Document content

• OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION
  OF
  PAPUA NEW GUINEA

  ., ,

  ,

  ,

  ANNUAL REPORT 2000

  FOR THE PERIOD

  1 JANUARY 2000
  [- ..
  TO

  31 DECEMBER 2000

  , .
  ! :

• Page 2 of 141

• OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION
  OF
  TELEPHONE: (675) 325 9955 PAPVA NEW GUINEA PO BOX 852
  FAX: (675) 325 9220 BOROKO,NCD
  PORT MORESBY
  PAPUA NEW GUINEA

  15 July 2002

  His Excellency, the Governor-General
  Sir Silas Atopare, GCMG, KStJ
  Government House
  KONEDOBU

  Your Excellency

  I

  We have’the honour of submitting to you the Ombudsman Commission’s Annual
  Report covering the period from I January 2000 to 31 December 2000,

  May we request that your E.xcellency have it presented to the National Parliament in
  compliance with Section 220 of the Constitution,

  Yoi.rrs sincerely

  c:,-;: Cl
  ~—–”
  IrrA GENO OBE QPM ~~~
  CHIEF OMBUDSMAN OMBUDSMAN

• Page 3 of 141

• iv

  LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

  Australian Agency f()r International Development
  AusAid
  Correctional Institutions Service
  CIS

  FIO Freedom of information

  Individual and Community Rights Advocacy Forum
  ICFRAF

  ISP Institutional strengthening project

  IT Information Technology

  Judicial and Legal Services Commission
  JLSC

  MP Member of Parliament

  NACA National Anti-Corruption Agency

  National Broadcasting Corporation
  NBC

  NEC National Executive Council

  OC Ombudsman Commission

  PAYE Pay As You Earn i,

  Papua New Guinea Accounting System
  PGAS

  PNG Papua New Guinea

  Papua New Guinea Defence Force
  PNGDF ‘I

  Public Officers Superannuation Fund
  POSF
  Public Officers Superannuation Fund Board
  POSFB

  PSC Public Services Commission

  Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary
  RPNGC

  TI
  Transparency International I

  UN United Nations

  VAT Value Added Tax

  List of A1:>brevu.tions

• Page 4 of 141

• v

  TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. YEAR IN REVIEW ……………………………………………………………………………… 3

  2. INTRODUCING THE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION ………………………. 11
  MEMBERS OF TJ:IE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION ……………………………………………………….. 11
  WHY WAS THE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION ESTABLISHED? …………………………………… 13
  THE CONSTITUTION AND THE TWO ORGANIC LAWS ………………………………………………. 13
  THE APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMEN ……………………………………………………………………….. 14
  ACCOUNTABILITY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14
  ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE ………………………………………………………………………………… 15
  CHANGING OF THE GUARD .. “”””””” ……………. “””””””” ……………………………………………… 16

  3. RECEIVING AND HANDLING COMPLAINTS ………………………………… 19
  GRAPH 3.1: TOTAL COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 1990-2000 …………………………………………….. 19
  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS ……………………………………………………………….. 20
  GRAPH 3.2: COMPARISON OF COMPLAINTS RECEIVED 1999-2000 ……………………………. 20
  TABLE 3.1: DISPOSITION OF CASE FILES CLOSED, PORT MORESBY 2000 ………………… 21
  TABLE 3.2: COMPLAINTS RECEIVED, CASE FILES PENDING 1997-2000…………………….. 22
  DISCIPLINED FORCES UNIT ………………………………………………………………………………………… 22

  4. SELECTED COMPLAINTS SUMMARIES ……………………………………….. 27
  MADANG NEPOTISM CLAIM ………………………………………………………………………………………. 27
  “UNFAIR” APPOINTMENT AT UNIVERSITY ……………………………………………………………….. 28
  JOB TERMINATION EXPLANATION REQUIRED …………………………………………………………. 28
  WIDOW AND FAMILY EVICTED ………………… .’……………………………………………………………… 29
  CLAIM FOR INJURY PAYMENT …………………………………………………………………………………… 29
  PO SF PAYS INTEREST TO PUBLIC SERVANT.. …………………. ” ………………………………………. 30
  PROMOTION ISSUE AT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION …………………………………………….. 30
  TEACHER PAID SALARIES OWING AFTER LONG DELAy …………………………………………. 30
  ALLEGED UNFAIR TERMINATION OF CONTRACT …………………………………………………….. 31
  PENSION PAID TO WRONG PERSON …………………………………………………………………………… 32
  PRIVATE COMPANY PAYS WAGES OWING ……………………………………………………………….. 32
  PLANTATION LABOURERS SEEK ASSISTANCE …………………………………………………………. 32
  DEPARTMENT FINALLY REIMBURSES GULF HEALTH WORKER ……………………………… 32
  MAN SEEKS PROMISED CONTRIBUTION TO YOUTH CARNIVAL.. ……………………………. 33

  5. MAJOR INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS ……………………………………. 37
  CAIRNS CONSERVATORY STATUS REPORT ………………………………………………………………. 37
  MALAGAN HOUSE STATUS REPORT ………………………………………………………………………….. 39

  Table of Contents

• Page 5 of 141

• vi

  6. ENFORCING THE LEADERSHIP CODE ………………………..:……………… .45
  LEADERSHIP DIVISION OPERATIONAL MATTERS …………………………………………. ,……… A5
  PROCESSING LEADERS’ ANNUAL STATEMENTS ………………………………………………………. 45
  TABLE 6.1: LEADERSHIP DIVISION WORK- COMPARATIVE DATAI997-2000 ………… .45
  TABLE 6.2: OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO THE PROCESSING
  OF LEADERS’ ANNUAL STATEMENTS 2000 …. , …………………………………………………………… 46
  LEADERSHIP DIVISION – TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS …………………. .46
  LEADERSHIP PROSECUTIONS AND REFERRALS IN 2000 …………………………………………… 47
  TABLE 6.3 LEADERS REFERRED FOR PROSECUTION AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2000 …….. 62

  7. OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION IN COURT……………………………………….. 67

  8. EXTERNAL RELATIONS …………………………………………………………………. 83
  EXTERNAL RELATIONS PLAN ……………………………………………………………………………………. 83
  TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ……………………………………………………………. 83
  GRAPH 8.1: KEEPING THE PEOPLE INFORMED – MEDIA RELEASES 2000 …………………. 84
  TABLE 8.1: OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION PUBLIC AWARENESS ACTIVITIES 2000 ……. 85
  TABLE 8.2: SPEECHES BY THE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION 2000 …………………………….. 86
  INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION …………………………………………………………………………….. 87
  LINKAGES WITH INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES ………………………………………………………….. 88

  9. HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT……………………………………………. 91
  TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES …………………………………………………………….. 91
  TABLE 9.1: TRAINING PROGRAMS BY POSITION …….. ,………………………………………………. 92
  GRAPH 9.1: TRAINING WITHIN PNG 2000 ……………………………………………………………………. 92
  PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS …………………………………………………………………………………….. 93
  RECRUITMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 93
  CONTRACT OFFICERS …………………………………………………………………………………………………. 93
  SUCCESSION PLANNING …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 94

  10. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING PROJECT……………………………… 97

  11. AUDITOR-GENERAL’S REPORT …………………………………………………… 101

  APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………………………….. 109
  CHIEF OMBUDSMAN’S ARTICLE FOR THE NATIONAL NEWSPAPER’S
  COMMEMORATIVE MAGAZINE ON THE OCCASION OF THE 25 th ANNIVERSARY
  OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA’S INDEPENDENCE …………………………………………………………….. 109
  CORRUPTION – ITS IMPACT ON SOCIETY ……………… ,……………………………………………….. 113
  THE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA – KEY FEATURES
  AND CURRENT ISSUES AND TRENDS ………………………………………………………………………. 118
  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION IN PNG – HOW THE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION
  MIGHT FIT INTO THE PICTURE …………………………………. ,…………………………………………….. 123
  REMARKS BY SIMON PENTANU, OUTGOING CHIEF OMBUDSMAN ……………………….. 129
  PAST MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ………………………………… , ……………….. ;.: ……………. 134

  Table of Contents

• Page 6 of 141

• Page 7 of 141

• Q

  National Goals and Directive Principles

  In exercising its powers and duties, the Ombudsman Commission will take fully
  into account Papua New Guinea’s National Goals and Directive Principles, as
  it is required to do by the Constitution:

  • Freedom of the individual from domination and oppression.

  • Equality of opportunity and participation in the benefits of development.

  • Political and economic independence for the country.

  • Conservation of our natural resources and environment.

  • Use of Papua New Guinean forms of social, political and economic organisation.

• Page 8 of 141

• 3

  1. YEAR IN REVIEW

  This report covers the work of the Commission for the period 1 January 2000 to 31
  December 2000.

  Ombudsman Commission Silver JUbilee’

  The Ombudsman Commission commenced operations on 8 December 1975. Just as
  PNG commemorated its twenty-fifth birthday in September 2000, so too did the
  Ombudsman Commission. On Friday 8 September – a week before the nation stopped
  to celebrate its first quarter of a century – the Ombudsman Commission threw open its
  doors to the media and a large contingent of invited guests for a day of reflection,
  assessment and celebration at the Commission’s headquarters at Garden City, Boroko.

  Guests were taken on a walk through the Ombudsman Commission offices and were
  introduced to staff before the day’s official program began. The first panel discussion
  featured PNG’s first prime minister Sir Michael Somare, the country’s longest-serving
  MP, Sir Pita Lus, and one of the architects of the Constitution, Mr John Momis – all
  still active members of Parliament.

  The panel discussed the events and atmosphere surrounding the framing of the
  Constitution and considered the question of how effective it has been in meeting the
  needs and aspirations of the People since Independence. It was a rare opportunity to
  gain an insight into the thinking, the hard work and the solicitude behind the
  preparation ofPNG’s very original, homegrown Constitution.

  As well as being a chance to learn about our history, for the Ombudsman Commission
  it was a way to acknowledge these – and through them other – elders of the nation,
  away from the hUllabaloo of daily politics.

  The second discussion panel turned the spotlight on the Ombudsman Commission
  itself: examining the successes and failings of its first 25 years. The panellists were
  fonner Ombudsmen Jean Kekedo and Frank Hedges, current Ombudsman Raho
  Hitolo, Counsel to the ComI’nission David Cannings and Public Prosecutor Panuel
  Mogish. Fonner Chief Ombudsman Sir Charles Maino chaired the discussion.

