http://www.postcourier.com.pg/20090409/news07.htm
Opposition slams plan to buy VIP jet
THE Opposition has slammed the Government over its plans to buy a K128 million Falcon jet.
Deputy Opposition Leader Bart Philemon said the Government of Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare “does not care and has lost all sense of
shame”.
“Just last month, we increased MPs vehicle allowance by 50 per cent and housing allowance by 42 per cent - much to the embarrassment and
shame of some of us,” Mr Philemon said.
“And now the Government has robbed another priority expenditure to add to the budgeted K40 million from 2008 to purchase a Falcon jet.”
Mr Philemon said it was common knowledge that such an aircraft would be for the exclusive use of a few — the Prime Minister and his Cabinet
Ministers.
“And what is this about the difficulties the Prime Minister has with leg room on the current Kumul plane as a basis for the purchase of a
Falcon jet. How absurd can we get?
“What defies any rationale is that this Falcon Jet will only be able to land on four airports — Jackson in Port Moresby, Nadzab in Lae,
Vanimo in Sandaun and Tokua in East New Britain.
"What about the other airports in the other provinces and Bougainville? On what basis is this aircraft going to be bought given this glaring
limitation?
“How many times will our development partners remind us of our poor social indicators?
“How many times will taxpayers and our constituents decry the deteriorating roads and bridges?
“In short, when is this National Alliance-led Government of Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare going to get its priorities right?
“Time and time again, I have, based on the untabled Right-Sizing the Public Sector Report report, highlighted that:
l K20 million could go to pay for medical supplies to provide a full course of vaccinations for nearly 32,000 young children per year
l K10 million could pay for elementary schools for 34,000 per year
l K10 million could pay for regravelling of 60 kilometres of road
l K20 million could pay for single coat re-sealing of 200 kilometres of road
l K25 million could pay for an additional 1650 police increasing manpower strength by some 33 per cent.
“Given the unnecessary deaths of our mothers and children, can I call on the Government to reconsider its decision?
“Stop reinforcing the image of us politicians as self-serving MPs who do not care for our people,” Mr Philemon said.
Showing posts with label Somare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Somare. Show all posts
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Mr Philemon sums it up
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Integrity of Political Parties & Candidates
So I was talking about looking at the organic laws on the integrity of political parties and candidates and it must have meant to have been because unbeknownst to me, in a personal email i received a day before i blogged, a friend had actually sent me a bunch of documents including that very piece of legislation.
I had a look at it and to tell you the truth it the bulk of it is good in terms of bringing stability. I had read a newspaper article that indicated it was very restrictive and here are some of the restrictions it places that are onerous:
I had a look at it and to tell you the truth it the bulk of it is good in terms of bringing stability. I had read a newspaper article that indicated it was very restrictive and here are some of the restrictions it places that are onerous:
- s57: Members of a registered political party can not resign from the party unless they do within a 3 month period before the next elections are called. Further, resignation must be tendered with 30 days of the 3 month period. ie; So if elections are being called in December 2008, you can only quit your political party in September 2008. The only other way of quiting your political party is to show that the party committed a serious breach of its own constitution or has been made insolvent. The onus being on the person wishing to quit the party. Resignation for any other reason amounts to misconduct in office. So say, an independent member joined a party before parliament resumed after an election and 1 year into it finds he/she can't support the actions of that party any longer, it really is a "too bad buddy" situation. That member is stuck with that party for the whole 5 year term!
- s75 & s81: Citizens and non-citizens can donate a maximum of K 500 000 to candidates and political parties. Donating more than that results in a K10 000 fine or jail for no more than 2 years. Are you kidding me? K 500 000! If someone had more than that to donate, i'm sure they are not about to be perturbed by a mere K10 000 fine. Why is the maximum amount so huge? The US Presidential candidates can only have max donations of $US 4600! K 500 000 (or more) is preposterous and allows for favour-buying.
Something interesting though:
- s42(d): The Commission may cancel the registration of a registered political party where – the party without reasonable justification, fails to file financial returns, as required by this Law, for two consecutive years.
I know Somare hasn't been filing them but what about his party? If NA hasn't either then here's another way to get rid of them.
P.S the 18 months grace period for votes of no confidence is contained in s145 of the Constitution.
In other news, PNG will be one of the four Pacific countries Australia involves in their Pacific Solution/working visa arrangement. This makes me very happy because I swear I read just the other day that PNG would in fact NOT be one of the countries in the pilot program and was poised over my keyboard ready to cry out at the unjustice of it all!
Also, because I can't keep up with the hypocrisy, I will now have a column on the side for "Somare says" so we can all keep track of his "fight against corruption." I won't front, I started this blog to give an objective as possible insight on PNG politics and corruption but when the PM continues in the way he has, it's really hard not to just disbelieve and remain sceptical of everything he does say.
Here are two very good letters to the editor from The National: http://www.thenational.com.pg/081908/letter1.php, and; http://www.thenational.com.pg/081908/letter5.php. I strongly agree with the latter, the only way this country can really progress is by developing our human resources in a well- rounded way, education + attitude development, and I have blogged about the importance of ideology before.
Before I leave, here is a blog by a Papua New Guinean really trying to empower the people. I've heard about him and read his column but haven't yet read one of his books which I hope to get around to, he is the type of Papua New Guinean that gives me hope for our country: http://tirikuimbakul.blogspot.com/
Coming up soon: issues/rumours about the judiciary and its independence.
Oh and how much faith can we have in the Finance Department's new corporate plan?
Sunday, August 17, 2008
What's up, What's happening
So what has been going on PNG?
1) The Somare/Moti/Defence Board Inquiry Supreme Court Appeal: Was there actually an appeal? What stage are we at? Generally, what is going on? If anyone has info please update me, meanwhile i'll be on the hunt for an update from sources too. You can certainly tell I haven't been up with all my current affairs.
What I do know is that Moti is now back in Australia facing the child sex offences he ran from and into the safety of PNG, where our Government had no problems with sending him, VIP like, to the Solomons, using state property and services! Newcomers are welcome to browse my old post on this which looks into the legality of the whole Moti debacle.
2) The sacking of Issac Lupari, the Chief Secretary to Government: Mr Lupari has asked for a judicial review of the decision to sack him. He has/had two cases pending, with primary defendants being Somare and the Public Service Commission. I see the National Court was due to hand down its decision for Mr Lupari's action against Somare on 21 July 2008, what was the verdict?
3) And before he goes out of office, the Chief Ombudsman, Ila Geno, has attempted to reel Somare in. Somare lost his bid to have an injunction granted against the OC's inquiry and now he is appealing it. Apparently there was a mention before the National Court on 24 July 2008 but i wonder if a trial date was set and when? Well done to the OC nonetheless for doing their job!
4) Here is a link to a very good article summarising some of the happenings in PNG politics in the last 6 months: http://www.islandsbusiness.com/islands_business/index_dynamic/containerNameToReplace=MiddleMiddle/focusModuleID=18031/overideSkinName=issueArticle-full.tpl. Such as Somare and his problems with the OC and Lupari and the power struggle going-on between Government pollies for the big seat once Somare e v e n t u a l l y decides to retire. The best/quickest way right now for Somare to lose his throne (and there are so many reasons why) and for political power to be decentralised (let's face it, no one PNG PM has accumulated as much political power, influence and total disregard for proper processes as Somare) is for the government to break down from inside. Right now is when Chan and Morouta should be playing the old "divide & conquer" card. If our politicians weren't so greedy, people like Polye would have started walking away from Government some 6 months ago. I wish he would and lead a mass exodus with him. I'm not for a unstable country but neither am i for an autocracy or an oligarchy!
