PM’s Media Adviser rebukes reports on corruption
By PETER S. KINJAP
PAPUA New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s media advisor Christopher Hawkins rebuke media reports that a K3-million was paid to the Members at the “Alotau-camp”
Hawkins said a total of K111-million was supposed to be paid and each MP would receive K1-million each but did not mention of the additional K2-million and totaling to K3-million payment for each districts to receive. Mr. Hawkins said the money was not paid to the MPs but to the districts.
It was reported earlier by NBC Broadcaster in Port Moresby that documents were signed by Treasury Department for Finance Department to release a payment of K111-million. Soon after the release of this report, there was a whistle-blower from Treasury Department who wants to remain anonymous have confirmed that an additional K2-million was ordered to release following the earlier K1-million for each MPs.
The funds were for district development but the timing of the payment were aesthetically wrong in the sense that the Vote of No Confidence was about to be taken and this payment appears to be “bribery”.
PAPUA New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s media advisor Christopher Hawkins rebuke media reports that a K3-million was paid to the Members at the “Alotau-camp”
Hawkins said a total of K111-million was supposed to be paid and each MP would receive K1-million each but did not mention of the additional K2-million and totaling to K3-million payment for each districts to receive. Mr. Hawkins said the money was not paid to the MPs but to the districts.
It was reported earlier by NBC Broadcaster in Port Moresby that documents were signed by Treasury Department for Finance Department to release a payment of K111-million. Soon after the release of this report, there was a whistle-blower from Treasury Department who wants to remain anonymous have confirmed that an additional K2-million was ordered to release following the earlier K1-million for each MPs.
The funds were for district development but the timing of the payment were aesthetically wrong in the sense that the Vote of No Confidence was about to be taken and this payment appears to be “bribery”.
Post a Comment