  Fonner Ombudsman Frank Hedges is the only surviving “Pioneer Ombudsman”. It
  was a great privilege for the Commission (and staft) that fonner Ombudsman Hedges
  could visit us and participate in ourJubilee gathering.

  Late in the afternoon the audience was entertained by two teams of law students from
  the University of Papua New Guinea debating the topic “That the Constitution is
  SUpreme, not Parliament”. Adjudicator of the debate was First Legislative Counsel
  James Fraser.

  Chapter 1
  Year in Review

• Page 9 of 141

• 4

  In the evening the focus switched to the Port Moresby Tennis Club in Boroko, where
  Ombudsman Commission staff and families enjoyed theatre and dance presentations,
  a fine mumu and a keynote address from Fred Albietz, the Queensland Ombudsman, a
  long-time friend of the Ombudsman Commission ofPNG.

  Long service awards were presented to staff members who had served under all three
  Chief Ombudsmen – Sir Ignatius Kilage, Sir Charles Maino and serving Chief
  Ombudsman Simon Pentanu. The long service staff awards were presented to: Mary
  Tuavot, Mary Walaun, Margaret Kila, Benny Onglo and Peter Kape.

  The day was an appropriate time at which to examine where we’ve come from, where
  we’ve been and where those of us who find ourselves at the Ombudsman Commission
  at the beginning of the twenty-first century should take this vital constitutional
  institution.

  Opening of New Guinea Islands regional office. in Kokopo

  The Ombudsman Commission once again has a permanent presence in East New
  Britain, with the relocation from Kavieng and opening of the office in Kokopo on
  Friday 25 August 2000.

  As a result of the volcanic eruptions in 1994, the Ombudsman Commission was
  forced to move its New Guinea Islands regional office from Rabaul to Kavieng, from
  where it operated from April 1996 to August 2000.

  In a speech at the opening ceremony Chief Ombudsman Simon Pentanu said the
  Commission was pleased to be returning to the main population centre of the New
  Guinea Islands. He said that in Kokopo the Commission was centrally located and
  well placed to serve the other provinces in the region. The Ombudsman Commission
  is. determined to make itself as accessible as possible to the majority of Papua New
  Guineans, recognising that most ofPNG’s people live in rural and remote parts of the
  country.

  The member for Kokopo and former prime minister Sir Rabbie Namaliu, officially
  opened the new office at Kinabot which overlooks Kokopo town and the still-smoking
  volcano, Tavurvur. .

  External relations

  Through the Commission’s external relations plan Ombudsman Commission officers
  reached more people in 2000 than ever before with public awareness campaigns.
  Tht;se. programs were not restricted to the national capital, but took place in major
  centres all over the country. A sununary of the Commission’s external relations
  activities appears in Chapter 8 of this report.

  The emphasis of the .extemal relations plan was on increasing understanding of the
  Ombudsman Commission’s role among leaders, public office-holders,. the general
  public and young people – the leaders, public office-holders and public of tomorrow .
  . Presentations about the Ombudsman Commission were delivered at 20 schools in
  seven different provinces.

  Chapter 1
  Year in Review

• Page 10 of 141

• 5

  The Commission knows it must be creative, progressive and open-minded in its
  approach to enforcing the Leadership Code. We are attempting to bring some sense
  of relationship into our dealings with leaders. We cannot just wait for them to make a
  mistake and then think we’re doing a good job when we let everybody know about it.
  Our external relations work is based on the understanding that ‘prevention is better
  “than prosecution’.
  Referrals to the Public Prosecutor

  Of course, sometimes it becomes necessary for the Commission to refer leaders to the
  Public Prosecutor for the attention of a leadership tribunal. When an investigation has
  been conducted, a leader has been granted the ‘right to be heard’ and the Commission
  determines that there is a prima facie case of misconduct in office, the Commission
  must take the necessary steps towards referral for prosecution under the Leadership
  Code.

  In 2000 the Commission referred five leaders to the Public Prosecutor – the second
  most referrals in a single year since the Commission was established in 1975. Further
  information about these cases can be found in Chapter 6.

  Increased number.of complaints received

  The period under review also saw.an increase in the number of complaints lodged
  with the Ombudsman Commission. In 2000 the Commission received 2,953
  complaints, 876 more than in 1999.

  The number of complaints closed also increased, from 2,067 in 1999 to 2,694 in 2000.
  This shows an increased commitment by Commission staff. In 2000; the number of
  ‘case files pending’ at the end of the year hit a new low with only 93 cases needing to
  be brought forward to 2001. Details of the Commission’s work of receiving and
  dealing with complaints can be found in Chapters 3 and 4 of this report.

  Supreme Court Reference N° 3 of 2000

  The Ombudsman Commission continues to take seriously its role as a ‘watchdog of
  the. Constitution’. Section 19 of the Constitution authorise.s the Commission to make
  special references to the Supreme Court on questions relating to the interpretation or
  application of the Constitutional Laws.

  InSupreme Court Reference N° 3 of 1999 the Ombudsman Commission challenged
  the Parliament’s decision. to adjourn for more than seven months. In that case the
  Supreme Court decided by a 6:1 majority that the Parliament had breached the
  Constitution when it adjourned for 222 days, from December. 1998 to July 1999. The
  decision stated that the Parliament had a duty to meet, in principle, for 63 days in each
  parliamentary year.

  In June 2000 the Parliament filed an application to have that decision set aside,
  relying on the so-called “slip rule”. The. application was heard in November 2000 by a
  six-member Supreme Court bench. The Ombudsman Commission was a party to
  these proceedings, vigorously defending the decision in Supreme Court Reference N°

  Cltapter 1
  Year in Review

• Page 11 of 141

• 6

  3 of 1999, affinning the principle that no person, authority or institution – including
  the Parliament – is above the Constitution.

  Institutional strengthening and looking ahead

  Much of the hard workllut mto the Commission’s institutional strengthening project in
  1998 and 1999 started to come to fruition in 2000. Some of the fruits include a practical
  work plan (the annual Ombudsplan) to guide the Commission throughout the year;
  higher quality investigations and reports; better training for staff; improved tenns and
  conditions; and a higher profile within PNG and internatiovally. Details of these
  achievements are scattered throughout this report. ‘

  But the most noteworthy result of the institutional strengthening project is clearly the
  increased commitment to the tasks at hand displayed by the officers of the Commission.

  It is the commitment of men and women involved in a task that has the potential to
  really change Papua New Guinea for the better that is driving the Ombudsman
  Commission at the start of this new century.

  Finances-

  The Commission’s 2000 Budget allocation approved by Parliament was K5.5 million,
  and represents in nominal tenns, the same amount as appropriated in each of the
  previous two years. In its Budget submission for the year 2000, the Commission had
  sought funding ofK7.3 million.

  Approximately 20% of the Commission’s Budget is returned to Treasury through
  PAYE Personal Income Tax deductions and VAT payments.

  Employer contributioris for officers’ POSF accounts totalled a shade over K250,000
  for 2000 and this aggregate sum was remitted in fortnightly instalments direct to
  Treasury and Finance Department as currently required. The employees’ own
  contributions, which are deducted from salary, were remitted each fortnight direct to
  the POSF.

  In addition to its necessary operating expenses, the Commission is also required to
  fund from its own Budget, the “Annual Pensions” to fontler Chief Ombudsmen and
  Ombudsmen. In a full year this currently costs the Commission almost K260,000.
  These payments, which are non-discretionary for the Commission, are provided under
  the Constitutional Office-Holders Retirement Benefits Act 1986, at prescribed rates,
  and typically can continue for up to 10 years after the Constitutional Office-holder
  leaves the Commission.

  The Commission operates the PGAS Accounting System for its financial management
  and is subject to financial audit by the Auditor-General’s Office.

  The Commission’s audited accounts for 2000 are included as Chapter 11.

  Chapter 1
  Year in Review

• Page 12 of 141

• 7

  The Finance Unit is part of Corporate Services, which also includes units dealing with
  Human Resources, Information Technology and Security, Transport and Property.
  Together these four units provide the essential infrastructure to enable the Commission to
  undertake its core business activities during the year.

  Ombudsman Commission staff of the recently opened New Guinea Islands Regional
  Office in Kokopo, East New Britain Province.

  Chapter 1
  Year in Review

• Page 13 of 141

• 8

  Keep Papua New Guinea for our children

  .Chapter 1
  Year in Review

• Page 14 of 141

• Page 15 of 141

• National Goals and Directive Principles

  In exercising its powers and duties, the Ombudsman Commission will take fully into
  account Papua New Guinea’s National Goals and Directive Principles, as it is
  required to do by the Constitution:

  1. Integral human development

  We declare our first goal to be for every person to be dynamically involved in the process
  offreeing himself or herselffrom every form of domination or oppression so that each man
  or woman will have the opportunity to develop as a whole person in relationship with
  others.

  WE ACCORDINGLY CALL FOR-

  (1) everyone to be involved in our endeavours to achieve integral human development
  of the whole person for every person and to seek fulfilment through his or her
  contribution to the common good; and

  (2) education to be based on mutual respect and dialogue, and to promote awareness of
  our human potential and motivation to achieve our National Goals through self-
  reliant effort; and

  (3) all forms of beneficial creativity, including sciences and cultures, to be actively
  encouraged; and

  (4) improvement in the level of nutrition and the standard of public health to enable
  our people to attain self fulfilment; and

  (5) the family unit to be recognized as the fundamental basis of our society, and for
  every step to be taken to promote the moral, cultural, economic and social standing
  of the Melanesian family; and

  (6) development to take place primarily through the use of Papua New Guinean forms
  of social and political organization.

• Page 16 of 141

• 11

  INTRODUCING THE OMBUDSMAN
  ~”, ,., COMMISSION

  I
  Ombudsman Commission is an independent institution established by the
  ,Cllnstitultion. It forms an integral part ofthe system of checks and balances that have been
  in place by the Constitution to oversee the governance of Papua New Guinea.

  Commission consists of a Chief Ombudsman and two Ombudsmen.

  fMEMBEllS OF THE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION

  The members of the Commission for this reporting period were Chief Ombudsman Simon
  j:Plmtilnu, Ombudsman Ila Geno and Ombudsman Raho Hitolo.

  Simon Pentanu is from Pok Pok Island near Kieta, Bougainville
  Island.

  He completed his primary and secondary education in the New
  Guinea Islands.

  He joined the pre-Independence House of Assembly as a trainee
  interpreter/translator in 1969, thus beginning a career in the
  Parliamentary Service which was to span more than 24 years.