5) What do you think about Chan asking for the organic law on the integrity of political parties and candidates to be scrapped? I believe the initial intention behind it was good, i mean think back to the time when we had government changes every few months, however, i agree there is potential for exploitation, especially where the grace period is a whole 18 MONTHS!? 12 months should be the max, and if elections in PNG weren't such a big, violent, money- wasting hoopla I would even champion shorter electoral terms of 3 years. I know these integrity laws actually encompass more than a grace period and i need to really look at them because they may actually cause more restrictions than they are worth.
6) Also, how damn long is that finance inquiry taking?! According to the PNG Gossip Newsletter, "Chairman of the commission looking into the Finance Department, Maurice Sheehan, is still waiting on the K13 million promised by Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare in May. The commission has three months remaining to finalise a report for the Prime Minister to present to Parliament."
To end this first real back blogging, here's a bit more ~crazy~ talk from the Rt Hon Grand Chief, M T Somare, GCL GCMG CH CF KStJ Prime Minister http://www.pm.gov.pg/pmsoffice/pmsoffice.nsf/pages/0038CE0D9B4D4D204A2573AD00207C8F?OpenDocument. Do you really know what the people deserve Mr Somare? They deserve the truth and they deserve leadership and respect from their "leaders" for the laws and institutions of this country!
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Back with bitters
Poll results (multiple votes allowed): 72% of you felt the PM should resign because it is ethical to do so and 52% because the people have lost confidence in the PM and his office. 20% of you felt the PM should remain until found guilty by a court and 4% of you didn’t know or didn’t care. Overwhelming support for the Chief to STAND DOWN.
I’m back. Finally. Gosh it’s hard doing this blogging thing, especially when it sometimes seems so pointless. I pretty much got discouraged after reading this bullshit in the papers. Having only just drafted a letter to Dadae. Then I had work and more work and work and…it’s too damn easy to make it all about you and forget the bigger picture, of what is really going on, again, especially when it sometimes feels so pointless. But I’ve returned and many thanks to those who emailed me and encouraged the site!
So let’s do a whole 3-week backtrack on what has gone down in PNG.
Moti
First, as mentioned, Dadae and his plain stupidity. Since when is he, as a member of Parliament, able to overrule court findings? At least one good thing came out of it, well two, not only did Salika resoundly slap him down, but it’s now confirmed for all that there is in fact an appeal pending on the case. But when does that go through? What are we waiting on? Meanwhile, Dadae is being thrown into court for contempt and along with him some very senior news people. If they were in contempt, good on the Court but what I really want from the Supreme Court is a hearing of Somare’s appeal and a final decision. How long will this thing drag out for?
Again, I’m disappointed by the restrictions on civil society in PNG. Though apparently I’m not joined in this view by my friend Freddy Gigmai, whose various letters to the editor which the papers seem fit to repeatedly print are let us say, interesting. A Freddy column will be put up in the corner for us to follow this man’s opinions. I believe he may have been a journalist with The National and is truly exercising his right of free speech with letters to the editor, and though I may not agree with all he says, it will be interesting to follow his thoughts.
While we are on court proceedings, Mr Kua needs to stop. He seems to have created animosity with the Bench and is outdoing himself to bring his reputation down. Yes, he may be doing his job as a professional and trying to represent his client’s best interests but his declining relationship with the Bench and this business of arguing on mere technicalities is really not making him the best candidate for President of the PNG Law Society.
Budget
Meanwhile the Govt has produced a stellar budget. I commend it. However, I remain sceptical of trust accounts and though talk of money and economic growth is all well and good, I’m restraining my praises till I see some trickle-down happening. Mr Pruaitch can go on for all he wants about the fantastic growth in this country but what does that matter if living standards in PNG have improved nought and crime and security of person, seems to be getting worse, though stats say there has been slight improvement.
Bart Philomen too shares concerns with this love of trust accounts. Though the Govt. assures us there are only 200. Here’s a really good analysis of the budget including the dilemma with trust accounts and the truth that the Govt.’s budget can only truly be judged by the success and effectiveness of its implementation.
With all that money we should be able to adequately help victims of the flooding in Oro. Are we?
I’m back. Finally. Gosh it’s hard doing this blogging thing, especially when it sometimes seems so pointless. I pretty much got discouraged after reading this bullshit in the papers. Having only just drafted a letter to Dadae. Then I had work and more work and work and…it’s too damn easy to make it all about you and forget the bigger picture, of what is really going on, again, especially when it sometimes feels so pointless. But I’ve returned and many thanks to those who emailed me and encouraged the site!
So let’s do a whole 3-week backtrack on what has gone down in PNG.
Moti
First, as mentioned, Dadae and his plain stupidity. Since when is he, as a member of Parliament, able to overrule court findings? At least one good thing came out of it, well two, not only did Salika resoundly slap him down, but it’s now confirmed for all that there is in fact an appeal pending on the case. But when does that go through? What are we waiting on? Meanwhile, Dadae is being thrown into court for contempt and along with him some very senior news people. If they were in contempt, good on the Court but what I really want from the Supreme Court is a hearing of Somare’s appeal and a final decision. How long will this thing drag out for?
Again, I’m disappointed by the restrictions on civil society in PNG. Though apparently I’m not joined in this view by my friend Freddy Gigmai, whose various letters to the editor which the papers seem fit to repeatedly print are let us say, interesting. A Freddy column will be put up in the corner for us to follow this man’s opinions. I believe he may have been a journalist with The National and is truly exercising his right of free speech with letters to the editor, and though I may not agree with all he says, it will be interesting to follow his thoughts.
While we are on court proceedings, Mr Kua needs to stop. He seems to have created animosity with the Bench and is outdoing himself to bring his reputation down. Yes, he may be doing his job as a professional and trying to represent his client’s best interests but his declining relationship with the Bench and this business of arguing on mere technicalities is really not making him the best candidate for President of the PNG Law Society.
Budget
Meanwhile the Govt has produced a stellar budget. I commend it. However, I remain sceptical of trust accounts and though talk of money and economic growth is all well and good, I’m restraining my praises till I see some trickle-down happening. Mr Pruaitch can go on for all he wants about the fantastic growth in this country but what does that matter if living standards in PNG have improved nought and crime and security of person, seems to be getting worse, though stats say there has been slight improvement.
Bart Philomen too shares concerns with this love of trust accounts. Though the Govt. assures us there are only 200. Here’s a really good analysis of the budget including the dilemma with trust accounts and the truth that the Govt.’s budget can only truly be judged by the success and effectiveness of its implementation.
With all that money we should be able to adequately help victims of the flooding in Oro. Are we?
Before I go any further, I must mention the huuuuge coup PNG had with the EU at the PIF. Good? Maybe, however, if we have such a strong economy why in the hell are we so aid dependent? I don’t mind aid, I hate aid dependency and I hate being a pawn between the EU and Australia, making an asset of the rife corruption and thievery in this country. I’m hoping something is shown for this large unexpected windfall.
Congratulations to the Govt for reducing public debt. NONE of this legitimises Somare’s actions in the Moti Affair though. Sir Mek seems to have found more on Somare.
