Prime Minister O'Neill's statements false
The chairman of PNG Sustainable Development Program Ltd, Sir Mekere Morauta, said today that comments by the Prime Minister in relation to the recent decision of the Supreme Court of Singapore were a gross misrepresentation of the orders made in the case.
The numerous untruths contained in the Prime Minister’s statement have been drawn to the attention of the court by PNGSDP.
First, it should be highlighted that the State had made an application to the court for the following orders against PNGSDP:
•An injunction over PNGSDP's assets
•The appointment of a Receiver and Manager over PNGSDP's affairs and
•An account of all dealings in PNGSDP's assets.
In fact on 25 August the judge dismissed the State's application for all these orders as she found that the State's allegations of dissipation of assets were unsupported. In other words, the State has lost its application.
That is why the State is appealing against the judge's decision to the Court of Appeal.
As the State's application involves an injunction, the State needs to first obtain permission from the judge before it can bring an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
It is therefore puzzling to say the least that the PM "welcomes" the Singapore court's ruling in this regard, when the State has lost its application before the judge and is fact seeking to overturn the decision on appeal.
The State had asked for the interim injunction over PNGSDP's Long Term Fund to be maintained pending the hearing of its application for leave to appeal against the Singapore court's decision. It was for this limited reason only that the interim injunction over the Long Term Fund was maintained.
The Prime Minister’s media release has made gross misrepresentations of the Singapore court's ruling, including statements to the effect that:
•The court had issued a ruling "stopping [PNGSDP] from drawing money from the Long Term Fund to pay for its operational expenditure."
•The court's decision suggests that the position that the Long Term Fund was misused by PNGSDP to "pay for the upkeep of a few individuals" and not "for the development of the Western Province and its people";
•The court had ruled that the Memorandum and Articles and composition of the Board of Directors was not to be changed pending the disposal of the action or until further order because it found that Sir Mekere had committed "illegal" acts and was seeking to "shield [the] Board from transparency and accountability";
•The court accepted the submission that PNGSDP had not adhered to "court orders" for the company to provide all relevant information on the Long Term Fund and the Development Fund and therefore "there is an element of suspicion over the management of these Funds belonging to the people of Western Province and PNG".
None of these statements by the Prime Minister are true. The judge made no such findings or orders.
The court record will show that the judge said she was of the view that, having considered the issues and the evidence at this stage, the State's complaints of dissipation were unfounded. As such, the judge dismissed the State's application.
Having failed in its action in the Singapore court, the State has resorted to misrepresenting the Singapore court orders to mislead the public and to attack the reputations of PNGSDP and its directors and members.
PNGSDP has brought the State's misrepresentation of the orders to the judge's attention to be dealt with accordingly. PNGSDP's lawyers have also issued a letter of demand to the State's lawyers seeking an immediate retraction of the false statements contained in the media release.
The numerous untruths contained in the Prime Minister’s statement have been drawn to the attention of the court by PNGSDP.
First, it should be highlighted that the State had made an application to the court for the following orders against PNGSDP:
•An injunction over PNGSDP's assets
•The appointment of a Receiver and Manager over PNGSDP's affairs and
•An account of all dealings in PNGSDP's assets.
In fact on 25 August the judge dismissed the State's application for all these orders as she found that the State's allegations of dissipation of assets were unsupported. In other words, the State has lost its application.
That is why the State is appealing against the judge's decision to the Court of Appeal.
As the State's application involves an injunction, the State needs to first obtain permission from the judge before it can bring an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
It is therefore puzzling to say the least that the PM "welcomes" the Singapore court's ruling in this regard, when the State has lost its application before the judge and is fact seeking to overturn the decision on appeal.
The State had asked for the interim injunction over PNGSDP's Long Term Fund to be maintained pending the hearing of its application for leave to appeal against the Singapore court's decision. It was for this limited reason only that the interim injunction over the Long Term Fund was maintained.
The Prime Minister’s media release has made gross misrepresentations of the Singapore court's ruling, including statements to the effect that:
•The court had issued a ruling "stopping [PNGSDP] from drawing money from the Long Term Fund to pay for its operational expenditure."
•The court's decision suggests that the position that the Long Term Fund was misused by PNGSDP to "pay for the upkeep of a few individuals" and not "for the development of the Western Province and its people";
•The court had ruled that the Memorandum and Articles and composition of the Board of Directors was not to be changed pending the disposal of the action or until further order because it found that Sir Mekere had committed "illegal" acts and was seeking to "shield [the] Board from transparency and accountability";
•The court accepted the submission that PNGSDP had not adhered to "court orders" for the company to provide all relevant information on the Long Term Fund and the Development Fund and therefore "there is an element of suspicion over the management of these Funds belonging to the people of Western Province and PNG".
None of these statements by the Prime Minister are true. The judge made no such findings or orders.
The court record will show that the judge said she was of the view that, having considered the issues and the evidence at this stage, the State's complaints of dissipation were unfounded. As such, the judge dismissed the State's application.
Having failed in its action in the Singapore court, the State has resorted to misrepresenting the Singapore court orders to mislead the public and to attack the reputations of PNGSDP and its directors and members.
PNGSDP has brought the State's misrepresentation of the orders to the judge's attention to be dealt with accordingly. PNGSDP's lawyers have also issued a letter of demand to the State's lawyers seeking an immediate retraction of the false statements contained in the media release.
PNG Today / Post Courier
Post a Comment