  In 1971 he completed a Public Service Certificate at the Administrative College ofPapua
  New Guinea. The following year he commenced studies at the University ofPapua New
  Guinea, graduating in 1976 with a Bachelor of Arts in political science and administrative
  studies. After completing his university studies Mr Pentanu rejoined the Parliamentary
  Service. This was the time the post-Independence Parliament was in its infancy; a time of
  great change, excitement, vibrancy and challenge.

  Mr Pentanu held a number of different positions in the Parliamentary Service. He became
  Deputy Clerk in 1978 and in 1984 he was appointed Clerk of the Parliament, thereby
  becoming the head of the Parliamentary Service and a constitutional office-holder. Mr
  Pentanu held the office of Clerk of Parliament for nine years, during which time the
  Parliament had five different Speakers and four different Prime Ministers.

  In 1994 he was appointed a member of the Public Services Commission – also a
  constitutional office. He was appointed Chief Ombudsman in January 1995. In July 1999
  he was elected to the Board of Directors of the International Ombudsman Institute,
  representing the Australasian and Pacific Region.

  Mr Pentanu’s six-year term as Chief Ombudsman concluded on 31 December 2000.

  Chapter 2
  Introducing the Omhudsman Commission

• Page 17 of 141

• 12

  Ha Geno is from Karawa village, Hood Lagoon, Rigo, in Central
  Province. His primary education was at the London Missionary
  Society School in Karawa and Hood Lagoon Primary School at
  Keapara. He completed his secondary education at Sogeri
  Secondary School in 1967.

  Mr Geno joined the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary in
  1968 as a direct entry cadet officer upon leaving school. This was
  the beginning of a long and distinguished career with the Police
  Force, spanning 24 years.
  In 1974175 Mr Geno matriculated and completed a Diploma in Police Science at the
  University of Papua New Guinea. He held many different positions within the RPNGC,
  including Chief Superintendent, Director of the Criminal Investigation Division and
  Deputy Commissioner before being appointed Commissioner of Police in 1990.

  In December 1992 he was appointed as Commissioner and Chairman of the Public
  Services Commission, becoming a constitutional office-holder for the first time. He was
  to hold the position for six years.

  In December 1998, the Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Ombudsman
  Appointments Committee, appointed Mr Geno as an Ombudsman. In December 2000
  ,i Prime Minister Sir Mekere Morauta announced Mr Geno’s appointment as Chief
  Ombudsman from 1 January 2001.

  Raho Hitolo is from Elevala village, Hanuabada, in the National
  Capital District.

  He completed his primary and secondary education at Hagara and
  Badihagwa schools respectively.

  In 1971 he was sponsored by the Development Bank to study at the
  University of Technology in Lae, from where he graduated in 1974
  with a Bachelor ofTecr.nology in Accountancy.

  After graduating; Mr Hitolo joined his sponsor as a loans officer in 1975. He became a
  senior manager in the Development Bank head office and went on to become Port
  Moresby Branch Manager in 1980.

  In 1984 he was appointed Regional Manager for the Mamose region and was posted to Lae
  for four years. In his 13 years with the Development Bank (which changed its name to the
  Agriculture Bank during this time), Mr Hitolo travelled extensively throughout the
  mainland coastal regions ofPNG.

  In 1990 Mr Hitolo joined the Ombudsman Commission as Deputy Director Leadership
  and was later appointed Director Leadership. He was acting Secretary to the Commission
  in 1997 and 1998. Mr Hitolo was appointed as an Ombudsman in January 1999 by the
  Governor-General, acting on the advice of the Ombudsman Appointments Committee.

  Chapter 2
  Introducing the Ombudsman Commission

• Page 18 of 141

• 13

  CW’~N THE OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION ESTABLISHED?

  tenns, the Commission has been established to:

  against the abuse of power by those in the public sector;

  those exercising public power to do their jobs efficiently and fairly; and

  ;imlpOi,e accountability on those who are exercising public power.

  218 of the Constitution lists the purposes for which the Ombudsman
  Irnnliss:ion was established:

  to ensure that all govemmental bodies are responsive to the needs and aspirations
  ofthe People;

  to help in the improvement of the work of govemmental bodies and the
  elimination of unfairness and discrimination by them;

  to help in the elimination of unfair or otherwise defective legislation and practices
  affecting or administered by governmental bodies; and

  to supervise the enforcement ofDivisionIII.2 (leadership code).
  . L
  CONSTITUTION AND THE TWO ORGANIC LAWS

  h~ts.~lieI·l)I’C;hy of written laws, Papua New Guinea has a number of Organic Laws .
  . are special statutes that have been enacted to elaborate on the key principles of
  ~;’V’!i1U down in the Constitution.

  investigative powers of the Ombudsman Commission are exercised under the
  COIlstilutiion and under two Organic Laws:

  the Organic Law on the Ombudsman Commission; and

  the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities ofLeadership.

  ‘;Selctie’n 11· of the Constitution states that the Constitution and the Organic Laws are the
  iSupre:me Laws ofPapua New Guinea. Organic Laws therefore have a higher status than
  of Parliament. If there is any inconsistency between the provisions of an Act and
  of an Organic Law, the latter will prevail. If there is some inconsistency between
  Constitution and an Organic Law, the Constitution will always prevail.

  fact that two Organic Laws have been specifically enacted to provide for
  Commission investigations reflects the very high status of such
  investigations. It also has significant practical consequences. If compliance with a
  issued by the Commission under one of its Organic Laws would involve the
  breach of an Act of Parliament, the Commission’s direction will have precedence. For
  example, if the Commission issues a surrmlOns for the Internal Revenue Commission to
  produce certain documents, the secrecy provisions of the Income Tax Act and the
  Customs Act have to “give way” to the summons.

  Chapter 2
  Introdncing the Ombudsman Commission

• Page 19 of 141

• 14

  The Organic Laws put the Commission in a strong position if it ‘fiK;es any resistance
  during the course of an investigation.

  THE APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMEN

  The appointing authority fOLmembers of the Ombudsman Commission is the GOvemor-
  General, acting on the advice of the Ombudsman Appointments Committee
  (Constitution, Section 217(2». This Committee is made up of:

  • the Prime Minister as Chairman;

  • the Chief Justice;

  • the Leader of the Opposition;

  • the Chairman of the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Appointments; and

  • the Chairman ofthe Public Services Commission.

  ACCOUNTABILITY

  The Constitution and the Organic Law on the Guarantee of the Rights and Independence
  of Constitutional Office-holders provide for the Ombudsman Appointments Committee
  to act as an instrument of accountability for members of the Ombudsman Commission.

  The Organic Law on the Guarantee of the Rights and I’!Jkpendence of Constitutional
  Office-holders gives the Ombudsman Appointments Committee the authority to monitor
  the conduct of the members of the Commission and, if necessary, to appoint a
  Constitutional Office-holders Rights Tribunal to inquire into a matter and recommend
  removal from office. Section 5(1) of that Organic Law states:

  If the appointing authority is satisfied that the question of removal from office of
  a constitutional office-holder should be investigated, it shall, by notice in writing
  to the Chief Justice, request that he appoint three Judges to be the Chairman and
  members ofthe tribunal to hear and determine the matter.

  Chapter 2
  lntroducing the Ombudsman Commission

• Page 20 of 141

• 15

  ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE
  “,
  Section 25__of the Organic Law on the Ombudsman Commission provides for the ‘:
  Commission to appoint a Counsel and a Secretary. Section 25(1)(b) states that the
  Ombudsman Commission, within the limit of funds lawfully available to it, may
  appoint other officers that are necessary for the efficient performance of the functions j
  of the Commission. I’

  These offices constitute the Service of the Commission.

  CHIEF
  OMBUDSMAN OMBUDSMAN OMBUDSMAN

  L I
  LEGAL SERVICES EXECUTIVE
  UNIT I I I SERVICES UNIT

  COUNSEL SECRETARY

  RESEARCH &
  INTELLIGENCE UNIT i
  MEDIA UNIT

  L
  DIREcToR
  COMPLAINTS & DIRECTOR MANAGER
  ADMINISTRATIVE LEADERSHIP – CORPORATE
  INVESTIGATIONS SERVICES

  – INTAKE &
  SCREENING UNIT
  ASSESSMENT
  t- INVESTIGATION UNIT
  FINANCE UNIT t-

  INVESTIGATION :..- INVESTIGATION HUMAN
  I- UNIT N° 1 UNITN°l RESOURCES UNIT

  INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION INFORMATION
  I- UNITN°2
  UNITN°2 TECHNOLOGY UNIT

  DISCIPLINED INVESTIGATION PROPERTIES &
  t- FORCES UNIT SECURITIES UNIT
  I-
  UNITN°3

  REGIONAL OFFICES
  (LAE, MT HAGEN,
  KOKOPO)

  Chapter 2
  Introducmg the Ombudsmau Commission

• Page 21 of 141

• 16

  CHANGING OF THE GUARD

  On 23 December 2000 the Ombudsman Commission marked the end of one era and
  the beginning of another with a dinner at the Islander Travelodge Ballroom to farewell
  outgoing· Chief Ombudsman Simon Pentanu. and welcome the new Chief, Ha Geno.

  Speeches were made by staff representative Andrew Ikufu, Counsel to the
  Commission David Cannings, Ombudsman Raho Hitolo and the two Chiefs, Pentanu
  and Geno.

  Outgoing Chief Ombudsman Pentanu commented on what he sees as SOme of the
  strengths of the institution:

  In sncceeding me Ha becomes the fourth Chief Ombudsman in the conntry
  after the late Sir Ignatius Image who was onr pioneer and Sir Charles Maino
  whom I succeeded in 1995. This is a very admirable record of stability and
  continuity when one considers that in Departments and other public bodies as
  well as in politics, very senior bureaucrats and Ministers go by the wayside like
  tenpins week in and week onto

  Without making a song and dance about it, it is heartening to know that the
  Commission has been building upon a good tradition from the past. I have
  inherited from my two predecessors and their colleagues an institution that is
  stable, that has clout and leverage and is staffed by people with pride and bold
  determination in what they do as officers of the Commission.

  Incoming Chief Ombudsman Geno described Mr Pentanu as a visionary who had
  significantly regenerated the Ombudsman Commission. He vowed to carry on the
  work the outgoing Chief had begun. “I want to assure Simon Pentanu – and everyone
  here – that the good work that has been started through the institutional strengthening
  project will continue while I am Chief Ombudsman,” Mr Geno said.

