Archive
Police still pursuing Sakora over Paraka link
Damaru outside court: Police allege Sakora received K100,000 for issuing media ban
Court to review Justice Sakora’s case dismissal
Source: PNG Loop
The Waigani National Court will be reviewing the decision of the Committal Court on 7 June, 2016, which dismissed the case of alleged judicial corruption against Justice Sir Bernard Sakora.
SEE ALSO: Post Courier Wrong: Sakora not acquitted
Justice Leka Nablu today granted leave to an application that was moved by Director of the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate, Matthew Damaru, on May 18, asking the court to review that decision of Magistrate John Kaumi.
Magistrate Kaumi dismissed the case and the information that was laid against Sir Bernard.
The Committal Court’s view was that it does not have jurisdiction to prosecute or commence a criminal proceeding against Sir Bernard, who occupies a judicial office because certain laws were not complied with.
Sir Bernard was charged with one count of judicial corruption, contrary to section 119(2)(a) of the Criminal Code Act. Under section 119(5), prosecution of an offence against a person who holds a judicial office “cannot begun except on the direction of the Public Prosecutor”.
Damaru and Inspector Joel Simatab, as police investigating officers, were aggrieved by the committal court’s decision and filed this judicial review proceeding in the National Court.
Justice Nablu was satisfied they had an arguable case because it was of public interest, raising serious issues.
Amongst issues raised was when prosecution commenced in a case, at what time the Public Prosecutor’s directions under section 119 are required and if the magistrate has the discretion to consider other applications during the committal process.
All these issues raised will be looked at by the court in the proper review trial.
Justice Nablu, in granting leave, was also satisfied Damaru and Simatab had sufficient interest as investigating officers and had exhausted all available remedies before coming to court.
She was however, concerned over the state’s lack of interest in the proceeding in the leave stage because no representative from the Solicitor General’s office assisted the court with submissions.
“It’s quite concerning that the Solicitor General does not see this as a case of public importance or interest where the state, as a named defendant, should be present in these proceedings.
“As a senior state lawyer and one of the senior court officials, the Solicitor General not only represents the interest of the state, he or she has an ethical duty to the court.
“To fail to attend at the leave application and assist the court is unacceptable and disrespectful to the court,” Justice Nablu said.
Substantively, the senior police officers are asking the court to quash the decision of the Committal Court dated 7 June 2016, and compel the district court to rehear the committal proceeding before a different magistrate.
The matter returns to court on June 13 for directions.
Australia entrusts its governance program to an exposed fraudster
Exposed fraudster Isaac Lupari and Australian High Commissioner, Bruce Davis, chair the first Strategic Management Committee meeting to oversee the new PNG Governance Facility (PGF).
The photo above and the story at the bottom of this article rather sum up Australia’s relationship with PNG. Basically, Australia couldn’t give two hoots about corruption in PNG as long as some of the money keeps flowing into the Queensland property market, Australian companies get big contracts from the PNG government and cheap access to PNG resources, and, of course, the gulag on Manus stays open.
What PNG desperately needs is international friends who insist on upholding the highest standards of integrity and good governance, not countries like Australia, interested in only what they can bleed from our own suffering…
This is what the Finance Commission of Inquiry had to say about the co-chair of Australia’s Strategic Management Committee overseeing the new PNG Governance Facility, Isaac Lupari, and his K3.7 million fraud:
‘Mr. Isaac Lupari sued the State for breach of four separate contracts that were entered into as Secretary for the Departments of Finance, Defence, DPM and Transport in that order. He claimed that he had been unlawfully terminated from all those positions after serving short stints in each and claimed the balance of all pay and entitlements for the unexpired period of all four contracts’.
The Commission observes:
‘It will be clear from the evidence gathered so far that Mr. Lupari never suffered any loss of pay and entitlements, and was adequately remunerated by the State for the whole time that he claimed for and beyond’.
In summary the Commission of Inquiry found:
- In 1997 Lupari was appointed Finance Secretary by Prime Minister Bill Skate, the mentor to our current PM, Mr O’Neill.
- On 15 January 1998 he was sacked by the Skate government, but as fortune has it, the very same day he got the job of Defense Secretary.
- On 17 March 2000 he was made Secretary for the Department of Personnel Management by the Morauta government, with a contracted end date of 29th of June 2000.