Hmmm of the day
Mr William Duma. Heard many whisperings over the suss conduct of this Member of Parliament. Especially in regards to the discharge of his duties as Minister for Environment and Conservation in the last Govt. There was talk of large “scratch my back” type favours being asked of mining and petroleum type projects requesting Ministerial consent, resulting in those who can ill afford it or with the higher moral ground walking away. Now I see he has implemented this. Is it to get people with petroleum licenses to get a move on and develop projects or will it be too easy now to ask for some cushioning at the end of every year? If the latter, then this can only discourage investors.
Mr Duma is one of the many Parliamentarians that live in Pom when their electorates are outside the NCD, I don’t get how that works but apparently it does. How can you represent your electorate if you visit it several weekends a year? And a member with a “urban” electorate has even less reason, they have all the technology and other modern comforts right within their electorate. I bring this up because of the slow decline of the Hagen Open electorate in terms of law and order problems, and the lack of comment or positive actions from its member. Mr Duma, can’t forward a few thousand kina every time a problem pops up and relax in Pom, nor can those other leaders who take the mandate of the people all the way to autonomous rule! Who are MPs accountable to if not their electorate?
Immigration
About bloody time is all I can bloody say. I do not know how far these improvements have come but probably not that far as last I heard the Dpt was still out of passport books and were issuing them to the most desperate cases, ie; go buy your ticket come in with it and they’ll sort something out…and if they can’t, you’re screwed. Kudos to Mr Abal and Mr Pepson for getting things moving though.
Ombudsman Commission
What are these new laws being proposed to limit the powers of the OC?
Aids
A few hours ago, it was World Aids Day. December 1st. Take a minute to reflect on the statistic of some 50 000 infected people in PNG. Take a minute to think about the mass of foreign aid and apparent budget surpluses PNG has, and then consider the struggle to get ARVs to infected persons and the struggle to make a concerted effort to teach sex education, especially safe sex education in PNG. I remember a friend’s human biology teacher, skipping the whole reproductive process because he felt ‘everyone knew enough’ about it, in other words he was uncomfortable.
The other problem is the increased risk-taking by people who feel they have nothing to lose. The sign of desperate society.
Lastly but worth your attention, I also got this in my inbox, can anyone shed some light, ie; true/false on the situation?
PNG people should be concerned about Somare's latest moves to turn the business interests of PNG into Somare Inc.
IPBC controls all of the PNG government's interests including its 18% ownership of Oilsearch. IPBC has now been put under the supervision of Arthur Somare even though Michael Somare is the caretaker Minister for that portfolio.
Somare has now appointed Glen Blake to IPBC Board and appointed Sana Somare, his eldest son, to PNG Power Board.
Glen Blake is the Managing Director of the Somare family companies Damai Investments and SBA Constructions Ltd.
Sana Somare is the Managing Director of SBA Construction, a small contractor company in Wewak.
Sana and Glen Blake are directors on the boards of these two companies with all the other somare children.
SBA stands for Sana, Bertha and Arthur construction.
By appointing Blake and Sana to the different boards of the statutory enterprises and IPBC under control of Arthur, Somare is turning IPBC and PNG Government's business interests into "Somare Inc."
Friday, October 5, 2007
Letter to the Prime Minister
I’ve been busy. See how easy it is to 'forget' an issue.
I started this blog because I was incensed with the whole system of corruption in PNG which was topped with that big red cherry that is the Moti affair. But after reading the papers today I haaaad to post something to get my sheer frustration out.
Here is what went down today: http://www.thenational.com.pg/100407/nationpage.htm
It’s not just about whether the PM committed a crime or not (how will we know when he keeps stalling the thing from getting to the DPP, where if he is innocent he will be found to be so), it’s about ethics as Professor John Nonggorr reminded everyone last week. It’s also about maintaining the nation’s confidence in the government and in the office of the Prime Minister (which need I add is addressed in the Leadership Code contained in the Constitution). This it seems is either beyond Somare’s understanding, below his understanding or amazingly non-existent to his understanding.
And now he proposes that the media should be further regulated? For what, publishing materials that disadvantage him?? This isn’t his private company, it’s a nation-state that is apparently democratic and, therefore, has a sovereign people. SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. In the event that this legislation does go through I hope it's challenged in the Courts under s39 of the Constitution as “REASONABLY [UN]JUSTIFIABLE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY."
Here’s a letter I drummed up and sent to the PM’s office, but off course bounced back because the email address does not exist anymore, so i've forwarded it to his media department and am airmailing it too. I do respect Somare’s achievements for this country but I am finding it harder to respect him as a person as more and more of his actions illustrate his disregard of proper procedure and ethical practise.
You too can send this letter (copy & paste) to the PM via pmsmedia@pm.gov.pg. Or send it in to the national newspapers. I've done it and maybe they'll print it but so should you just as a show of discontent...that is if you too are of the opinion that the PM should step down. If you don’t want to be so direct, change the last sentence in the last paragraph to the alternative in blue. ( A letter to the Defence Minister to encourage publication of the Report is next, if you've already written such a letter send it to kumul karai and we'll post it up.)
*We all know PNG is a small place so I would encourage people to send in letters under pseudonyms if they feel its safer because I do appreciate the dangers with speaking out. Even with pseudonyms we can at least illustrate the sheer numbers in discontent.PNGeans don't have many avenues open for protest that are safe and we shouldn't be prepared to wait every 5 years, so let's do what we can now.
Dear Mr Prime Minister,
I am writing this letter with recognition and respect for you as the first Prime Minister of this country, who so strongly campaigned for a free and independent Papua New Guinea. When you campaigned for Independence and envisioned a future for this nation, I am in no doubt you saw a strong democratic state where the people remained sovereign and were afforded adequate living standards and fundamental human rights.
As the years have proceeded and having just celebrated our 32nd Independence, it seems that the dreams you and all Papua New Guineans may have had for a successful nation, have not been entirely fulfilled. As a Papua New Guinean I am proud that PNG has reached 32 years of independence, however, I fail to remain proud of the condition of this nation after 32 years of independence. It seems we have taken big strides forward to take a multitude of small, quick steps back, progressively chipping away at the progress we have made as a united nation.
There is much to be desired in terms of the fulfilment of the basic human rights in this nation, including the provision of an adequate standard of living, food, shelter, education and healthcare for our people. Elements of this are illustrated in our nation’s incapacity to adequately address the HIV epidemic that has seized us. However, the problem I wish most to address in this letter to you is the diminishing respect for Papua New Guinea’s judicial and legal system that has progressed over the years. There are countless instances of the flagrant disrespect many Papua New Guineans have for the laws of this country, which has developed over the years to what can only be described as a systemic perpetuation of corruption.
Corruption is not only about stealing but relates to the abuse of power in decision-making processes. It is a form of behaviour that deviates from ethics, morality, tradition, law and civic virtue. Indeed corruption is rife in PNG. It pervades almost every level of society in PNG and it has developed from the top down. Corruption in this country has been able to spread so quickly and take such a stronghold because those at the top, including successive governments and politicians of this country, have directly or tacitly encouraged it, or have taken inadequate steps to address it. It is corruption that has led to the inadequate standards of living in this country, to the inadequate response to HIV/Aids, to the ignorance of fundamental human rights, to the effective demotion of PNG by the UN from a ‘developing’ nation to a ‘least-developed’ one, and in order for corruption to be halted, the change must come from the top.