  Mr Geno stressed the importance of a Chief Ombudsman leading by example:

  Among the duties and responsibilities of this high office, as outlined by the
  Constitution and the Organic Laws, I am very conscious that perhaps the single
  most important duty is to set and maintain a high standard in terms of my own
  personal conduct.

  I regard this as a 24-hour-a-day commitment for the duration of my term as
  Chief Ombudsman. The whole of my conduct must be clearly seen as
  exemplary and beyond reproach, both to my colleagues and staff of. the
  Commission, as well as to the world at large.

  This commitment comes from my heart because I believe that the best and
  most effective way of leading other people is to lead by example.

  Chapter 2
  Introduci.ng the Ombudsman Commission

• Page 22 of 141

• Page 23 of 141

• National Goals and Directive Principles
  In exercising its powers and duties, the Ombudsman Commission will take fully into account
  Papua New Guinea’s National Goals and Directive Principles, as it is required to do by the
  Constitution:

  2. Equality and participation

  We declare our second goal to be for all citizens to have an equal opportunity to participate in, and
  benefit from, the development of our country.

  WE ACCORDINGLY CALL FOR-

  (1) an equal opportunity for every citizen to take part in the political, economic, social, religious
  and cultural life of the country; and

  (2) the creation of political structures that will enable effective, meaningful participation by our
  people in that life, and in view of the rich cultural and ethnic diversity of our people for
  those structures to provide for substantial decentralization of all forms of government
  activity; and

  (3) every effort to be made to achieve an equitable distribution of incomes and other benefits of
  development among individuals and throughout the various parts ofthe country; and

  (4) equalization of services in all parts of the country, and for every citizen to have equal access
  to legal processes and all services, governmental and otherwise, that are required for the
  fulfilment of his or her real needs and aspirations; and

  (5) equal participation by women citizens in all political, economic, social and religious
  ” activities; and

  (6) the maximization of the n1JIIlber of citizens participating in every aspect of development;
  and

  (7) active steps to be taken to facilitate the organization and legal recognition of all groups
  engaging in development activities; and –

  (8) means to be provided to ensure that any citizen can exercise his personal creativity and
  enterprise in pursuit of fulfilment that is consistent with the common good, and for no
  citizen to be deprived of this opportunity because of the predominant position .of another;
  and

  (9) every citizen to be able to participate, either directly or thr.ough a representative, in the
  consideration .of any matter affecting his interests .or the interests .of his community; and

  (10) all persons and g.overnmental bodies .ofPapua New Guinea to ensure that, as far as p.ossible,
  p.olitical and official b.odies are so composed as to be br.oadly representative .of citizens from
  the various areas of the c.ountry; and

  (11) all persons and governmental bodies to endeav.our to achieve universal literacy in Pisin, Hiri
  Motu or English, and in “tok pies” or “ita eda tano gado “; and

  (12) recognition of the principles that a complete relationship in marriage rests .on equality of
  rights and duties .of the partners, and that responsible parenth.o.od-is based on that equality.

• Page 24 of 141

• 19

  t
  e
  3. RECEIVING AND HANDLING
  COMPLAINTS

  i
  Any person can make a complaint to the Ombudsman Commission about any matter.
  The Commission is obliged to consider every complaint it receives. But the Organic
  Laws give it the discretion to choose whether or not to investigate and whether or not to
  continue an investigation.

  The Commission can also initiate its own investigations. Not all ombudsmen have this
  power. In some countries, the ombudsman is an officer of the parliament and only has
  the power to investigate when a complaint is referred through a member of parliament.

  Every year the Ombudsman Commission receives thousands of complaints from people
  all over the country. These are received at the main office in Port Moresby and at the
  Momase, Highlands and New Guinea Islands Regional Offices. Graph 3.1 (below)
  shows total numbers of complaints received for each year since 1990.

  GRAPH 3.1: Total complaints received 1990 -2000

  Total Complaints Received 1990-20QO

  4000

  3500

  3000

  12500
  a.
  § 2000

  ‘0 ‘500
  ~
  1000

  o
  ‘9″ ’99’ 1992 1993 ‘9.. ‘995 ‘996 1997- 1998 ‘999 2000

  Years

  “:1
  t’

  Chapter 3
  Complaints

• Page 25 of 141

• 20

  STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS

  In 2000 the Ombudsman Commission received 2,953 complaints, 877 more than in
  1999. The number of complaints closed also increased, from 2,067 in 1999 to 2,694
  in 2000. Graph 3.2 shows the breakdo~ of complaints received during the year.
  The number of case files pending hit a new low with only 93 cases needing to be
  brought forward to 2001.

  Graph3.Z
  i:
  Comparison of “Complaints Received”

  Year 1131999 ril2000 1

  I! 3500
  , I

  2953
  3000

  2500
  J!l
  c
  i 2000
  e
  8
  ‘0 1500
  z0
  1000

  500

  0
  Pori More”by MIHagen Lae N.G.I Total

  The Complaints and Administrative Investigations Division’s statistics for workload
  output are very encouraging, especially from the Input and Screening Unit. The
  numbers of complaints received has been steadily increasing since 1998. Public
  awareness visits to provinces not directly serviced by an Ombudsman Commission
  office – part of the Commission’s external relatiollsplan (see Chapter 8) – have
  resulted in a discernible increase in the number of complaints received during 2000.
  Further gains seem likely with continuation of the program in 200 I:

  Chapter 3
  Complaints

• Page 26 of 141

• 21

  TABLE 3.1: Disposition of case files closed, Port Moresby 2000

  Classification Description of classification Section of Case files
  nnmber . .
  OLOC closed .

  I Resolved during the· investigation 13

  2 Complaint sustained 0

  3 Complaint not sustained 24

  4a Discontinued – further inquiries not warranted 0

  4b Discontinued – complaint withdrawn or not pursued 0
  Declined – complaint outside jurisdiction-
  5a explanation given to complainant 16(3)(b) 2
  Declined – adequate remedy available – explanation
  5b given to complainant 16(3)(c) 30
  Declined – right of appeal available – explanation
  5e given to complainant 16(3)(c) 0
  Declioed – too long delayed – explanation given to
  5d complaioant 16(3)(e) 33
  Declined – insufficient ioterest from complainant to
  5e ~oeeed 16(3)(d) 30
  Declined – frivolous and vexatious – explanation
  5f given to complainant 16(3)(a) 0
  Declined – minor matter or insufficient resources for
  5g adequate·iovestigation – explanation given 16(3)(f),(g) 3
  Total case files
  closed for 2000 135

  Chapter 3
  Comphiints

• Page 27 of 141

• Z2

  TABLE 3.2: Complaints received, case files pending 1997 – 2000
  .

  Office Year Totlll Total Total case files Investigation case files
  complaints complaints closed pending
  received closed
  Port 1997 1237 1205 78 361
  )’Ioresby 1998 600 591 28 342
  1999 631 626 158 220
  2000 1502 1459 135 49
  Southern 1997 0 0 0 0
  (POM) 1998 167 167 . 27
  ..
  33
  1999 267 266 7 . 27
  2000′ N/A* N/A’ . N/A’ N/A*
  MtHagen 1997 694 691 11 46
  1998 487 486 7 40
  1999 449 447 1 41
  2000 466 253 20 22
  Lae 1997 723 721 5 37
  1998 465 464 7 31
  1999 601 601 4 27
  2000 681 681 0 18
  Kavieng 1997 270 267 0 3
  (January to 1998 212 212 6 3
  August) .
  2· .
  1999 125 124 2 .
  Kokopo
  (August to 2000 304 301 1 4
  December)
  Totals 1997 2924 . 2884 94 At 111198 – 512
  1998 1931 1920 45 At 111199 – 448
  1999 .. 2073 2067 168 At 111100 – 290
  2000 2953 2694 156 At 111101 – 93
  .

  DISCIPLINED FORCES UNIT

  The Commission’s Disciplined Forces Unit was established in 1999 to deal
  exclusively with complaints relating to the disciplined forces – the Royall’apua New
  Guinea Constabulary (Police), the Papua New Guinea Defence Force and the
  Correctional Institutions Service (CIS)

  The main link between the Ombudsman Commission and the department or disciplined
  force is through a liaison officer. The liaison officer is a senior staff member of the
  department with sufficient authority to be able to take specific actions within the
  department and to provide advice to the Departmental head. This officer ensures set
  guidelines regarding Ombudsman Commission matters are followed within the
  department.
  A closer relationship will be possible with Police and CIS once departmenta1liaison
  officers are appointed and training on the practice guidelines begins in 2001. The
  introduction of liaison officers will dovetail with AusAID programs already operating
  .in the Police and CIS. Separately, the Commission hopes to establish links with the
  Department of Education; another source of many of the complaints lodged with the
  Commission.

  Chapter 3
  Complaints

• Page 28 of 141

• 23

  Ombudsman Commission staff on an external relations trip to the provinces.

  Chapter 3
  Complaints

• Page 29 of 141

• III1
  24

  I

  I

  Chapter 3
  Complaints

• Page 30 of 141

• Page 31 of 141

• National Goals and Directive Principles
  In exercising its powers and duties, the Ombudsman Commission will take fully into
  account Papua New Guinea’s National Goals and DirectivePrincipies,as it is required
  to do by the Constitution:

  3. Political and economic independence for the country
  We declare our third goal to be for Papua New Guinea to be politically and economically
  independent, and our economy basically self-reliant.

  WE ACCORDINGLYCALL FOR-

  (1) our leaders to be committed to these National Goals and Directive Principles, to
  ensure that their freedom to make decisions is not restricted by obligations to or
  relationship with others, and to make all of their decisions in the national interest;
  and

  (2) all governmental bodies to base their planning for political, economic and social
  development on these Goals and Principles; and

  (3) internal interdependence and solidarity among citizens, and between provinces, to be
  actively promoted; and

  (4) citizens and governmental bodies to have control of the bulk of economic enterprise
  and production; and

  (5) strict control of foreign investment capital and wise assessment of foreign ideas and
  values so that these will be subordinate to the goal of national sovereignty and self-
  reliance, and in particular for the entry of foreign capital to be geared to internal
  social and economic policies and to the integrity of the Nation and the People; and

  (6) the State to take effective measures to control and actively participate in the national
  economy, and in particular to control major enterprises engaged in the exploitation
  of natural resources; and

  (7) economic development to take place primarily by the use of skills and resources
  available in the country either from citizens or the State and not in dependence on
  imported skills and resources; and

  (8) the constant recognition of our sovereignty, which must not be undermined by
  dependence on foreign assistance of any. sort, and in particular for no investment,
  military or foreign-aid agreement or understanding to be entered into that imperils
  our self-reliance and self-respect, or our commitment to these National Goals and
  Directive Principles, or that may lead to substantial dependence upon or influence by
  any country, investor, lender or donor.