- On the day his contract ended, Lupari was made Transport Secretary.
- Nevertheless, Lupari claimed he was unlawfully dismissed as Secretary for the Department of Personnel Management.
- His legal team was … Paul Paraka lawyers.
- The Attorney General and Solicitor General settled the claim for a cool K1 million, which was paid by the Department of Finance on the 17 September 2004 by cheque No. 790468.
- A further K2.7 million in settlements were agreed with Lupari, after he claimed he was also dismissed as Transport, Finance and Defense Secretary– the Commission was unable to find evidence of whether this money was paid.
The Commission concluded:
‘Mr. Isaac Lupari knew full well that his claims amounted to triple and quadruple dipping. Yet he went ahead and instructed his lawyers to file claims against the State in the National Court’.
‘Mr. Lupari was not entitled to the K3,703,461.31, either legally or morally. Paul Paraka lawyers engaged in deceptive conduct when filing Writs in the order they did’.
Read the Commission report on Issac Lupari (220KB)
Strengthening the PNG-Australia Governance Partnership
CHIEF Secretary to Government Isaac Lupari and Australian High Commissioner, Bruce Davis, welcomed a new chapter in the PNG-Australia Governance Partnership.
They chaired the first Strategic Management Committee meeting to oversee the new Papua New Guinea Governance Facility (PGF).
The PGF will help consolidate and deliver our governance and economic cooperation around shared priorities.
“This reflects the close working partnership between our Governments. Through the Strategic Management Committee, senior officials from both the Australian Government and Government of Papua New Guinea, including Chief Secretary Isaac Lupari CBE, will provide oversight of the economic and governance partnership to ensure it is aligned effectively to Papua New Guinea’s priorities,” said Australian High Commissioner Bruce Davis.
Australia is committed to working in partnership with Papua New Guinea as Papua New Guinea progresses PNG Vision 2050.
Has PM O’Neill appointed a fraudster to investigate the alleged Duma Fraud?
Chief Sec Issac Lupari was condemned by the Commission of Inquiry into the Department of Finance for being the mastermind of a multimillion dollar fraud
This week we were reminded why PNG needs an impartial, independent and well-resourced corruption fighting force – as Minister William Duma attempted to deflect attention from evidence pointing to his involvement in two major land grabs, worth tens, if not, hundreds of millions.
Prime Minister O’Neill assures us, the matter will be thoroughly investigated by Police Commissioner, Gary Baki – a close ally of the PM – and wait for it, his Chief Secretary Issac Lupari.
We can reveal that the Chief Secretary Issac Lupari was condemned by the Commission of Inquiry into the Department of Finance for being the mastermind of a multimillion dollar fraud.
The Commission of Inquiry observed:
‘Mr. Issaac Lupari sued the State for breach of four separate contracts that were entered into as Secretary for the Departments of Finance, Defence, DPM and Transport in that order. He claimed that he had been unlawfully terminated from all those positions after serving short stints in each and claimed the balance of all pay and entitlements for the unexpired period of all four contracts’.
The Commission observes:
‘It will be clear from the evidence gathered so far that Mr. Lupari never suffered any loss of pay and entitlements, and was adequately remunerated by the State for the whole time that he claimed for and beyond’.
In summary the Commission of Inquiry found:
- In 1997 Lupari was appointed Finance Secretary by Prime Minister Bill Skate, the mentor to our current PM, Mr O’Neill.
- On 15 January 1998 he was sacked by the Skate government, but as fortune has it, the very same day he got the job of Defense Secretary.
- On 17 March 2000 he was made Secretary for the Department of Personnel Management by the Morauta government, with a contracted end date of 29th of June 2000.
- On the day his contract ended, Lupari was made Transport Secretary.
- Nevertheless, Lupari claimed he was unlawfully dismissed as Secretary for the Department of Personnel Management.
- His legal team was … Paul Paraka lawyers.
- The Attorney General and Solicitor General settled the claim for a cool K1 million, which was paid by the Department of Finance on the 17 September 2004 by cheque No. 790468.
- A further K2.7 million in settlements were agreed with Lupari, after he claimed he was also dismissed as Transport, Finance and Defense Secretary– the Commission was unable to find evidence of whether this money was paid.
The Commission concluded:
‘Mr. Isaac Lupari knew full well that his claims amounted to triple and quadruple dipping. Yet he went ahead and instructed his lawyers to file claims against the State in the National Court’.