Mr Prime Minister, the first step to ensuring that corruption is addressed in PNG is to reaffirm the people’s confidence in the Government and in the public offices of the nation. This requires all public office holders to adhere to the Leadership Code contained in our Constitution, which you were a part of establishing at Independence. The Leadership Code contained within the Constitution is very clear on what is expected from public office holders and espouses the need for maintenance of public confidence in these offices. Where the Leadership Code has been breached the offenders must retire from office and be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.
The Ombudsmen Commission is charged with the duty to ensure compliance with the Leadership Code, however, in the event that it fails to discharge its duty, I believe the onus should be on the alleged offender to comply with general principles of ethics and withdraw from office, until such time as proper investigations are conducted to clear them of the alleged breach(es). Alternatively, if there is widespread public outcry or loss of confidence in public offices due to a general opinion that breaches of the Leadership Code occurred, the office-holders in question must respect the sovereignty of the people in a democratic system and step-down.
Mr Prime Minister as the head of the nation I implore you to ensure that these ethical and democratic practises are adopted by the government to tackle the web of corruption that is suffocating our nation of Papua New Guinea. I have faith that you and your Government maintain the same dream you had at Independence; for a nation in possession of a thriving, transparent, accountable and effective democratic system. A system where adequate living standards are afforded and basic human rights are met and in maintaining this vision I ask you, Mr Prime Minister, as my representative in parliament to [step-down until such time as the Moti Affair has been sufficiently resolved by proper procedures] or[use your powers to the best of your ability to ensure ethical and democratic behaviour of all public office holders].
May God be with you and with our nation of Papua New Guinea.
Yours sincerely,
Kumul Karai
I started this blog because I was incensed with the whole system of corruption in PNG which was topped with that big red cherry that is the Moti affair. But after reading the papers today I haaaad to post something to get my sheer frustration out.
Here is what went down today: http://www.thenational.com.pg/100407/nationpage.htm
It’s not just about whether the PM committed a crime or not (how will we know when he keeps stalling the thing from getting to the DPP, where if he is innocent he will be found to be so), it’s about ethics as Professor John Nonggorr reminded everyone last week. It’s also about maintaining the nation’s confidence in the government and in the office of the Prime Minister (which need I add is addressed in the Leadership Code contained in the Constitution). This it seems is either beyond Somare’s understanding, below his understanding or amazingly non-existent to his understanding.
And now he proposes that the media should be further regulated? For what, publishing materials that disadvantage him?? This isn’t his private company, it’s a nation-state that is apparently democratic and, therefore, has a sovereign people. SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. In the event that this legislation does go through I hope it's challenged in the Courts under s39 of the Constitution as “REASONABLY [UN]JUSTIFIABLE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY."
Here’s a letter I drummed up and sent to the PM’s office, but off course bounced back because the email address does not exist anymore, so i've forwarded it to his media department and am airmailing it too. I do respect Somare’s achievements for this country but I am finding it harder to respect him as a person as more and more of his actions illustrate his disregard of proper procedure and ethical practise.
You too can send this letter (copy & paste) to the PM via pmsmedia@pm.gov.pg. Or send it in to the national newspapers. I've done it and maybe they'll print it but so should you just as a show of discontent...that is if you too are of the opinion that the PM should step down. If you don’t want to be so direct, change the last sentence in the last paragraph to the alternative in blue. ( A letter to the Defence Minister to encourage publication of the Report is next, if you've already written such a letter send it to kumul karai and we'll post it up.)
*We all know PNG is a small place so I would encourage people to send in letters under pseudonyms if they feel its safer because I do appreciate the dangers with speaking out. Even with pseudonyms we can at least illustrate the sheer numbers in discontent.PNGeans don't have many avenues open for protest that are safe and we shouldn't be prepared to wait every 5 years, so let's do what we can now.
Dear Mr Prime Minister,
I am writing this letter with recognition and respect for you as the first Prime Minister of this country, who so strongly campaigned for a free and independent Papua New Guinea. When you campaigned for Independence and envisioned a future for this nation, I am in no doubt you saw a strong democratic state where the people remained sovereign and were afforded adequate living standards and fundamental human rights.
As the years have proceeded and having just celebrated our 32nd Independence, it seems that the dreams you and all Papua New Guineans may have had for a successful nation, have not been entirely fulfilled. As a Papua New Guinean I am proud that PNG has reached 32 years of independence, however, I fail to remain proud of the condition of this nation after 32 years of independence. It seems we have taken big strides forward to take a multitude of small, quick steps back, progressively chipping away at the progress we have made as a united nation.
There is much to be desired in terms of the fulfilment of the basic human rights in this nation, including the provision of an adequate standard of living, food, shelter, education and healthcare for our people. Elements of this are illustrated in our nation’s incapacity to adequately address the HIV epidemic that has seized us. However, the problem I wish most to address in this letter to you is the diminishing respect for Papua New Guinea’s judicial and legal system that has progressed over the years. There are countless instances of the flagrant disrespect many Papua New Guineans have for the laws of this country, which has developed over the years to what can only be described as a systemic perpetuation of corruption.
Corruption is not only about stealing but relates to the abuse of power in decision-making processes. It is a form of behaviour that deviates from ethics, morality, tradition, law and civic virtue. Indeed corruption is rife in PNG. It pervades almost every level of society in PNG and it has developed from the top down. Corruption in this country has been able to spread so quickly and take such a stronghold because those at the top, including successive governments and politicians of this country, have directly or tacitly encouraged it, or have taken inadequate steps to address it. It is corruption that has led to the inadequate standards of living in this country, to the inadequate response to HIV/Aids, to the ignorance of fundamental human rights, to the effective demotion of PNG by the UN from a ‘developing’ nation to a ‘least-developed’ one, and in order for corruption to be halted, the change must come from the top.
Mr Prime Minister, the first step to ensuring that corruption is addressed in PNG is to reaffirm the people’s confidence in the Government and in the public offices of the nation. This requires all public office holders to adhere to the Leadership Code contained in our Constitution, which you were a part of establishing at Independence. The Leadership Code contained within the Constitution is very clear on what is expected from public office holders and espouses the need for maintenance of public confidence in these offices. Where the Leadership Code has been breached the offenders must retire from office and be dealt with by the appropriate authorities.
The Ombudsmen Commission is charged with the duty to ensure compliance with the Leadership Code, however, in the event that it fails to discharge its duty, I believe the onus should be on the alleged offender to comply with general principles of ethics and withdraw from office, until such time as proper investigations are conducted to clear them of the alleged breach(es). Alternatively, if there is widespread public outcry or loss of confidence in public offices due to a general opinion that breaches of the Leadership Code occurred, the office-holders in question must respect the sovereignty of the people in a democratic system and step-down.
Mr Prime Minister as the head of the nation I implore you to ensure that these ethical and democratic practises are adopted by the government to tackle the web of corruption that is suffocating our nation of Papua New Guinea. I have faith that you and your Government maintain the same dream you had at Independence; for a nation in possession of a thriving, transparent, accountable and effective democratic system. A system where adequate living standards are afforded and basic human rights are met and in maintaining this vision I ask you, Mr Prime Minister, as my representative in parliament to [step-down until such time as the Moti Affair has been sufficiently resolved by proper procedures] or[use your powers to the best of your ability to ensure ethical and democratic behaviour of all public office holders].
May God be with you and with our nation of Papua New Guinea.
