiry to the House, encouraged in the knowledge that weaknesses in our financial system have been rightfully highlighted and that perpetrators of these illegal and fraudulent claims have been identified and will be brought to account for their actions.
Thank you.

While sympathizing to your sentiments, I think this presentation by the PM is deeply encouraging. Recommendations have been made and it is now up to us to mobilize resources for these recommendations to be implemented by the house. Especially the administrative and legislative changes. Yeah sure, fry the bastards who rigged the system but it’s the system that needs an overhaul and Sheehan has give us some idea what is required.

The system that Paul Paraka uses to syphon money out of the public treasury seems to be still in place and working despite the Inquiry findings. Practical measurers must be made to deal with these people which includes senior bureaucrats.

Just who is this Paraka fellow??? His so called law firm was boasted to save the state millions of kina at one point, now we see he was stealing from the state and conning us..Hey, there's coincidence..These guys..Paraka, Moses Maladina,Jimmy Maladina come from Baiyer in WHP...and they are most notorious white collar criminals, the equivalent verson of Kapris from Sepik..the latter is serving behind bars, while Jimmy Maladina is rooting away in Oz, Paraka is enjoying his loot..how crazy this place is!

Alleged perpetrators team up with police

By TODAGIA KELOLA

THE two women who were alleged to be part of a network in the Department of Planning and Monitoring involved in corrupt practices have not been charged but they will be helping police to get the real perpetrators.
That’s from NCD metropolitan commander Chief Superintendent Fred Yakasa.
The two women who are not employees of the department were apprehended after being found with government cheques worth K5.5 million.
They were caught after exchanging a cheque of K2.5 million for K25,000 belonging to the New Erima Primary School.
Mr Yakasa told the Post-Courier that his men were making progress in their investigations into the alleged corrupt practices at the National Planning and Monitoring Department, and names of officers implicated had surfaced and arrests might be imminent.
Police started investigations following an official complaint laid by the Secretary for National Planning and Monitoring, Joseph Lelang, after reports by this paper revealed that there were numerous instances of corrupt practices from officers within that department who used their authority to withhold cheques until their demands for “some payment” was met.
Early this month, police apprehended their first suspect, a woman who had three cheques worth K5.5 million and K2500 in cash.
She was caught by police when exchanging a K2.5 million cheque with board chairman of the New Erima Primary School Simon Eyork at a hotel in Port Moresby.
The second woman was apprehended the next day.
Chief Superintendent Yakasa had at that time stated that “This is corruption at its best...here people are paying for what is rightfully theirs...police will be investigating this.
“There are people out there who have been affected.
“And I am more than happy for anyone who has been in this kind of situation or who knows of it to come forward so we (police) can uproot all these evil.
“I think this is a wrong practice,” he said.
He said there were many other government departments which were facing the same thing and he appealed to anyone to come and report these corrupt practices so the police could help out.
He said the investigation had so far expanded to other provinces.

Lots of talk on the internet but no action. The pollies aren't frighten at all about toktok on the internet!!!!

at least we know who these scums are.....

A good example of legalising and entrenching corruption - led by Moses Maladina to remove OC powers, then his countryman Paraka is enjoying and possibly sharing the loot from the poor PNG people.
Maladina's brother Jimmy stole from the tea boys, cleaners, mine workers, plantation workers, store keepers..yu name it - the little private sector employers in that NPF enquiry now collecting dust!

For one, em ol man Baiyer in Western Highlands and there may be a few Parakas from that region too eating away like bacteria/virus and pests on the poor tree, the nation PNG we all belong too.. There other PNG cronies too we learn from this lawyers scam.
I want to join that fellow executionist, and will pull the trigger if the rest of you are just talking too much like here, the courts are too slow, politicised not there like before, yumi wokim PNG stail. there are 6 million PNGeans and more good lawyers coming up, we don't need Paraka and company! It sucks!!

Oh not forgetting another crook in Simon Norum of Dei , who is also said to have collorborated with Paraka. Both their one man law firms mushroomed overnight, as their pesting continued. Norum now boasts as a legitimate businessman with properties right in Mt Hagen town. If anything, and if all was fair and square, these would be the first properties the state confisticate to return the money he stole. We wonder if justice will prevail!

FELIX KANGE of Kange Lawyers..... Check him out,, from zero to hero....

Some of you people using the net on this subject seem to be really jealous of us Western Highlanders. You would love to be in our shoes but you will never make it. Go and steal from the kaukau garden.