• Page 32 of 141

• 27

  4. COMPLAINTS CASE SUMMARIES

  This chapter is a compilation of short summaries of some of the cases the
  Ombudsman Commission closed during 2000 under its Organic Law on the
  Ombudsman Commission jurisdiction.

  MADANG NEPOTISM CLAIM

  A senior officer with the Madang provincial administration submitted a petition from
  the Madang branch of the Public Employees Association to the Minister for Public
  Service seeking the revocation of the appointment of the Madang Provincial
  Administrator.

  The petition claimed the Administrator abused his powers and breached recruitment
  and selection rules in employing two very close members of his family. The
  petitioners claimed this caused much frustration amongst members of the staff.

  The petition was forwarded to the Secretary of the Department of Personnel
  Management for investigation. Subsequently the Ombudsman Commission received
  a copy of the Department’s investigation report, which showed that all personnel
  miltters had been dealt with and. appropriate· recommendations made to the
  Administrator for implementiltion.

  The complainant advised the Commission that the Administrator had been given a
  copy of the report. Two weeks later the Commission was further advised by the
  .Department of Personnel Management that all financial mismanagement complaints
  had been referred to the Auditor-General for investigation.

  The Ombudsman Commission set out to determine whether any conduct under
  investigation was wrong and to determine whether there were any defects in any of
  the applicable laws or administration practice.

  The Ombudsman Commission’s investigation uncovered several anomillies and
  irregularities relating to selection, displacement and discipline of staff.

  In its report on the case the Ombudsman Commission reminded the Administrator to
  put the Department of Persoimel Management’s recommendations into effect. The
  Commission was satisfied that. the examination of the allegations of financial
  mismanilgement were being carried out by the OfficeoftheAuditor-General.

  This case was closed on 8 December 2000.

  Chapter 4
  Complaints Case Summaries

• Page 33 of 141

• 11
  I

  28

  “UNFAIR” APPOINTMENT AT UNIVERSITY

  An employee. of the University of Papua New Guinea complained that he had been
  unfairly overlooked for a position at the University in favour of a less-qualified
  candidate.

  The complainant had previously held the position, on a nine-year contract and applied
  for a renewal of the contract. The University chose instead to appoint him to a one-
  year contract position. The complainant said he was given a verbal assurance in
  November that his contract would be extended to July. However, in April the position
  was advertised. He reapplied but did not receive a response to his application.

  The complainant asked the Ombudsman Commission to inquire into the matter to
  ascertain whether the selection was done in a transparent manner and in accordance
  with procedures. He claimed his successor was not adequately qualified for the
  position.
  ”
  The Ombudsman Commission wrote to the University seeking explanations on a
  number of matters. The Registrar advised the Commission that the advertised position
  had attracted a number of applicants, including the complainant, but the University
  Appointments Committee decided to appoint someone else.

  After considering documents relating to the selection process, the Ombudsman
  Commission formed the opinion that an appropriate appointment committee had
  appointed a candidate to the job, at their discretion. Whether or not they based their
  decision on the candidate’s qualification (or lack of it) was the prerogative of the
  committee.

  The complainant was advised of the .Commission’s decision but, still dissatisfied, he
  insisted he talk with the. Director of Complaints arid Administrative Investigations
  who informed him that the matter would not be pursued further. It was again pointed
  out to him that an appropriate appointment committee had made the decision to
  appoint someone else and also that the Ombudsman Commission has the prerogative
  to discontinue an investigation, under Section 16(3) of the Organic Law on the
  Ombudsman Commission, ifit determines the complaint to be not justified.

  JOB TERMINATION EXPLANATION REQUIRED

  A complaint was received by the Commission in which the complainant claimed that
  he was improperly terminated from his position at the National Narcotics Bureau and
  proper termination procedures had not been followed.

  The Commission requested an explanation for the termination. The employer’s
  response detailed the Bureau’s reasons for the termination. However, attempts to get
  in touch with the complainant to verify the employer’s reasons were unsuccessful.
  The file was kept open for several months, but further attempts to contact the
  complainant were similarly fruitless.
  Occasionally the Ombudsman Commission has no option but to close cases, such as
  this one, .due to insufficient interest from the complainant.
  The case Was closed in late October 2000.

  Chapter 4
  Complaints Case Summaries

• Page 34 of 141

• 29

  WIDOW AND FAMILY EVICTED

  The widow of a deceased Army Major complained that the PNG Defence Force was
  harsh in trying to remove her from institutional housing. She was also unhappy that
  entitlements owed to her and her family were slow in coming.

  She alleged that two months after the death of .her husband in mid-1998 the
  institutional house they had been living in bumt down along with all their possessions.
  The fire was believed to have been the result of an electrical fault.

  The PNGDF provided the family with a tent as temporary accommodation. She said
  this had an adverse mental effect on the family, especially coming as it did just after
  the loss of their husband and father. The complainant said her daughter could not
  continue school because of the difficulties associated with living and studying in a
  tent.

  In February 1999 they were relocated to another house but in April were issued an
  “eviction notice” on the basis that the house was needed to accommodate serving
  members of the force. She obtained a court injunction to prevent the Defence Force
  removing her from the house.

  Given this situation the Commission recommended the complainant and her family
  remain in the house pending the standing court order. The Commission maintained
  another eviction notice would be in breach of this.

  As well, Ombudsman Commission believes that the Department of Defence should
  have a clear and consistent policy on entitlements. This case and others suggest there
  is no such policy or that if one exists it is not adhered to. The Ombudsman
  Commission receives many complaints from ex-servicemen, or their families, still
  awaiting entitlement payments, fmal payouts or ex gratia payments. Some of these
  have been due for many years.

  The case was closed on 21 September 2000.

  CLAIM FOR INJURY PAYMENT

  The Ombudsman Commission received a complaint against the Police force. A man
  claimed that his wife had sustained an injury to her right thigh after police allegedly
  fired shots while pursuing criminals.

  The Commissioner of Police advised the Commission that the matter was before the
  Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations), to look into and deal with.

  Nevertheless, given the seriousness of the claim, the Ombudsman Commission
  referred the case to the Public Solicitor, requesting that the complainant be
  represented in court if he chose to pursue a compensation claim against the State and
  Police.

  Chapter 4
  Complaints .Case Summaries

• Page 35 of 141

• 30

  With the matter referred to the Public Solicitor the file’was closed on 14August 2000,
  in accordance with Section 16(3)(c) of the Organic Law on’ the Ombudsman
  Commission.

  POSF PAYS INTEREST TO PUBLIC SERVANT

  A·former Health Department employee complained that he was underpaid his Public
  Officers Superannuation Fund (pOSF) payout for 20 years of contributions.

  The Ombudsman Commission referred the matter to the Board of the POSF for
  consideration and. suggested they revisit the complainant’s payout and address the
  substance of his complaint.

  The Board ofthe POSF replied that the cO!l1plainant had been paid his correct benefits
  and there was no case for them to answer. However, the complainant maintained that
  interest owed to him had not been included in the final payout.

  The Commission again contacted the Board of the POSF, making reference to
  documents substantiating the complainant’s claim. Following this further contact, the
  superannuation fund conceded the mistake and agreed to pay the amount owed.

  PROMOTION ISSUE AT CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION

  A prison warder complained that he was not given a promotion to Sergeant Major
  rank despite being officially notified by the PNG Correctional Service that he was to
  be promoted.

  The Ombudsman Commission wrote to the Correctional Service seeking more
  information on the matter.

  The Commission did not receive a reply from the Correctional Service, but three
  months later the complainant wrote back to the Ombudsman Commission to say he
  had been promoted and his salary had been adjusted accordingly.

  TEACHER PAID SALARIES OWING AFTER LONG DELAY

  A teacher had been in the “teacher’s pool” without work or pay for six years when the
  Milne Bay Provincial Education Board offered her a teaching post at a school in the
  province.

  Upon resumption of duties she completed the necessary re-admission forms and
  submitted them to the Teaching Services Commission and the Education Department
  for processing and approval. There was a prolonged delay, during which time she
  was not paid. After several approaches to the Department she wrote to the
  Ombudsman Commission seeking assistance.

  The Commission took up the matter with the Education Department and was advised
  that the teacher’s application for re-admission had been recently been approved –
  midway through the school year.

  She was paid her salaries, backdated to her.commencement date.
  . Chapter 4
  COniplaints Case Snmmaries

• Page 36 of 141

• 31

  ALLEGED UNLAWFUL TERMINATION OF CONTRACT

  A former senior officer with a State-run rubber development project complained to the
  Ombudsman Commission that he was improperly dismissed from his employment by the
  Secretary of the Department of Agriculture and Livestock.

  The Commission investigated the matter and formed the opinion that the complainant was
  unfairly dismissed.

  After receiving the Ombudsman Commission’s report and recommendations the
  Department suggested that he apply for a position they were advertising in the newspapers
  at the time. The complainant chose not to do this, as he had found employment elsewhere.

  The case was closed on 30 June 2000.

  Any person can make a complaint to the Ombudsman Commission. The Commission is
  obliged to consider every complaint it receives.

  Chapter 4
  Complaints Case Summaries

• Page 37 of 141

• 32

  PENSION PAID TO WRONG PERSON

  A Central Province woman who was regularly paid a POSF pension either directly
  into her bank account or by cheque complained that someone else was collecting the
  cheques. The pension was not going to her bank account either.

  The .commission’s inquiry into the matter revealed that the pension cheque had been
  collected and banked by the wrong person.

  A new cheque was issued, covering the amount stolen. Police later apprehended the
  person who had fraudulently collected the cheque.

  PRIVATE COMPANY PAYS WAGES OWING

  A man came to see the Ombudsman Commission to complain about his boss owing
  him several fortnights’ pay.

  The Commission discovered that the man was employed by a private company. He
  was advised that the Ombudsman Commission does not have jurisdiction· over
  complaints against private companies.

  However, an investigating officer called the company anyway to inquire into the
  reason for the delay and was assured by the manager that the man would be paid that
  same day.

  Upon receiving the money the grateful complainant returned to the Commission to
  say thank you.

  PLANTATION LABOURERS SEEK ASSISTANCE

  A group of 137 plantation labourers in the Morobe Province sought assistance from
  the Ombudsman Commission alleging they did not receive final entitlements when
  they were laid off 16 years earlier.