Yours sincerely,
Kumul Karai
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Application for judicial review rejected
So I’ve been a little slow with the updating but as you all know by now, Somare’s attempt to have a judicial review of the DF Tribunal has been thrown out by the National Court. Heck, apparently Somare was not even a legitimate party in the proceedings. This means the Court has found that there is no reason to proceed as on the basis of the information available…(did Justice Sakora eventually get a copy of the Moti Report?)… no grounds for judicial review have been established. Let’s state that again: there is insufficient evidence that the Tribunal and its members were biased.
Where does that leave the whole Moti issue?
Well it means the report as a result of a procedurally proper and unbiased Tribunal must be tabled in parliament unless the Minister of Defence finds that it is not in the best interest of the public to do so. Right now I cannot think of a reason why it would be in PNG’s best interest to withhold the report, further, I can not think how effective it would be to block a report that is already publicly available. What I do think is important, in the public’s best interest and effective is for the Minister of Defence, in following the laws of PNG, to table the report whilst symbolically illustrating that no one is above the law, not even the Prime Minister of PNG.
What the Court decision also means for Somare is that the DPP and the Ombudsmen Commission must now take up the recommendations of the Tribunal as per s28(2) of the Constitution and investigate Somare for breaches of the Criminal Code and the leadership code contained in the Constitution. Recommendations against other named persons must also be taken up.
However, already the Defence Minister has indicated that he has no plans to table the Moti report because, “that report is very controversial and I do not want to do any thing with it.” In typical PNG style when something gets too difficult, too challenging, too long-winded, possibly dangerous for one’s self-interest we drop the damn thing and no one exemplifies this trait better than our pollies- even when it means contravening the laws of this country.
If the Minister of Defence does not act and the DPP and Ombudsmen Commission ignore the matter then this could end up just another forgotten issue of corruption. We cannot afford this. We must rally for the tabling of the Moti Report and for investigations into Somare and others during which time Somare should be suspended from office as per s142(6)(a) of the Constitution.
I am awaiting Monday’s news reports to tell us what the appropriate authorities are planning to do from here and what civil society in PNG will/can/should do from there.
Before I end I must thank God that PNG's judicial system is still strong, independent and just. There is hope yet. It's when the judiciary goes that we're pretty much f&*^$d.
Where does that leave the whole Moti issue?
Well it means the report as a result of a procedurally proper and unbiased Tribunal must be tabled in parliament unless the Minister of Defence finds that it is not in the best interest of the public to do so. Right now I cannot think of a reason why it would be in PNG’s best interest to withhold the report, further, I can not think how effective it would be to block a report that is already publicly available. What I do think is important, in the public’s best interest and effective is for the Minister of Defence, in following the laws of PNG, to table the report whilst symbolically illustrating that no one is above the law, not even the Prime Minister of PNG.
What the Court decision also means for Somare is that the DPP and the Ombudsmen Commission must now take up the recommendations of the Tribunal as per s28(2) of the Constitution and investigate Somare for breaches of the Criminal Code and the leadership code contained in the Constitution. Recommendations against other named persons must also be taken up.
However, already the Defence Minister has indicated that he has no plans to table the Moti report because, “that report is very controversial and I do not want to do any thing with it.” In typical PNG style when something gets too difficult, too challenging, too long-winded, possibly dangerous for one’s self-interest we drop the damn thing and no one exemplifies this trait better than our pollies- even when it means contravening the laws of this country.
If the Minister of Defence does not act and the DPP and Ombudsmen Commission ignore the matter then this could end up just another forgotten issue of corruption. We cannot afford this. We must rally for the tabling of the Moti Report and for investigations into Somare and others during which time Somare should be suspended from office as per s142(6)(a) of the Constitution.
I am awaiting Monday’s news reports to tell us what the appropriate authorities are planning to do from here and what civil society in PNG will/can/should do from there.
Before I end I must thank God that PNG's judicial system is still strong, independent and just. There is hope yet. It's when the judiciary goes that we're pretty much f&*^$d.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Moti Affair
Read my first post and you will understand why this issue in nowhere near done nor should it be considered so.
I don’t wish to address why Moti was being pursued by Australia 6 whole years after the dismissal of his case in Vanuatu (though a ‘new’ application has been pending in the Vanuatuan Supreme Court since 1999), nor the claims of a witch-hunt, nor whether a re-trial of Moti under the Australian judicial system could amount to double jeopardy.
What I wish to address is Papua New Guinea’s role in all this, in particular Somare’s role in the Moti affair and why his actions were at the least, so very very unnecessary. I will attempt not to enter into speculation (a paragraph with forewarning) on whether or not Somare sanctioned Moti’s escape aboard a PNGDF aircraft but I will analyse the illegality of his actions surrounding the aftermath of the Moti escape.
Contrary to some claims floating about on the net and to Somare’s own statement on the 15th of November 2006, Moti was arrested under PNG’s 2005 Extradition Act (“The Act”) not the 1975 one. The Act was implemented as a direct result of PNG’s membership of the Pacific Islands Forum and its signatory status to the Pacific Island Forum Commitment to Fight Transnational Crime, Money Laundering, Human and Drug Smuggling. The Act stipulates that extradition of nationals of Forum countries (Pacific Islands Forum) is to be processed under a different manner to that of nationals of non-Forum countries. The most significant difference between these processes being that the former is a purely judicial process while the latter allows for political involvement.
Moti as a national of a Forum country (Australia) was arrested on a provisional warrant as per section 10 (s.10) of The Act. Under s.10 an application for a provisional warrant is made on behalf of a Pacific Forum country and the Magistrate is told in an affidavit that the original warrant is in the Forum country and that the person named (who is in PNG or about to enter PNG) is the same as that named in the original warrant; and the Magistrate believes that it is reasonable to issue a warrant then they must issue the warrant. (Here I’m ignoring Somare’s ill-made claims that the same Magistrate cannot issue a warrant and hear the case- remember they’re assumed to be objective 3rd parties).
Now understandably there is confusion as to how Moti was arrested so here is a timeline on agreed facts to clear things up and again I’m only interested in PNG’s role in all this:
2006
· August: Australia puts a request out to Interpol for the arrest of Moti
· Interpol proceeds to send out a red alert to all its member countries for the apprehension and detention of Moti, including to the Pacific Transnational Crime Coordination Centre (PTCCC) in Fiji of which PNG is a member.
· September 28th: PNG Police receive the red alert from the PTCCC and also receive a request from Australia for a provisional warrant of arrest to be issued on their behalf by PNG officials for Moti’s arrest.
· September 29th: The Transnational Crime Unit of the PNG Police Force arrest Moti at Jacksons Airport at 5:30am on the info they’ve received from the PTCCC and the Australian request. There is no warrant for the arrest. It is unclear whether the arrest was made under s.3 of the Arrest Act 1977, which allows for arrests without a warrant.
· September 29th: According to Somare’s statement on 15th November 2006 a warrant of arrest is issued by the Waigani Committal Courts at 9:30am. What exactly the warrant of arrest was for (what crime) is unclear. Somare also mentions that an application for a warrant under the 1975 Extradition Act was made. Whether the warrant issued at 9:30am was under the old extradition act or whether Somare was referring to the provisional warrant issued the next day is also unclear. (Anyone who knows for sure the details of this apparent warrant please inform me)
· September 29th: Moti is released on bail
· September 30th: The Public Prosecutor obtains a provisional warrant of arrest under s.10 of the 2005 Extradition Act. Moti has failed to appear at the Waigani Committal Court, the Court then revokes bail and sets the date for proceedings a surrender warrant (ss.15-21 of The Act) on Monday the 2nd of October.