If the interest of the scapers is to identify plausible actions on those implicated then by all means, let’s identify a process. I’m not mucking around, deadly serious and if those of you out there are, let’s do some serious strategy. For the lawyers implicated, there are two options. First is a civil matter and the second is criminal. For the civil matter, submitting all their names to the Statutory Counsel of the PNG Law Society can be done immediately. This is their email: [email protected] Attention the email to President Kerenga Kua and request for a Statutory meeting to be convened to investigate these lawyers.
The second is more tedious and that is the criminal charges. Four sets of arrangements need to be done:
• Collation of evidence;
• Briefing to counsels for prosecution;
• Charge for indictment;
• Filing for incitement.
The Inquiry only has reference points of materials and it these primary sources that need to be collated. When this is done, a Legal Briefing than has to be drafted so to prepare counsels in the RPNGC and the PP to commence prosecution. This Legal Briefing will be the basis for the RPNGC to charge those implicated with an indictment and will also serve the basis for the PP to appear in court to file an indictment.
If you are serious about this, let me know.

If it's such a great idea, why aren't you doing any of this?

You're such a whimp!

Papua New Guineans generally seem to be all corrupt. Before the white man came you were all killing each other, raping and looting from neighbouring villages. It is in your blood and you will not change. So don't blame the Western Highlanders only.

That's exactly what I said about white people after I learnt that the Germans killed 6 million jewish peoples. it's in white people's blood to kill, rape, etc.

First and foremost, this is not an idea it's an invitation on likeminded people to use the legal process. Secondly, the invitation is requesting anyone that are able to access elements of the Report to begin the process.
Now I don't have that. What I do have is a clear understanding of the legal process.

A whimp you say. Let me guess, you are referring to my inability to act upon my invitation. Well my dear friend, if you do have courage then assist me by finding the evidence that inquiry officials have, free of charge, I’ll do the legal briefing.

But let me be realistic. You will not be able to meet the request because your primary focus is to stimulate unproductive debates that perpetuates your lack of meaningful contribution to important national issues. I have given you the legal process and it is up for us to utilize it. Like any prudent counsel, I'm waiting for evidence to be collated so I can do my job in the courts.

Now will see you the WHIMP is...

Note the second point. Seems to me that a person could make a citizen's arrest in PNG on these grounds of Yama, Yer, Paraka, Tientsen, Mald etc etc (just see the list of those named in the Finance COI report which are reported on this web site.)

"A person who is not a police constable may, without warrant, arrest another person if they believe on reasonable grounds that:

* the other person is committing or has just committed an indictable offence; and
* proceedings by summons against the other person would not: ensure the appearance of the person before a court in respect of the offence; prevent a repetition or continuation of the offence or the commission of another offence; prevent the concealment, loss or destruction of evidence relating to the offence; prevent harassment of, or interference with, a person who may be required to give evidence in proceedings in respect of the offence; prevent the fabrication of evidence in respect of the offence; or would not preserve the safety or welfare of the person.

A person who arrests another person must, as soon as practicable after the arrest, arrange for the other person, and any property found on the other person, to be delivered into the custody of a constable."

Citizens' Arrests and the Lawfulness of Routine Searches by Security Guards: McKenzie v. The State (1998) SC596 [1998] MLJ 8; [1998-99] 26 MLJ 178 (1 January 1998)

Citizens’ Arrests and the Lawfulness of Routine Searches by Security Guards:

McKenzie v The State (1998) SC 596

Lawrence Kalinoe[*]

Introduction

The recent Supreme Court decision in McKenzie v The State (1998) SC 596 is significant from the point of view of civil liberties, and the refinement of the law on citizens’ powers of arrest including those of security guards. Furthermore, the Supreme Court makes some comments directly criticising and deploring the actions of security guards, particularly in trade stores, in conducting routine or random searches of customers at check points. The Supreme Court of course proceeded to pronounce such actions by security guards to be outside the scope of the Search Act (Ch 341 of the Revised Laws), and consequently illegal. It appears that this significant pronouncement of law by the Supreme Court has not yet been received and understood by security guards and their employers, resulting in the continuation today of the very conduct which the Supreme Court (Los, Hinchliffe and Injia JJ) have denounced. (It is ironical that as I am writing this note here in Madang, the security guards at the Best Buy Supermarket are continuing to conduct full body searches on customers, particularly young male persons, on their exit from the supermarket.)