  After some correspondence between the Commission and the State-owned plantation,
  the office of the Managing Director wrote to say they would honour the payments.
  This included recreational and furlough entitlements.

  A fmal payout of more than K27,000 was paid to them.

  DEPARTMENT FINALLY REIMBURSES GULF HEALTH WORKER

  The Ombudsman Commission was asked by a health worker in the Gulf Province to
  assist him after he had trouble getting the Division of Health in Kerema to reimburse
  him for a plane ticket.

  He had been a patient at the Port Moresby General Hospital and had to purchase a
  ticket to return to his place of work in the province. The Division was responsible for
  providing him with a ticket.

  Chapter 4
  Complaints Case Summaries

• Page 38 of 141

• 33

  The Ombudsman Commission wrote to the Kerema Division of Bealth for further
  information on the matter but did not .get a response. However the Commission’s
  letter appears to have had an impact. The complainant visited the Ombudsman
  Commission’s Port Moresby office two months later to say he had been paid the
  money.

  MAN SEEKS PROMISED CONTRIBUTION TO YOUTH CARNIV AL

  A man from the Central Province came to see the Ombudsman Commission after the
  Department of Provincial and Local-level Government Affairs failed to pay money
  allegedly owing to him. .

  The man said he had been promised a K500 contribution from the Departmenf
  towards food and accommodation costs for a provincial youth carnival held at
  Kwikila station. However, the payment was never made.

  When contacted by the Ombudsman Commission the Department asked that the
  complainant go in to see them the following day.

  The complainant visited the Department the next day as requested and was advised
  that due to a shortfall in National Government funding for that year, he would be paid
  the following year.

  In March 2000 he received his payment.

  In a growing number of instances, a letter or a phone call from the Ombudsman
  Commission can prompt govemmental bodies and ·organisations to leap into action
  and take remedial measures. One of the Ombudsman Commission’s aims is to help
  ordinary citizens break through the ”brick walls” often associated with govemment
  bureaucracy.

  Chapter 4
  Complaints Case Summaries

• Page 39 of 141

• 34

  Chapter”
  Complaints Case Summaries

• Page 40 of 141

• Page 41 of 141

• National Goals and Directive Principles

  In exercising its powers and duties, the Ombudsman Commission will take fully into
  account Papua New Guinea’s National Goals and Directive Principles, as it is required
  to do by the Constitution:
  ,, ‘:
  I’
  4. Natural resources and environment
  We declare our fourth goal to be for Papua New Guineas natural resources and
  environment to be conserved and used for the collective benefit of us all, and be replenished
  for the benefit offuture generations.

  WE ACCORDINGLY CALL FOR-

  (1) wise use to be made of our natural resources and the environment in and on the land
  or seabed, in the sea, under the land, and in the air, in the interests of our
  development and in trust for future generations; and

  (2) the conservation and replenishment, for the benefit of ourselves and posterity~ of the
  environment and its sacred, scenic, and historical qualities; and

  (3) all necessary steps to be taken to give adequate protection to our valued birds,
  animals, fish, insects, plants and trees.

  : !

  , i[

• Page 42 of 141

• 37

  5. MAJOR INVESTIGATIONS AND REPORTS

  CAIRNS CONSERVATORY STATUS REPORT
  OnI December 1999 the Ombudsman Commission’s final report of its investigation
  into the purchase of The Conservatory building in Cairns, Australia, by the Public
  Officers Superannuation Fund Board (POSFB) was tabled in Parliament. That report
  was the result of a four-year investigation into the purchase and associated
  transactions and arrangements.

  Twelve months on the Ombudsman Commission finalised a status report on the
  implementation of the twenty recommendations contained in the 1999 report.

  PNG’s govemmenta1 bodies do not generally have a good track record in
  implementing recommendations ansmg from Ombudsman Commission
  investigations. Too often in the past the Commission’s recommendations have simply
  been ignored. This has resulted in many of the same sorts of mistakes being made
  again and again.

  The purpose of the status report was to assess how the recipients of the
  recommendations in the .1999 report have performed. Who has done the right thing
  and taken the recommendations seriously? Who has put words into action? Who has
  ignored the recommendations?

  Recommendations from the Cairns Conservatory report

  Chapter 14 of the 1999 report made thirty findings of wrong conduct by people
  involved in the transactions. Chapter 15 of the report then made twenty
  recommendations based on those findings. The recommendations are intended to
  ensure that the errors and bad practices, which resulted in the poor investment
  decision to purchase The Conservatory, do not recur. The recommendations are
  targeted at the statutory office-holders and members of Parliament who have
  responsibility for relevant areas of govemment.

  In the week following the finalisation of the report, the Ombudsman Commission
  wrote to the recipients of the recommendations. We asked all the recipients to give
  close consideration to the recommendations directed at them. We also-requestedeach
  recipient to notify the Ombudsman Commission by 31 January 2000 of the steps they
  proposed to take to give effect to the recommendations. On 3 August 2000 we wrote
  again to the recipients, reminding them of their obligations. Where we had not
  received enough information from the recipients we also requested further details on
  how our recommendations were being implemented.

  The Ombudsman Commission also placed public notices in The National and Post-
  Courier newspapers over several days in early August 2000. These notices listed our

  Chapter 5
  Major Reports

• Page 43 of 141

• 38

  recommendations and the recipients of those recommendations. The notices advised
  that we would be preparing a status report.

  Observations on the responses

  The Commission received a variety of responses from the recipients of the
  recommendations.

  The Ombudsman Commission was heartened by the first steps taken in several areas.
  In particular, the corporate governance review of the POSFB, the introduction of
  investment guidelines and the Investment Committee and the general commitment to
  reform of the POSFB was encouraging. However, these reforms are only as effective
  as the level of compliance with them.

  The management of The Conservatory building also appears to have improved.
  Although occupancy of the building is only around 35%, the agreement with
  management group Raine and Home is a step in the right direction.

  We were also encouraged by the initial actions of the Attorney-General and the
  POSFB in commencing court proceedings to attempt to recover some of the money
  lost in The Conservatory purchase.

  But overall, the implementation of recommendations. relating to specific public
  officials has been poor. The Commission recommended that employers review the
  ongoing employment of these individuals on the basis of the facts given in the 1999
  report. The Commission wanted the employers to look at the report, ask the official
  for an explanation, think about what the official had done and what they could offer in
  the future, and make a decision

  With one or two exceptions, recipients of the recommendations have not followed
  these simple steps through to their conclusion. The Commission considers this shows
  a general unwillingness to make people accountable for their actions. It is important
  for all people who are paid from the public purse to realise that they are accountable
  to the public.

  The level of implementation, as opposed to agreement, has also been poor. Some
  recipients of recommendations gave in-principle agreement and made very positive
  projections of future changes. However the actual implementation of these changes
  has either not happened or been long delayed.

  Of very serious concern are the nwnerous recipients who did not respond at all to the
  report and several follow up letters. These recipients have failed to fulfil their
  obligation under Section 22(3) of the Organic law on the Ombudsman Commission
  and put themselves in the position of having court proceedings brought against them
  by the Ombudsman Commission under Section 23 ofthe Constitution.

  Perhaps the most common and disappointing misconception encountered as a result of
  The Cairns Conservatory Report was the request from individuals (and supporters) to
  “clear” their names of “allegations”. It is important to appreciate that when the
  Ombudsman Commission compiles a final report of an investigation, it is reporting its
  final opinion on whether the investigation has disclosed any instances· of wrong

  Chapter 5
  Major Reports

• Page 44 of 141

• 1,

  39

  ·CClnduct, defective. laws or defective or discriminatory administrative practices. In the
  i999 report these opinions were recorded as findings of wrong conduct. They are not
  “allegations” that can later be “cleared”.

  “-..EY.ery single person who was adversely commented on in the 1999 report was given at
  least one chance to state his or her case. That is a person’s opportunity to clear their
  name.. The Ombudsman Commission is obliged to set out a person’s defence in a
  report. That was done in the report on The Conservatory through extensive quotes
  and summaries. The final report is the Commission’s final findings on an issue.

  Next steps

  In the past the Ombudsman Commission has had difficulty in getting its
  recommendations implemented. There have been very detailed recommendations in
  comprehensive reports, such as the Report on the Upgrading of the Port Moresby
  Water Supply in 1996 and the PoreporenaFreeway in 1992.

  Many public officials seem to have the view that as they are only recommendations
  they are free to ignore them.

  In order to overcome this misconception the Commission decided to produce a formal
  statement in the form of. a status report. It is a report on how the Ombudsman
  Commission’s recommendations are implemented atthis time. It is not intended to be
  a once and for all summary of what action was taken as a result of The Conservatory
  report.

  The Ombudsman Commission will continue to keep a close eye on the
  implementation of recommendations made in its reports. These recommendations
  were made to prevent the mistakes and incompetence that surround The Conservatory
  purchase from happening again. Implementing these recommendations is one way to
  make sure that the lessons of The Conservatory have been thoroughly learnt.

  MALAGAN HOUSE STATUS REPORT

  One week after the Cairns Conservatory report was tabled in Parliament a related
  report by the Ombudsman Commission was also released. This was the final report of
  the investigation into the lease and proposed purchase by the National Govemment of
  a building in Brisbane, Australia, called Malagan House. The building is at 99 Creek
  Street in the city’s central business district.

  The Ombudsman Commission conducted this investigation at the same time it
  investigated the purchase of The Conservatory, Cairns, by the Public Officers
  Superannuation Fund Board. There were a number of similarities:

  • both projects were an attempt to implement the government’s “one-stop-shop”
  policy, under which govemment offices in overseas cities were to be located under
  oneroo[

  • . some public officials were involved in both matters.

  ChapterS
  Major Reports

• Page 45 of 141

• 40

  • the Conservatory was purchased at a price two and a half times ~ts market value.
  Attempts were made to sell Malagan House to the govemment at a similar exorbitant
  mark-up.

  • both projects involved irregular fmancia) arrangements, rent paid for large amounts
  of unused space, political interference in administrative functions, and administrative
  incompetence. As a result, an environment was created where corruption could easily
  occur.

  Twelve months on from the tabling of the original report, the Ombudsman
  Commission finalised a status report on the implementation of the three
  recommendations contained in the 1999 report.

  Recommendations from the MaJagan House report

  Chapter 14 of the 1999 report made twelve findings of wrong conduct by people
  involved in the transactions. Chapter 15 of the report then made three recommendations
  based on those findings. The recommendations are targeted at the statutory office
  holders and members of Parliament who have responsibility for the relevant areas of
  govenunent.