Moti never fronts, instead Moti has fled to the Solomons Embassy whereupon he was airlifted to the safety of the Solomons aboard a PNGDF aircraft.
Now so far the only place PNG may have gone wrong is with the arrest of Moti at Jacksons Airport. It’s unclear under what acts/laws he was arrested, however, if there was illegality here Moti could’ve easily contested the matter in Court …but he didn’t stick around did he.
Where PNG really goes wrong is with that wretched PNGDF flight out of PNG.
The thing is, it was all so very unnecessary. Prominent sources (yes, I have them) have suggested that Moti would’ve succeeded if he had been tried in PNG because at the time there was considerable ambiguity surrounding the 2005 Extradition Act and the implementation of its protocols. Jurisdictional issues would’ve been argued, including dual criminality and double jeopardy (if proven, both expressly prohibit extradition under the The Act). Moti as a QC would’ve known his chances were pretty good, hell he could’ve represented himself and flown Air Niugini to the Solomons, instead he escaped kanaka style because prominent Pacific Islanders are apparently above the law.
Here’s where I speculate a little…
If some of you out there still doubt whether the airlift was a PNG Government initiative then I advise you to crawl out of the rock you are under and join the real world. I appreciate the matter is before the Courts but everyone knows the orders had to have come from somewhere around the top, and let’s face it, with Somare’s hawk-like hold on PNG nothing of that extent would have occurred without at the least his knowledge and just a little above that his consent- express or otherwise; and as has been concluded by the Moti Inquiry all the evidence points at Somare’s express consent. Somare by sanctioning a PNGDF aircraft made his little dalliance with Moti an official executive action of the Government of Papua New Guinea.
End of speculation…
But let’s uphold the Constitution of PNG and state that Somare is innocent until proven guilty by a Court of law. However, this does not belittle the Defence Force Board of Inquiry in any way, as the conduction of an Inquiry into office-holders of the State is itself contained in s.28(1)(g) of the PNG Constitution. In fact s.28(2) of the Constitution states that where an independent tribunal has made recommendations, the appropriate authority shall act in accordance with the recommendation. In this case, the recommendations of the Moti Inquiry should be taken up by the authorities named; including the Ombudsmen Commission and the Department of Public Prosecutions who the Inquiry recommends investigate what it believes are violations of the leadership code (s.28 of the Constitution) and various criminal conduct (perverting the course of justice, conspiring to defeat justice…) executed by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare.
Now, it’s about here where things get a little heated, because apparently the Grand Chief is truly the Grand Chief of PNG so he can pretty much do whatever he wants. You’ll notice in a statement released by Somare on the 15th of November 2006 he was quick to point out the alleged illegality of Moti’s arrest and attempts to protect Moti’s rights under PNG’s Constitution, when the issue at hand was Moti’s escape NOT his arrest (attempting to distract much?). Yet, Somare himself has no qualms with ignoring and plain violating the Constitution and laws of PNG when he feels the need.
Setting aside the fact that Somare may have ordered the Moti escape, let’s look at his various other indiscretions including his violation of all forms of law:
1. Stating that PNG would let Moti walk prior to any Court hearing when the 2005 Extradition Act clearly states that extradition of Forum nationals is a purely judicial process, this could be seen as unconstitutional as it illustrates executive interference in judicial powers (separation of powers).
2. Arbitrarily sacking the Defence Minister (Ani) for apparently failing to request an extension of time for the Defence Board of Inquiry. Under s.3 of the Defence (Boards of Inquiry) Regulation 1978, the convening of a General Board of Inquiry (such as the Moti Inquiry) is done by the Minister of Defence and decisions pertaining to extension of the Inquiry’s duration is also up to the Minister as per s.2(3). Mr Ani did not need the PM’s express approval to extend the duration of the tribunal and as such the PM had no valid reason to sack Mr Ani and by doing so (for the reasons stated), Somare is probably in breach of the leadership code of conduct contained in the Constitution, particularly of s.27(1) of the Constitution which includes at part (c ): allow(ing) his public or official integrity, or his personal integrity, to be called into question.
3. In sacking Mr Ani the PM was also in breach of s.144 of the Constitution which requires that for a Minister to be dismissed: a motion of no confidence is to be passed against the Minister and that either the Head of State sack him on the PM’s advice or that he is sacked for a violation of the leadership code. This procedure was not followed.
4. Somare assumed the powers of the Ministry of Defence and made executive decisions about the Defence Force Board of Inquiry when clearly there is a conflict of interest (he is under investigation); this is a breach of s.27(1)(a) of the Constitution which states that the PM may not: place himself in a position in which he has or could have a conflict of interests or might be compromised when discharging his public or official duties.
5. Failing to make the Moti Inquiry public and threatening contempt of court for its publication. Under s.17 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1951 an Inquiry report must be tabled in parliament unless it is deemed to be in the public’s best interest to withhold publication. As there is no equivalent of s.17 in the Defence Force (Board of Inquiries) Regulation, we must assume that something of a similar nature is applicable as s.51 of the Defence Act 1974 refers to Regulation of Defence Force Boards of Inquiries incorporating the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. In this light, I fail to see how an action that would not be in Somare’s best interest equates to not being in the public’s best interest too. Yes he may be the Grand Chief but we also have a democracy in this country. The law is clear here and Somare has violated it by stalling the Moti Report’s publication- even before his Court case was pending. Again Somare is in breach of the leadership code.
6. Bringing an action against members of the Defence Board of Inquiry. Somare has clearly on some legal advice on the finer points of law (thanks Mr Kua) weaselled his way around to bring an action against the Tribunal who under the proper process of the law would have been protected.
S.18 of the Defence Force (Board of Inquiry) Regulation states:
where the Minister consents to the publication of a report of a Board, no action or proceeding in respect of the publishing of that report may be brought against–
(a) the State or its agents or servants; or
(b) a Minister; or
(c) a member of the Board.
Somare deliberately fired Mr Ani so he, with the powers of the Minister of Defence, could sit on the Inquiry’s Report, halt it from publication (illegally) and then bring an action against the Members of the Board. What a laugh…or real cleverness…or plain treachery, whichever way you look at it. What happened to judicial immunity and/or its equivalent?
Let me break it down real slow…
Somare sacked the Minister of Defence because he did not want the appropriate authorities, including the Ombudsmen Commission to follow the Inquiry’s recommendations as required by law, which could see him suspended while the investigations were pending (s.142(6)(a) of the Constitution) and at worst dismissed from his office if found guilty at trial. Now why would the Grand Chief let go of such a Grand Title?
In order to get his way Somare knew he had to stop the Inquiry’s Report from getting out. How does one do that? By halting publication of the Report and on that technicality bringing a case against the members of the Inquiry.
Apparently the Inquiry was biased. Well why didn’t Somare and his lawyer bring that up during the Inquiry? Instead Somare waited until the evidence implicated him before he took the law into his own hands to protect his own backside.