‘Mr. Lupari was not entitled to the K3,703,461.31, either legally or morally. Paul Paraka lawyers engaged in deceptive conduct when filing Writs in the order they did’.
‘Paul Paraka Lawyers did not submit quantum submissions. Purported quantum submissions later produced to the Commission were fabricated after the Col summoned same from Mr. Guguna Garo of Paul Paraka Lawyers’.
‘Paul Paraka lawyers were paid K200,000.00 for each matter totaling K800,000 for doing a minimal amount of work. That work consisted only of drafting the four Writs of Summons. There were no appearances in Court and no protracted negotiations before agreement was reached to settle the four matters out of Court’.
Read the Commission report on Issac Lupari (220KB)
So this is the honourable fellow who will now investigate the Duma allegations. The people of PNG will be forgiven for not holding much confidence in the process.
Which serves as a timely reminder, what happened to the Interim Office for Anti-Corruption which was to be headed by Judge Graham Ellis?
O’Neill disposed of Taskforce Sweep, and then aborted its replacement, seemingly in the dead of night when no one was looking.
If Lupari is now the moral barometer of anti-corruption investigations in PNG, god save us all.
Its time for O’Neill to implement the ICAC he promised, so an independent judicial authority, can scrutinize corruption.
Paraka for Prime Minister!
Lets all enjoy the double irony here – the Office of the INTEGRITY of Political Parties allows Paul Paraka, the mastermind of the K780 million Paraka Scam, to register a political party named after the GRASSROOTS people he stole the money from…
Lawyer Paul Paraka launches party
July 22,2016, 02:41 am
PAPUA New Guinean lawyer Paul Paraka yesterday announced his intention to contest the 2017 National Election as he launched his new political party – the Grassroots United Front Party.
At the Office of the Integrity of Political Party Registry, Mr Paraka and his team received their certificate, to prove the registration of the party with Registrar Alphonse Gelu and his team.
The launch of the party now brings the political parties in PNG to 34.
Initially there were 46 Parties but others were deregistered.
Mr Paraka yesterday said that he felt that at the age of 48 he has reached his pinnacle in building a little known law practice in 1994 to one of the biggest local law firms in PNG, and having given enough and so much to the PNG grassroots communities through his private legal career, he feels that the time is now right for him to take up the next step, leading the grassroots’ cause in PNG, and transform their lives and communities through the political front and public service. When asked about the current issues involving the law firm, Mr Paraka said: “I am not worried about these issues. I started and grew Paraka Lawyers from nothing to be the biggest law firm in PNG through sheer hard work and God-given intelligence.”
“I have been a victim of political madness and insanity, but the truth will prevail at the end. I worked so hard to build the law firm which provided a flat form and jobs for over 30,000 young men and women over the years, have been hurt and victimised by bad political leadership and bad political decisions, we have been victims of political destruction, the very same force that has destroyed the dreams and aspirations of many Papua New Guineans, and all the grassroots population in Papua New Guinea,” he said.
In the next eight months, Mr Paraka will travel widely in the settlements, suburbs and Motu-Koitabu villages in the National Capital District, and the rest of PNG, undertaking awareness on the GRUF party’s polices and platforms.
Paraka gets certification for own political party
By CLIFFORD FAIPARIK
PAUL Paraka, the lawyer at the centre of the Opposition’s move to oust Prime Minister Peter O’Neill today, registered his Grass Roots United Front Party yesterday.
Paraka is implicated with O’Neill and others in an alleged K71 million payment for providing bogus legal services to the State.
The Opposition has accused O’Neill of avoiding the law by refusing to be questioned by police over the Paraka payment.
Paraka dismissed the political power play and said he was contesting the 2017 general elections because he wanted the rural people to get government services that had been missing since independence.
“I am not worried about these issues,” he told The National yesterday.
“I started and grew Paraka Lawyers in 1994 when I was 26 years old from nothing to the biggest law firm in PNG through sheer hard work and God-given intelligence.
“I have been a victim of political madness and insanity but the truth will be at the end.
“I and the law firm that I worked so hard to build, which provided jobs for more than 30,000 young men and women over the years, have been hurt and victimised by bad political leadership and bad political decisions.
“We have been victims of politics of destruction.