  In the week following the finalisation of the report the Ombudsman Commission wrote
  to the recipients of the recommendations. The Commission asked all the recipients to
  give close consideration to the recommendations directed at them. They were also asked
  to notify the Ombudsman Commission by 31 January 2000 of the steps they proposed to
  take to give effect to the recommendations. On 3 August 2000 the Commission wrote
  again to the recipients, reminding them of their obligations.

  Observations on the responses

  The Comni.ission received a variety of responses from the recipients of the
  recommendations.

  The main aim of the recommendations was to stop the lease of Malagan House
  continuing to be a drain on the resources of the Consulate-General, the Department of
  Foreign Affairs and the State as a whole. The Consulate-General was paying above-
  market rentals for far more space than it needed and was also subsidising the space
  occupied by Air Niugini.

  The Commission is generally pleased with the steps taken to stop this waste of money.
  The then Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, Moi Avei, announced in Parliament on 21
  September 2000 that the Consulate-General had moved from Malagan House. This has
  been confirmed by Consul-General Henry Koiaie. Although we understand that the
  Consulate-General is now operating from temporary accommodation, the Ombudsman
  Commission is pleased that tangible moves are being made to secure suitable and
  appropriate long-term office space in Brisbane.

  The implementation of the recommendation relating to the three specific public officials
  has been less successful. The Commission recommended that employers view the
  ongoing or future employment of these individuals on the basis of the facts given in our
  report. The Commission wanted the employers to look at our report, ask the officer for

  Chapter 5
  Major Reports

• Page 46 of 141

• 41

  an explanation, think about what the employee had done and what they could offer in the
  future, and make a decision. The Prime Minister did so when appointing Sir Frederick
  Reiher to his personal staff. However the further proposal to appoint Sir Frederick to the
  National Fisheries Authority did not follow this process.

  Of very serious concern are the numerous recipients who did not respond at all to the
  report and several follow up letters. These recipients have failed to fulfil their obligation
  under Section 22(3) of the Organic Law on the Ombudsman Commission. The
  Commission is seriously considering commencing court proceedings under Section 23 of
  the Constitution.

  Next steps

  This status report is only a report on how our recommendations are being implemented at
  this time. It is not intended to be a once and for all summary of what action was taken as
  a result of the Malagan House report.

  Malagan House, 99 Creek Street, Brisbane.

  Chapter 5
  Major Reports

• Page 47 of 141

• 42

  Remember, for a few Kina you could sign away national integrity.

  Chapter 5
  Major Reports

• Page 48 of 141

• Page 49 of 141

• .r-~–~–~-
  ..~———————————————-,

  National Goals and Directive Principles
  In exercising its powers and dnties, the Ombudsman Commission will take fully into
  acconnt Papua New Guinea’s National Goals and Directive Principles, as it is
  required to do by the Constitution:

  5. Papua New Guinean ways

  We declar.e our fifth goal to be to achieve development primarily through the use ofPapua
  New Guinean forms ofsocial, political and economic organization.

  WE ACCORDINGLY CALL FOR-

  (1) a futidamental re-orientation of our attitudes and the institutions of govemment,
  commerce, .education and religion towards Papua New· Guinean forms of
  participation, corisultation, and consensus, and a continuous renewal of the
  responsiveness of these institutions to the needs and attitudes of the People; and

  (2) particular emphasis in our economic development to be placed on small-scale
  artisan, service and business activity; and .

  (3) recognition that the cultural, commercial and ethnic diversity of our people is a
  positive strength, and for the· fostering of a respect for, and appreciation of,
  traditional ways of life and culture, including language, in all their richness and
  variety, as well as for a willingness to apply these ways dynamically and creatively
  for the tasks of development; and

  (4) traditional villages and communities to remain as viable units of Papua New
  Guinean society, and for active steps to be taken to improve their cultural, social,
  economic and ethical quality.

• Page 50 of 141

• 45

  6. ENFORCING THE LEADERSHIP CODE

  The Leadership Code (Division III.2 of the Constitution) is a code of conduct that
  PNG’s leaders are expected to know and follow. The Ombudsman Commission has
  been given the authority by the Constitution and the Organic Law on the Duties and
  Responsibilities ofLeadership to supervise and enforce the Leadership Code.

  LEADERSHIP DIVISION OPERATIONAL MATTERS
  Wide-ranging changes to the structure and operations of the Leadership Division took
  effect in early 2000. The Leadership Division is headed by a Director, Mr John
  ToGuata, and is made up of an Annual Statements Assessment Unit and three
  investigation teams.
  a
  PROCESSING LEADERS’ ANNUAL STATEMENTS
  The Commission’s proposal to reduce the number of leaders required to submit annual
  statements from 921 to about 330 is yet to be implemented. In the meantime, the
  t, Leadership Division continues to use around 15% of the resources available to it in
  f making sure leaders comply with the requirements of the leadership code in regard to
  e leaders’ annual statements. The remaining 85% of resources are allocated to leadership
  investigations.

  e Table 6.1 gives a general picture ofthe work of the Leadership Division by looking at
  numbers Of incoming and outgoing documents over the last four years. Since 1997
  there has been a significant decline in the number of annual statements lodged by
  leaders and an increase in the number of reports on leadership cases submitted to the
  ,a Ombudsman Commission from the Leadership Division. The planned introduction of
  :I a computerised returns system for annual statements is expected to make the process
  Y of lodging annual statements simpler for leaders. This should result in an increase in
  the number of annual statements received.

  TABLE 6.1: Leadership Division work – comparative data 1997-2000

  1997 1998 1999 2000
  Complaints received from:
  • Members of Parliament 21 18 36 57
  • Provincial Government members 26 6 22 21
  • Others 6 6 14 20
  Appointments letter issued 198 502 195 197
  Vacating leadership positions (Section 35) 54 212 34 51
  Annual statements received 480 557 357 308
  Reminder letters for annual statements sent 571 465 302 347
  Requesting further information (Section 21)~ 113 254 162 608
  Submissions, reports and minutes 42 149 47 400
  Rights to be heard 225 236 196 96
  Letters about gifts and overseas travel 4 9 26 55
  Reports to the Ombudsman Commission 18 30 27 44

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 51 of 141

• 46

  TABLE 6. 2: Outgoing correspondence relating to the
  processIng ofleaders’ annual statements 2000

  i~i~gilf:Y7f”‘i:,+; 1ffi – f -t’ “J, lib~llglt ~~ M1O~;,s”jiGl~
  Ministerial staff 57 103 19 2 0 0 0 28 125 I 0
  Statutory 3 59 19 5 30 3 4 5 49 7 14
  authority –

  members
  Provincial govt 86 86 17 21 54 2 2 1 2 11 10
  members
  Overseas 9 4 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 I
  missions
  Departmental 14 18 4 5 40 1 I 7 16 6 10
  heads
  Constitutional 26 8 0 5 6 7 7 2 0 4 2
  office-holders
  MPs – 84 69 37 57 421 12 14 3 3 54 113

  Others 0 0 6 3 55 0 0 5 0 37 129

  Totals 308 347 96 98 608 26 29 51 197 121 279

  LEADERSHIP DIVISION – TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

  The Ombudsman Commission continues to monitor the Division’s performance –
  closely during the year so that accurate and realistic performance indicators can be
  established.

  On the basis of the Leadership Division’s output in 1999, a number of performance
  indicators were set as targets for the Division to work towards in 2000. These
  perforn:1ance- indicators are set below in italics; the targets achieved are listed
  underneath each one in standard type.

  330 leaders’ files to be managed in relation to submission of annual statements,
  responses to letters seeking advice, clearances and exemptions.

  By year’s end 308 annual statements had been received from leaders.

  Around 100 leaders expected to require one or more reminder notices.

  347 reminder notices had to be issued and 608 letters requesting further information.

  25 “right to be heard” notices expected to be issued in relation to annual statements
  (jar a leader not to submit an annual statement is a violation of the Leadership Code).

  96 “right to be heard” notices were sent out in relation to annual statements and
  investigations.

  Reports on 10 leaders expected to be prepared and forwarded to the Office of Counsel
  with a view to having them issued with rights to be heard and, if necessary, referred
  to the Public Prosecutor for the attention of a leadership tribunal.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 52 of 141

• 47

  51 leadership investigations were completed to the stage that the Commission’s Office
  of Counsel had been asked to provide advice and/or prepare appropriate referral
  documents. Five of these were referred to the Public Prosecutor in 2000. Derails of
  these five referrals follow in the next section.

  24 leadership files to be prioritised for investigation by the three investigations units.

  The three investigations units put together a total of 28 new cases in 2000, in addition
  to 12 cases that were carried over from 1999.

  30 leaders’ files to be assessed for potential issues.

  The Assessment Unit reached this target by the middle of the year. By the end of 2000
  they had assessed 66 cases.

  A further 20 leadership investigations were in progress at the end of the year.

  LEADERSHIP PROSECUTIONS AND REFERRALS IN 2000

  During 2000 a leadership tribunal dealt with one matter outstanding at the end of
  1999:

  • Brigadier-General Jerry Singirok MBE.

  In addition, five fresh cases were referred by the Ombudsman Commission to the
  Public Prosecutor for prosecution before a leadership tribunal. This is the second-
  highest number ofleaders referred in a single year. The highest is six, in 1992.

  The leaders referred in 2000, in order of date of referral, were:

  • Michael Gene.

  • JimKasMP.

  • Peter Peipul OBE MP.

  • Anderson Agiru MP.

  • John WakonQPM.

  Of those five, one (Kas) was referred by the Public Prosecutor to a leadership tribunal
  and the case resolved. For various reasons explained below, the remaining four were
  not resolved during 2000.