If the proper legal procedures were followed the Minister of Defence would’ve been Mr Ani and the Inquiry’s report would’ve been published. The members of the Board of Inquiry would’ve been protected from court action and the appropriate authorities would’ve taken up the recommendations of the Inquiry. The Ombudsmen Commission and the DPP would’ve investigated Somare and he would’ve then had the chance to dismiss the evidentiary value of the Inquiry Report on the same grounds he is brandishing about in Court now. In that scenario, if Somare succeeded the Inquiry Report would’ve been thrown out and the case proceed on other evidence or if there was insufficient evidence, the case dismissed. You see there was always legal redress available for Somare the proper way; he just didn’t fancy the proper way.
Somare has preferred the short cut route because it keeps him in power for just that little while longer (god forbid a suspension) and of course he may have apprehended the possibility of the Ombudsmen Commission and the DPP finding him guilty of misconduct and violations of the Criminal Code. And his actions show that apparently he could not possibly risk that. The actions of a guilty man? We may never know, because this man has duped and continues to dupe PNG.
Regardless of the Board of Inquiry Report recommendations the Ombudsmen Commission is still able to investigate Somare for breaches of the leadership code pertaining to his dismissal of the Defence Minister (Ani) and his assumption of the Defence Powers regarding the Board of Inquiry. I would encourage the Ombudsmen Commission to do so and for PNG’s general public to encourage the Ombudsmen Commission to do so too. No one is above the law no matter what niceties you put in front of your name.
For a similar style article regarding the breach of Solomon Islands laws in the whole Moti Affair check this out (Dated Friday May 25th): http://biukili.blogspot.com/
And just for lolz…but seriously:
s.142 of the Constitution:
5) The Prime Minister–
(a)… (b)…
(c) may be removed from office by the Head of State, acting in accordance with a decision of the Parliament, if the Speaker advises the Parliament that two medical practitioners appointed by the National Authority responsible for the registration or licensing of medical practitioners have jointly reported in accordance with an Act of the Parliament that, in their professional opinions, the Prime Minister is unfit, by reason of physical or mental incapacity, to carry out the duties of his office.
UPDATE: I see Somare is trying to hide the Moti Report from the National Court too. How can you contest something you won’t let the Court see??? Come on Mr Kua, you should know better than that. http://www.thenational.com.pg/090507/nation2.htm
I don’t wish to address why Moti was being pursued by Australia 6 whole years after the dismissal of his case in Vanuatu (though a ‘new’ application has been pending in the Vanuatuan Supreme Court since 1999), nor the claims of a witch-hunt, nor whether a re-trial of Moti under the Australian judicial system could amount to double jeopardy.
What I wish to address is Papua New Guinea’s role in all this, in particular Somare’s role in the Moti affair and why his actions were at the least, so very very unnecessary. I will attempt not to enter into speculation (a paragraph with forewarning) on whether or not Somare sanctioned Moti’s escape aboard a PNGDF aircraft but I will analyse the illegality of his actions surrounding the aftermath of the Moti escape.
Contrary to some claims floating about on the net and to Somare’s own statement on the 15th of November 2006, Moti was arrested under PNG’s 2005 Extradition Act (“The Act”) not the 1975 one. The Act was implemented as a direct result of PNG’s membership of the Pacific Islands Forum and its signatory status to the Pacific Island Forum Commitment to Fight Transnational Crime, Money Laundering, Human and Drug Smuggling. The Act stipulates that extradition of nationals of Forum countries (Pacific Islands Forum) is to be processed under a different manner to that of nationals of non-Forum countries. The most significant difference between these processes being that the former is a purely judicial process while the latter allows for political involvement.
Moti as a national of a Forum country (Australia) was arrested on a provisional warrant as per section 10 (s.10) of The Act. Under s.10 an application for a provisional warrant is made on behalf of a Pacific Forum country and the Magistrate is told in an affidavit that the original warrant is in the Forum country and that the person named (who is in PNG or about to enter PNG) is the same as that named in the original warrant; and the Magistrate believes that it is reasonable to issue a warrant then they must issue the warrant. (Here I’m ignoring Somare’s ill-made claims that the same Magistrate cannot issue a warrant and hear the case- remember they’re assumed to be objective 3rd parties).
Now understandably there is confusion as to how Moti was arrested so here is a timeline on agreed facts to clear things up and again I’m only interested in PNG’s role in all this:
2006
· August: Australia puts a request out to Interpol for the arrest of Moti
· Interpol proceeds to send out a red alert to all its member countries for the apprehension and detention of Moti, including to the Pacific Transnational Crime Coordination Centre (PTCCC) in Fiji of which PNG is a member.
· September 28th: PNG Police receive the red alert from the PTCCC and also receive a request from Australia for a provisional warrant of arrest to be issued on their behalf by PNG officials for Moti’s arrest.
· September 29th: The Transnational Crime Unit of the PNG Police Force arrest Moti at Jacksons Airport at 5:30am on the info they’ve received from the PTCCC and the Australian request. There is no warrant for the arrest. It is unclear whether the arrest was made under s.3 of the Arrest Act 1977, which allows for arrests without a warrant.
· September 29th: According to Somare’s statement on 15th November 2006 a warrant of arrest is issued by the Waigani Committal Courts at 9:30am. What exactly the warrant of arrest was for (what crime) is unclear. Somare also mentions that an application for a warrant under the 1975 Extradition Act was made. Whether the warrant issued at 9:30am was under the old extradition act or whether Somare was referring to the provisional warrant issued the next day is also unclear. (Anyone who knows for sure the details of this apparent warrant please inform me)
· September 29th: Moti is released on bail
· September 30th: The Public Prosecutor obtains a provisional warrant of arrest under s.10 of the 2005 Extradition Act. Moti has failed to appear at the Waigani Committal Court, the Court then revokes bail and sets the date for proceedings a surrender warrant (ss.15-21 of The Act) on Monday the 2nd of October.
Moti never fronts, instead Moti has fled to the Solomons Embassy whereupon he was airlifted to the safety of the Solomons aboard a PNGDF aircraft.
Now so far the only place PNG may have gone wrong is with the arrest of Moti at Jacksons Airport. It’s unclear under what acts/laws he was arrested, however, if there was illegality here Moti could’ve easily contested the matter in Court …but he didn’t stick around did he.
Where PNG really goes wrong is with that wretched PNGDF flight out of PNG.
The thing is, it was all so very unnecessary. Prominent sources (yes, I have them) have suggested that Moti would’ve succeeded if he had been tried in PNG because at the time there was considerable ambiguity surrounding the 2005 Extradition Act and the implementation of its protocols. Jurisdictional issues would’ve been argued, including dual criminality and double jeopardy (if proven, both expressly prohibit extradition under the The Act). Moti as a QC would’ve known his chances were pretty good, hell he could’ve represented himself and flown Air Niugini to the Solomons, instead he escaped kanaka style because prominent Pacific Islanders are apparently above the law.
Here’s where I speculate a little…
If some of you out there still doubt whether the airlift was a PNG Government initiative then I advise you to crawl out of the rock you are under and join the real world. I appreciate the matter is before the Courts but everyone knows the orders had to have come from somewhere around the top, and let’s face it, with Somare’s hawk-like hold on PNG nothing of that extent would have occurred without at the least his knowledge and just a little above that his consent- express or otherwise; and as has been concluded by the Moti Inquiry all the evidence points at Somare’s express consent. Somare by sanctioning a PNGDF aircraft made his little dalliance with Moti an official executive action of the Government of Papua New Guinea.