A striking feature of this decision is that although the matter before the Supreme Court was a straightforward appeal against conviction and sentence by McKenzie, who had been convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment by the National Court under s 355 of the Criminal Code Act for unlawful deprivation of personal liberty of another person, the court has been exceptionally liberal in seizing the opportunity to comment on the wider societal issues, concerning the typical actions and conduct of security guards in trade stores and supermarkets. The Supreme Court has thus displayed clear attributes of judicial activism in its decision in this case.

Background to the McKenzie Case

A woman was accused of stealing a “hubba-bubba bubble gum” by security guards inside the Satu Wholesale store at about 8 am, soon after the store opened in West Goroka, Eastern Highlands Province. She was then apprehended by a security guard and the store supervisor. At the same time, Mr. McKenzie, who was the general manager of the store, arrived and after conducting his own inquiries concerning the incident, directed the security men to lock the woman up in a brick-wall storeroom located at the back of the store.

After locking the woman up, Mr. McKenzie and his workers completely forgot about her and they went about their normal daily work routine. In the evidence at the trial, Mr. McKenzie said that he “was busy attending to the business of the store because the store had just opened for business for only one month.” Neither Mr. McKenzie, the security guards nor anyone from the store rang the police at Goroka Police Station to report the incident and to request them to come over to take her to the Police Station to be further dealt with.

Luckily for the woman, she was in the company of some relatives when the incident happened that morning, who lodged a complaint at the Goroka Police Station. It was from the relatives’ complaint, rather than from the store management, that the police proceeded to the store and took her away at about 3.30 pm. Evidence at trial established that she had been locked up in the brick-wall storeroom for some eight hours before the police came, one may say, to her rescue!

It was under these circumstances that the police proceeded to charge Mr. McKenzie under s 355 of the Criminal Code Act (Ch 262) that reads:

“A person who unlawfully –

(a) confines or detains another in any place against his will; or

(b) deprives another of his personal liberty,

is guilty of a misdemeanour.

Penalty: Imprisonment for a term not exceeding three (3) years.”

The National Court found Mr. McKenzie guilty as charged and convicted him and sentenced him to six months imprisonment. Mr. McKenzie appealed to the Supreme Court against both conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against conviction but quashed the sentence of six months imprisonment and reduced it to two weeks, the period already served, and a further fine of K1,000 was imposed, to be paid within two weeks, or in default three months imprisonment.

The Supreme Court had initially handed down an oral judgement and promised to consider carefully its reasons and deliver a written judgement, because in its view (at 2):

“The appeal raises a broad but serious issue in the country. Many persons purport to exercise some powers to apprehend and detain others. They include security personnel and others who purport to exercise some powers bestowed upon them by various municipal authorities. We consider it necessary to discuss the relevant laws and constitutional provisions relating to the powers of apprehension, arrest and detention.”

Arrest and Detention

In Papua New Guinea, powers to effect a citizen’s arrest are given by statute law, namely the Arrest Act (Ch 339). Under s 5 of the Arrest Act, an ordinary citizen is empowered to arrest another person without warrant, if that person believes on reasonable grounds that such a person is either in the process of committing an offence or has committed an offence, where that offence carries imprisonment as its penalty. Under s 14 of the Arrest Act, the ordinary citizen that is effecting arrest must at that point inform the arrested person that he or she is now under arrest, and must also tell the person the reasons for the arrest, and must then tell arrested person to accompany him or her to a police station or a court. Reasonable force may be used by the person effecting arrest to prevent the arrested person from escaping. Then s 16 of the Arrest Act requires the person effecting arrest to hand over the arrested person to a police officer, or take or cause the arrested person to be taken to a police station, as soon as possible after making the arrest.

The Supreme Court in this case under review then emphasised (at 5) that “the process of arrest under the Arrest Act ordinarily involves the deprivation of liberty of the person arrested: it involves some form of physical or non-physical detention”. The court then went on to endorse (at 6) the following statement of law made by the Deputy Chief Justice, Sir Mari Kapi in an earlier case regarding the processes of arrest and detention. This is the case of State v Songke Mai [1988] PNGLR 56 (at 69) where the Deputy Chief Justice said:

“It is clear from this Act (Arrest Act) that arrest is the initial step of depriving a person of his liberty and is continually deprived for a period. To put the matter differently, ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ are two distinct procedures under the law and deprivation of liberty, which is common to both, commences upon ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’. The moment a person is ‘arrested’, he is ‘detained’ from that point on. ‘Arrest’ is very closely followed in point of time by ‘detention’. That is the law relating to ‘arrest’ and ‘detention’ in relation to persons who are suspected of committing a crime.”