“It is the very same force that destroyed the dreams and aspirations of many Papua New Guineans and all the grassroots population in PNG.
“I have been hurt, Paraka Lawyers has been hurt, the grassroots of PNG have been hurt and became victims of bad political leadership over the years. I will now swap the comfort of a legal career with that of a grassroots leader for the 10 million grassroots population of PNG.
“I want to be part of a solution of their pain, sufferings and struggles.
“I will now call upon the grassroots of PNG for reason and judgment. They will judge me whether I am worthy of leading them and fighting for their cause.
“Ultimately it’s them who will judge and choose.” Paraka said he would travel throughout the country for the next eight months to conduct awareness on his GRUF Party’s policies and platform.
Paraka received his party’s registration certificate from Integrity of Political Parties and Candidates Commission Registrar Dr Alphones Gelu.
Paraka is one of the country’s most successful barristers.
He attended the University of PNG, University of California in Berkeley, USA and Oxford University in the UK.
Post Courier wrong: Sakora NOT acquitted
The front page headline and story in the Post Courier today is completely misleading and untrue but, sadly, not untypical of the poor standard of media reporting in Papua New Guinea.
Justice Bernard Sakora has NOT been acquitted.
He is accused of corruptly receiving K100,000 from notorious lawyer Paul Paraka in return for issuing a highly unusual and completely questionable blanket injunction preventing implementation of the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Department of Finance or any media reporting.
Part of the order Sakora gave to Paul Paraka
The Commission of Inquiry exposed the theft of K780 million by corrupt lawyers and public officials. Paraka was identified as a major participant in the fraud and primary beneficiary.
Yesterday a magistrate throw out the charge against Sakora because of an alleged procedural error by the police.
The magistrate did NOT acquit Sakora.
To acquit someone means to free them from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty. It means the accused is absolved, cleared, exonerated, declared innocent or pronounced not guilty.
None of those terms can be applied to Bernard Sakora and his receipt of the K100,000 (which he does not deny).
The charge against Sakora has NOT been tested in court. He has NOT been found NOT GUILTY. He has NOT been acquitted.
Justice Sakora still needs to answer the questions of why did he received K100,000 from Paul Paraka and why did he grant such an unusual injunction?
The Post Courier should apologise to the people of Papua New Guinea!
Peter O’Neill’s arguments do not stand scrutiny
Dilu Goma
Peter O’Neill’s argument against stepping down or resigning as Prime Minister in order to allow law enforcement authorities to do their job of investigating allegations of crimes or misconduct in office is that there is no ‘evidence’ of any wrongdoing on his part. Based on this, he has fought tooth and nail, both in court and out of court, to stay on in the office of Prime Minister of PNG. The out of court tactics he has used (killing the Task Force Sweep, changing justice minister, removing police commissioner, trying to remove the chief magistrate, etc) are clear signs of a power-hungry individual. The in-court battles he has fought will not come out in his favor in the end, because lawful processes of the Police, Prosecution, Leadership Tribunal, etc are all guaranteed under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court is likely to uphold this clear principle of good governance.
Two fallacies of O’Neill’s argument concerning ‘lack of evidence’ are as follows.
One, it is not for him to determine whether there is evidence of any wrongdoing, because only a court can make that determination. And the ridiculous thing is that when the court (and Tribunal) want to make this determination, he finds a way to put a stop to that. So, it seems that only HIM will continue to make this determination, albeit only temporary. I do not believe the Constitution has given him (or any body else who has been alleged to gave committed a crime) to make such a determination. Everyone else submits to the due process of the law, so who is Peter O’Neill to not to do the same? If it is because he is the Prime Minister, then this is a clear abuse of his office. Indeed, it really should be the other way around; i.e., because he is the Prime Minister he should be the first person in the country to show respect for the public office he holds and do two three things: one, he should resign from office; two, he should voluntarily attend at the police station and answer questions that the police have; and three, he should cooperate with the police and leadership code authorities to have any case started against him heard and determined. I would say that that would be the marks of a true leader who cares about protecting the integrity of the office of Prime Minister. This is not to say that he will forgo his individual Constitutional rights, because the recognition of his rights are integral in the legal processes involved, and so his rights will be observed as a matter of course.