End of speculation…
But let’s uphold the Constitution of PNG and state that Somare is innocent until proven guilty by a Court of law. However, this does not belittle the Defence Force Board of Inquiry in any way, as the conduction of an Inquiry into office-holders of the State is itself contained in s.28(1)(g) of the PNG Constitution. In fact s.28(2) of the Constitution states that where an independent tribunal has made recommendations, the appropriate authority shall act in accordance with the recommendation. In this case, the recommendations of the Moti Inquiry should be taken up by the authorities named; including the Ombudsmen Commission and the Department of Public Prosecutions who the Inquiry recommends investigate what it believes are violations of the leadership code (s.28 of the Constitution) and various criminal conduct (perverting the course of justice, conspiring to defeat justice…) executed by the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, Sir Michael Somare.
Now, it’s about here where things get a little heated, because apparently the Grand Chief is truly the Grand Chief of PNG so he can pretty much do whatever he wants. You’ll notice in a statement released by Somare on the 15th of November 2006 he was quick to point out the alleged illegality of Moti’s arrest and attempts to protect Moti’s rights under PNG’s Constitution, when the issue at hand was Moti’s escape NOT his arrest (attempting to distract much?). Yet, Somare himself has no qualms with ignoring and plain violating the Constitution and laws of PNG when he feels the need.
Setting aside the fact that Somare may have ordered the Moti escape, let’s look at his various other indiscretions including his violation of all forms of law:
1. Stating that PNG would let Moti walk prior to any Court hearing when the 2005 Extradition Act clearly states that extradition of Forum nationals is a purely judicial process, this could be seen as unconstitutional as it illustrates executive interference in judicial powers (separation of powers).
2. Arbitrarily sacking the Defence Minister (Ani) for apparently failing to request an extension of time for the Defence Board of Inquiry. Under s.3 of the Defence (Boards of Inquiry) Regulation 1978, the convening of a General Board of Inquiry (such as the Moti Inquiry) is done by the Minister of Defence and decisions pertaining to extension of the Inquiry’s duration is also up to the Minister as per s.2(3). Mr Ani did not need the PM’s express approval to extend the duration of the tribunal and as such the PM had no valid reason to sack Mr Ani and by doing so (for the reasons stated), Somare is probably in breach of the leadership code of conduct contained in the Constitution, particularly of s.27(1) of the Constitution which includes at part (c ): allow(ing) his public or official integrity, or his personal integrity, to be called into question.
3. In sacking Mr Ani the PM was also in breach of s.144 of the Constitution which requires that for a Minister to be dismissed: a motion of no confidence is to be passed against the Minister and that either the Head of State sack him on the PM’s advice or that he is sacked for a violation of the leadership code. This procedure was not followed.
4. Somare assumed the powers of the Ministry of Defence and made executive decisions about the Defence Force Board of Inquiry when clearly there is a conflict of interest (he is under investigation); this is a breach of s.27(1)(a) of the Constitution which states that the PM may not: place himself in a position in which he has or could have a conflict of interests or might be compromised when discharging his public or official duties.
5. Failing to make the Moti Inquiry public and threatening contempt of court for its publication. Under s.17 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1951 an Inquiry report must be tabled in parliament unless it is deemed to be in the public’s best interest to withhold publication. As there is no equivalent of s.17 in the Defence Force (Board of Inquiries) Regulation, we must assume that something of a similar nature is applicable as s.51 of the Defence Act 1974 refers to Regulation of Defence Force Boards of Inquiries incorporating the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. In this light, I fail to see how an action that would not be in Somare’s best interest equates to not being in the public’s best interest too. Yes he may be the Grand Chief but we also have a democracy in this country. The law is clear here and Somare has violated it by stalling the Moti Report’s publication- even before his Court case was pending. Again Somare is in breach of the leadership code.
6. Bringing an action against members of the Defence Board of Inquiry. Somare has clearly on some legal advice on the finer points of law (thanks Mr Kua) weaselled his way around to bring an action against the Tribunal who under the proper process of the law would have been protected.
S.18 of the Defence Force (Board of Inquiry) Regulation states:
where the Minister consents to the publication of a report of a Board, no action or proceeding in respect of the publishing of that report may be brought against–
(a) the State or its agents or servants; or
(b) a Minister; or
(c) a member of the Board.
Somare deliberately fired Mr Ani so he, with the powers of the Minister of Defence, could sit on the Inquiry’s Report, halt it from publication (illegally) and then bring an action against the Members of the Board. What a laugh…or real cleverness…or plain treachery, whichever way you look at it. What happened to judicial immunity and/or its equivalent?
Let me break it down real slow…
Somare sacked the Minister of Defence because he did not want the appropriate authorities, including the Ombudsmen Commission to follow the Inquiry’s recommendations as required by law, which could see him suspended while the investigations were pending (s.142(6)(a) of the Constitution) and at worst dismissed from his office if found guilty at trial. Now why would the Grand Chief let go of such a Grand Title?
In order to get his way Somare knew he had to stop the Inquiry’s Report from getting out. How does one do that? By halting publication of the Report and on that technicality bringing a case against the members of the Inquiry.
Apparently the Inquiry was biased. Well why didn’t Somare and his lawyer bring that up during the Inquiry? Instead Somare waited until the evidence implicated him before he took the law into his own hands to protect his own backside.
If the proper legal procedures were followed the Minister of Defence would’ve been Mr Ani and the Inquiry’s report would’ve been published. The members of the Board of Inquiry would’ve been protected from court action and the appropriate authorities would’ve taken up the recommendations of the Inquiry. The Ombudsmen Commission and the DPP would’ve investigated Somare and he would’ve then had the chance to dismiss the evidentiary value of the Inquiry Report on the same grounds he is brandishing about in Court now. In that scenario, if Somare succeeded the Inquiry Report would’ve been thrown out and the case proceed on other evidence or if there was insufficient evidence, the case dismissed. You see there was always legal redress available for Somare the proper way; he just didn’t fancy the proper way.
Somare has preferred the short cut route because it keeps him in power for just that little while longer (god forbid a suspension) and of course he may have apprehended the possibility of the Ombudsmen Commission and the DPP finding him guilty of misconduct and violations of the Criminal Code. And his actions show that apparently he could not possibly risk that. The actions of a guilty man? We may never know, because this man has duped and continues to dupe PNG.
Regardless of the Board of Inquiry Report recommendations the Ombudsmen Commission is still able to investigate Somare for breaches of the leadership code pertaining to his dismissal of the Defence Minister (Ani) and his assumption of the Defence Powers regarding the Board of Inquiry. I would encourage the Ombudsmen Commission to do so and for PNG’s general public to encourage the Ombudsmen Commission to do so too. No one is above the law no matter what niceties you put in front of your name.
For a similar style article regarding the breach of Solomon Islands laws in the whole Moti Affair check this out (Dated Friday May 25th): http://biukili.blogspot.com/
And just for lolz…but seriously:
s.142 of the Constitution:
5) The Prime Minister–
(a)… (b)…
(c) may be removed from office by the Head of State, acting in accordance with a decision of the Parliament, if the Speaker advises the Parliament that two medical practitioners appointed by the National Authority responsible for the registration or licensing of medical practitioners have jointly reported in accordance with an Act of the Parliament that, in their professional opinions, the Prime Minister is unfit, by reason of physical or mental incapacity, to carry out the duties of his office.
UPDATE: I see Somare is trying to hide the Moti Report from the National Court too. How can you contest something you won’t let the Court see??? Come on Mr Kua, you should know better than that. http://www.thenational.com.pg/090507/nation2.htm
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