The Supreme Court in the McKenzie case then (at 6-7) imposed the following five conditions for the powers of citizen’s arrest to be lawfully exercised to “arrest” and “detain” a person within the powers given by the Arrest Act:

“(1) The person arrested must be found committing or has committed a criminal offence for which the prescribed penalty is imprisonment: Arrest Act s 5;

(2) The force used, if any, to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of an arrested person must be reasonable in the circumstances: s 14(2) Arrest Act;

(3) The means or the method used to detain a person arrested, must be appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances: Arrest Act, s 14(2), s 16(2). As to what is reasonable depends on the given facts of each case. Relevant factors include the seriousness of the offence, resistance to arrest and the imminent risk of escape.

(4) Detention must only be for the purpose of enabling the person arrested to be conveyed to a policeman, a police station, a court or a proper place of confinement.

(5) The person arrested must not be detained for any period longer than is practically and reasonably necessary for the purposes set out above in paragraph 4.”

In the circumstances of the McKenzie case, the initial arrest and detention of the woman “by the store supervisor and the security guard ... for the purpose of taking her to the police station or for contacting the police to come and collect her, was for all [intents and] purposes lawful”. That is to say, she had been caught stealing the humble bubble gum, and stealing is an offence for which imprisonment is prescribed as the penalty under s 48C (2) of the Summary Offences Act. Further, the store supervisor and the security man had told her of the reasons for her arrest; and they had used reasonable force to apprehend and detain her. However (at 8),

“From this point on, what was lawful ‘detention’ turned out to be excessive and therefore unlawful. No attempt was made by the appellant to contact the police immediately or to take her to the police station nearby. The appellant himself could have simply taken her down to the police station in his car and hand her over to the police and laid a complaint. He failed to do so. The liberty of the victim took no priority in his order of business that morning and afternoon. The appellant went about his business and paid no regard to the urgency posed by the victim’s liberty. Even though she did not resist arrest and posed no threat of escape, he directed her to be locked up for some eight (8) hours in a brick-wall storeroom. The victim was only a simple village housewife. Her detention in a high security brick-wall store-room was unnecessary and excessive and therefore unlawful. For these reasons we concluded that the detention was clearly unlawful.”

Search of a Person’s Body, Clothes etc by Security Guards

The Supreme Court was very critical of the actions of security guards in conducting searches of a person’s body, clothes or other belongings at check points, particularly by security guards at shops and supermarkets in the Highlands region. The following passage (at 8-9) captures the full intent and vigour of the judgment:

“Trade store customers, both males and females, are subjected to routine or random searches of their body and clothes by security guards upon their entry and/or exit from self-service trade stores. This is then immediately followed by a citizens’ arrest and detention if the person is found in possession of property suspected to be stolen. If nothing is found, the person is allowed to pass through. Such practices are common in Papua New Guinea today, particularly in the Highlands region.”

The Supreme Court then made reference to the constitutional rights of citizens of freedom from arbitrary search and seizure of the person and property, as guaranteed under s 44 of the Constitution, and the right of privacy guaranteed by s 49 of the Constitution. The court noted that the circumstances in which these rights could be lawfully interfered with are set out under the Search Act (Ch 341), and the powers and duties of those persons authorised to search another person are strictly set out in ss 3-5 of the Arrest Act (as stated above). The court proceeded (at 9) to make the following important points:

“Ordinary citizens who intend to assume ‘police’ powers of search should take time to read these provisions carefully. A careful reading of these provisions show that ordinary citizens including security guards of trade stores have no power to conduct searches of trade store customers. Sections 3 and 5 [of the Search Act] specifically empower only a policeman, Correctional Officer, or an owner or a person in command of a craft or a person authorised by him, to conduct searches. Section 4 sets out the method or manner of conducting searches by those persons authorised to conduct searches under s 3 and s 5. Ordinary citizens are not given any power by the Search Act to search the person and properties, with or without a Search Warrant of trade store customers. We are not aware of any other statutes or regulations which empower ordinary citizens, particularly trade store owners, operators or their security guards, to conduct routine or random searches of customers.”

Conclusion

The pronouncement by the Supreme Court in this case marks a significant moment for civil liberties. The Supreme Court by this case, is sending out a strong message to the community, particularly security guards and proprietors of security companies and the owners of supermarkets and shops, that their actions in subjecting their customers to bodily searches is clearly unauthorised and is therefore illegal.