Two, the only criteria under the Leadership Code (s.27 Constitution) that Peter O’Neill (or any other such leader) is required by this Code to be concerned about is to ask himself if his conduct (or what is alleged against him) may give rise to ‘doubt in the public mind’ as to whether he ‘could’ have a conflict of interest or he ‘might’ be compromised or his conduct ‘demeans’ the office of Prime Minister or his conduct has allowed the integrity of the office of Prime Minister to be called into question or his conduct has endangered or diminished the respect for and confidence in the integrity of government of PNG. The general public of this country may not know these exact wordings of the Leadership Code, but it is their general understanding of things that can be sufficient to warrant a leader to resign, submit himself to the law, and cooperate with law enforcement authorities. The bottom line in the Leadership Code is the protection of the name and integrity of the public office that the leader holds. In my mind, Peter O’Neill has clearly forgotten about this very important principle.
The Case Against Peter O’Neill
Adam Boland | Pacifik News | June 1, 2016
Peter O’Neill has become the great survivor.
For two years, he’s avoided serious questioning over allegations that could end his time as Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea.
Amid the claims and counterclaims, it’s perhaps easy to lose track of how we got to this point. So, we’ve broken down the main issues that refuse to go away.
The crusade
Almost immediately after coming to power in 2011, Peter O’Neill vowed to rid his country’s bureaucracy of corruption.
He set up a powerful crime fighting unit comprising police, prosecutors and auditors. It was known as Taskforce Sweep and it proved extremely effective.
Investigators showed they weren’t scared of anyone. Business leaders, senior officials and politicians were among those arrested. Their probe revealed shocking examples of public money being used for private purposes. Education, health and other vital projects all suffered as corruption flourished.
Arrests turned into convictions as taskforce head Sam Koim proudly declared: “We have created a momentum and other agencies are now beginning to rise up. More and more, we see prominent people are being called into question.”
One of the people about to be called into question was none other than Peter O’Neill.
The Paraka Allegations
Evidence emerged that supposedly linked the Prime Minister to fraud at PNG legal firm, Paraka Lawyers.
Lawyer Paul Paraka
In mid 2013, Paul Paraka was accused of invoicing the government for work that was never done. Of almost 3,000 bills issued, 97 per cent were found to have been inflated or falsified. That added up to around $30 million in public money that was then thought to have been laundered through Australian banks. Paraka denies any wrongdoing.
Investigators say the money kept flowing to Paraka thanks to a letter of authority signed by Mr O’Neill when he was Finance Minister. He insisted the letter was forged and he had no knowledge of the payments.
But Taskforce Sweep was confident in the evidence and wanted to question Mr O’Neill. When he refused in June 2014, an arrest warrant was issued.
The fallout
The Prime Minister was determined to avoid being questioned. He went to court, gaining an order that prevented his arrest.
Soon enough, Taskforce Sweep was starved of funding before finally being disbanded. The Police Commissioner and Attorney-General were also replaced.
Mr O’Neill was unrepentant: “We are going to continue to terminate everybody who is going to undermine the work of the government,” he said.
To this day, he’s avoided arrest but a smaller anti-corruption unit is again on the case, albeit with tight restrictions from factions within the police loyal to Mr O’Neill. Investigators were even locked out of their building last month after arresting the Prime Minister’s lawyer on allegations of perverting the course of justice.
The UBS loan
The Paraka scandal isn’t Mr O’Neill’s only problem.
He’s also facing intense scrutiny over the process he used to take out a US$1.2 billion loan on behalf of the country in 2014.
The money was used to buy a 10 per cent stake in Oil Search Limited.
Former PM Michael Somare
Former Prime Ministers Michael Somare and Mekere Morauta both accused Mr O’Neill of bulldozing the deal through government agencies despite huge risks to PNG.
The country’s Ombudsman was concerned too and referred the matter to the public prosecutor who then called in the Leadership Tribunal.
But once again, the Prime Minister sought court intervention, obtaining an order to stop the tribunal from convening.
Former Chief Justice Arnold Amet says if the tribunal is ever allowed to convene, Mr O’Neill will be automatically suspended. The three judges who make up the tribunal also have the right to dismiss the Prime Minister if they find wrongdoing.
The Supreme Court will soon rule on whether the tribunal can convene.
The protests
And that brings us to the ongoing protests by university students.
For a month now, they’ve been calling on the Prime Minister to come good on his 2011 promise to shine a light on corruption.
They say that can only happen when he finally submits to questioning.