The message relayed by the Supreme Court to those concerned with depriving people of their freedom and subjecting them to illegal searches is that these actions must stop. Failing that, affected citizens are entitled to seek redress for enforcement of constitutional and civil rights, mainly under s 57 of the Constitution. This is a specific provision of the Constitution that is available particularly for the enforcement of constitutional rights and guaranteed freedoms. If the current trend in the police raid cases going before the National Court is any indication, the damages awarded against trade store owners or providers of their security at check points can be quite high. Quite apart from the enforcement process under s 57 of the Constitution, citizens whose rights and freedoms have been denied by security guards and operators of security firms are entitled to turn to the police for the criminal law process to take its course, as in the circumstances of the present case.

So you CAN arrest them but CANT search them.

The powers of citizen's arrest defined in the PNG Constitution are the only reason security guards, rangers and others can operate to stop theft and other crimes etc. But security guards have no special status in law. The right of citizen's arrest applies equally to everyone and anyone.

I think the good lawyer scaper has been contributing meaningfully to assist in understanding the process involved in getting the alleged lawyers to justice. For some of you to call him a whimp is typical of most PNG so called educated elites hidding behind pen names on the internet to raise unnecessary anxiety rather than contributing to constructive ideas to the real cause of the issue. I have read the lawyer's response and he has been very constructive and he is equally frustrated as the rest of us. So, if you are educated (because you can access the internet) and are serious of contributing in one way small or big, use common sense and avoid name calling...You can't solve anything by calling someone a whimp!

Thanks,

These dickhead lawyers..I used to beat them in school but now while I am struggling to put food on the table as an engineer, they are indulging in millions!

While sympathizing with my Engineer friend’s predicament, most lawyers too are struggling to put food on the table. But I won’t indulge on the semantics of socio - economic differences in professions. Another time perhaps. I do want to comment on Kalinoe's article. He's analysis is correct and that is a mechanism available for anyone to pursue. However, it won’t be an effective tool. What has to be appreciated is the doctrine of precedence. We are trying to cultivate a norm so that those implicated are made examples so that others do not commit such crimes.

First a conviction has to be identified and filed. As mentioned in my previous post, this has to be in my opinion an indictment and it can either be fraud or misappropriation. These two indictments have various principles that the evidence needs to identify. The evidence also has to go further and clearly make certain beyond reasonable doubt, those implicated intentionally commit these acts.

Misappropriation has a plethora of cases and principles. One that crooks for the counsels’ use is steering their client that the act was mismanagement and not misappropriation. The former was not intentional but dispersing money through the absence of a prudent system. While the latter is intentional dishonest use of the money. So therefore, if someone was using money to disperse with the absence of a system than they cannot be charged with misappropriation.

It is crucial though that the prosecutor applies the right indictment as if the evidence cannot support the charge, the indictment may not be prosecuted and as such, redressing the indictment. Note that this process is very sensitive and a prosecutor cannot shop around. They face the likelihood of striking out the case therefore evidence gathering is extremely crucial.
After the conviction has been ascertained and the court is in progress, an important element is having a fair idea on sentencing. This is the sort of punishment you want the accused to have. A controversial application would be for the prosecution to apply the ultimate penalty and that is the Death Penalty. If sentencing remedies in indictment are laughed upon then this is an avenue that may be pursued.

The other option is to liquidate all assets of those implicated and at the same time, still castrate them. The modality of liquidating assets will largely depend on what the value the accused has taken. From memory, the only Judge that has made decisions on this has been the current Chief Justice where he docked pay of police officers involved in a police raid that went horribly wrong where wanton destruction and loss of life occurred. So in his decision, he ordered officers implicated to pay from their superannuation, salaried and other entitlements while serving time in prison.

So apart from evidence gathering, the prosecutors must also frame their case on what would be the appropriate conviction and sentence. Although largely determined by evidence, it would be interesting to hear views from scapers on the conviction and sentencing aspects.

Countryside, please settle on finding something-anything- that you can do with your currently available resources so you can accomplish something more than idle chatter.

Resources??? dude I need evidence. Without them, it's pointless trying to use the system. My contacts in the inquiry counsels are limited and therefore if anyone has contacts, get them to submit the evidence. I understand the limitations and frustrations fellow scapers may have on the slowness of the legal process but that's what we have and it is evidence based. That is the trigger to start the process.
My offer stands, get me the evidence and I’ll make a Legal Brief that may be submitted to counsels in the RPNGC, PP and the OC.

whats your e-mail address

[email protected]