  An overview and details of each of the six cases follow.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 53 of 141

• 48

  JERRY SINGIROK

  Overview

  Office Commander of the Defence Force (an office subject to
  the Leadership’ Code by virtue of Section 26( 1)(i) of the
  Constitution).
  Date of referral to Public Prosecutor 6 August 1999.
  Date of request for appointment of I November 1999.
  tribunal
  Date of appointment of tribunal 12 November 1999.
  Composition of tribunal Mr Justice Moses Jalina (Chairman) and Senior
  Magistrates Mr Cosmas Bidar and Ms Regina SallU.
  Date of referral to tribunal 15 Pecember 1999.
  Legal representation Mr Francis Kuvi and Mr Kathwa Umpake for the Public
  Prosecutor; Mr Moses Murray and Mr Colin Mikail, of
  Murrays Lawyers, for the leader.
  Hearing dates 15 December 1999, 2, 3, 28 February and I, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8,
  13,17,20 and 21 March 2000.
  Decision and recommendation Guilty of 3 allegations; not guilty of 2 allegations –
  tribunal recommended dismissal from office.
  Date recommendation Riven 22 March 2000.
  Implementation of recommendation 22 March 2000.
  Judicial review On 24 March 2000 the leader applied for judicial review
  of the tribunal’s decision and recommendation. Leave
  was granted by the National Court (Sheehan J) on 3(}
  August 2000. The application for judicial review was
  heard by the National Court (Sheehan J) on 13 December
  2000. As at 31 December 2000, judgment was reserved.
  End result Subject to the outcome of the judicial review, the leader
  is dismissed and disqualified from holding public office
  under Section 3’1 of the Constitution until 23 March
  2003.

  Details

  Mr Singirok was appointed Commander of the Defence Force on IS November 1995.
  His appointment was revoked on 17 March 1997 at the height of the Sand line crisis.
  On 14 October 1998, he was reappointed as Commander.

  During 1997 and 1998 two separate Commissions of Inquiry were established to
  inquire into the engagement, in early 1997, of Sandline International by the National
  Government in connection with the Bougainville crisis, and related matters. The
  second Commission of Inquiry, headed by Justice Sir Kubulan Los, reported
  adversely on the conduct of Mr Singirok during his first term of appointment as
  Commander. It concluded that he had received illicit payments from a foreign
  military goods supplier, J & S Franklin Ltd.

  In October 1998 soon after Mr Singirok’s reappointment as Commander, the
  Ombudsman Commission commenced its own independent investigation into the
  matters uncovered by the Los Inquiry.

  On 18 May 1999 Mr Singirok was served with a right to be heard notice. He
  responded in writing at the end of June 1999. The Commission deliberated on the
  matter and concluded there was a prima facie case he had been guilty of misconduct
  in office. Accordingly, the Commission was obliged by Section 29(1) of the

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 54 of 141

• 49

  Constitution to refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor, which it did on 6 August
  1999.

  The day prior to his referral to the Public Prosecutor Mr Singirok was suspended as
  Commander by the Governor-General, acting in accordance with the advice of the
  National Executive Council, under Section 193(3) of the Constitution. An Acting
  Commander was appointed. However, this did not affect the jurisdiction of the
  Ombudsman Commission as Mr Singirok continued to hold the office of Commander.

  On 1 November 1999 the Public Prosecutor, Mr Panuel Mogish, exercised his
  discretion under Section 177 of the Constitution to bring proceedings against Mr
  Singirok for misconduct in office. He did so by requesting the Chief Justice to
  appoint an independent tribunal to investigate, inquire into and determine the alleged
  misconduct. On 12 November 1999, Chief Justice Sir Arnold Amet appointed the
  tribunal.

  On 15 December 1999 the matter was formally referred to the tribunal. The tribunal
  ran from 2 February to 13 March 2000. On 17 March 2000 it announced its decision
  in public.

  Mr Singirok was found gUilty of three allegations of misconduct in office. These
  were:

  • Allegation No 1 – secretly receiving a series of payments totalling K68,000.00
  from a foreign military supplier (J & S Franklin Ltd) at the time he was
  Commander of the PNGDF, through a Visa Card account at Lloyds Bank
  London, thereby putting himself in a conflict of interests, demeaning his office,
  allowing his integrity to be called into question etc., contrary to Section 27 of the
  Constitution. The tribunal highlighted the fact that having received the money,
  Mr Singirok told nocone about it. To worsen the situation, he used the money for
  p.ersonal and private purposes:

  • Allegation No 2 – accepting the above money without exemption from liability by
  the Ombudsman Commission, contrary to Section 12(1) of the Organic Law on
  the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership. The tribunal noted that though this
  ,allegation relied on the same facts as the first one, the nature of the allegation was
  different: .

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 55 of 141

• 50

  • Allegation No 4 -. glvmg a false fin;mcial statement to the Ombudsm;m
  Commission by failing to declare the Lloyds Bank account and the gifts he had
  received from Franklins, contrary to Section 4(6) ofthe Organic Law.

  Mr Singirok: was found not guilty of two allegations. These were:

  • Allegation No 3 – overruling defence procurement procedures by entering into
  arrangements with another supplier of military goods, Unicorn International Pte
  Ltd.

  • Allegatien No 5 – failing to publicly apologise for his conduct at the Andrew
  Commission of Inquiry at which he gave oral testimony regarding gifts and
  benefits from Franklins which amounted to lying under oath.

  On 20 March 2000 the tribunal heard submissions on penalty and on 21 March 2000
  armounced in public its decision.

  As to Allegation No I the tribunal concluded there was serious culpability on the part
  of the leader and that public policy and the public good demanded that he be
  dismissed. The tribunal highlighted a passage from the leadership tribunal case
  concerning Mr Ted Diro (1991): ” … the conduct of leaders is subject to additional
  obligations and additional statutory provisions have been enacted to enforce those
  obligations”. The fact Mr Singirok did not put his hand in the “public till” was
  irrelevant:

  Allegation Nos. 2 and 4 were considered together. Both Mr Singirok’s failure to seek
  an exemption from the Ombudsman Commission regarding the payments he had
  received through his Visa Card account at Lloyds Bank, London, and his failure to
  disclose the existence of that account in his armual statement, were found to have a
  common element: an intention to conceal the gifts he had received from Franklins.
  This also amounted to serious culpability warranting dismissal from office.

  On 22 March 2000 the tribunal recommended to the Governor-General that Mr
  Singirok be dismissed from office. On the same day the Governor-General acting in
  accordance with the tribunal’s recommendation dismissed Mr Singirok from office as
  Commander of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force.

  MICHAEL GENE

  Overview

  Offices Secretary, Department of Attorney-General (an office
  subject to the Leadership Code by virtue of Section
  26(1)(1) of the Constitution); Attorney-General.
  ..
  Date of referral to Public Prosecutor 3 March 2000.
  Date of request for appointment of 17 April 2000.
  tribunal
  Date of appointment of tribunal Tribunal not appointed.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 56 of 141

• 51

  Result On 27 July 2000 the leader’s appointment as Secretary
  (and Attomey-General) was revoked by the Govemor-
  General acting on the advice of the National Executive
  Council. As at 31 December 2000, Mr Gene had not
  held any other offices subject to the Leadership Code,
  so no further action could be taken by the Public
  Prosecutor. Ifhe becomes a leader again the matter may
  be reactivated.

  Details

  On 30 January 1998 Mr Gene was appointed Secretary of the Department of
  Attorney-General. He also became the Attorney-General of Papua New Guinea by
  virtue of Section 5.ofthe Attorney-General Act.

  The allegation at the centre of this referral was that the leader swore an inappropriate
  affidavit for use in a private legal action brought by a friend and colleague in a foreign
  court, which contained statements highly prejudicial to the legal system ofPapua New
  Guinea.

  It was alleged that by swearing the affidavit Mr Gene placed himself in a position
  where he had a conflict of interests; demeaned his office of Attorney-General;
  allowed his official and personal integrity to be called into question; and endangered
  respect for and confidence in the integrity of government in Papua New Guinea,
  contrary to Section 27 of the Constitution. It was also alleged he allowed his official
  position to be used for the benefit of another person, contrary to Section 5(2) of the
  Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities ofLeadership . .

  The affidavit was sworn by Mr Gene on 28 April 1998. It was filed in the Supreme
  Court of Victoria in the case Gregory Toop v Mobil Oil New Guinea and Others. Mr
  Toop was seeking to recover damages in a civil action against Mobil arising from an
  armed robbery at the Mobil service station, Five Mile, Port Moresby, in December
  1995. Mr Toop was a customer at the service station and suffered serious injuries
  “‘during the course of the robbery.

  Mobil argued that the case should not be heard in Victoria. It should be heard in
  Papua New Guinea. Mt Gene’s affidavit was filed for the purpose of defending an
  application by Mobil to have the case permanently stayed on the ground that Victoria
  was an inappropriate forum in which to institute the proceedings.

  In his affidavit Mr Gene staied amongst other things that there existed serious
  problems in the courts in PNG ” … which would place Mr Toop at a distinct juridical
  disadvantage ifhe were to proceed with his action in Papua New Guinea”. Mr Gene
  stated:

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 57 of 141

• 52

  On 9 December 1998 Hr Justice Beach of the.8upreme Court of Victoria haried
  down a judgment rejecting Mobil’s application and finding in favor ofMr Toop. This
  judgment quoted several paragraphs of Mr Gene’s affidavit. The Ombudsman
  Commission alleged that the actual effect of Mr Gene’s statements contained in the
  affidavit was to lessen the confidence of a judge of a foreign jurisdiction in the Papua
  New Guineajustice system.

  Although lodged in a private case the affidavit was a public document and it
  transpired that the contents of it became the subject of media coverage in PNG, eg the
  front page of the Post-Courier on 19 March 1999. It was alleged that the
  circumstances in which Mr Gene made his sworn statements suggested that he was
  prepared· to use his position as Attorney-General to advance the interests of a personal
  friend in a private legal action commenced in a foreign jurisdiction.

  On 9 August 1999 Mr Gene was served with a right to be heard notice. He was given
  until 30 August 1999 to respond. He sought and was granted two extensions of time,
  to 30 September 1999 then to 16 November 1999. He failed to exercise his right to be
  heard. On 3 January 2000 he requested further time but the request was declined.

  The Ombudsman Commission then deliberated on the matter. It concluded there was
  a prima facie case he had been guilty of misconduct in office. Accordingly, it was
  obliged by Section 27(1) of the Constitution to refer the matter to the Public
  Prosecutor, which it did on 3 March 2000. The Public Prosecutor then considered the
  matter. On 17 April 2000 he exercised his discretion to bring proceedings by
  requesting Chief Justice Sir Amold Amet to appoint a leadership tribunal.

  On 25 April 2000 the Chief Ombudsman wrote to the Chief Justice pointing out that
  he may not be the appropriate appointing authority for the tribunal. Section 27(7)(b)
  of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership provides that in
  the case of alleged misconduct in office by a “Law Officer” the tribunal shall consist
  of three Judges (rather than one Judge and two senior magistrates as is normally the
  case) appointed by the Judicial and Legal Services Commission, not by the Chief
  Justice. Mr Gene in his capacity as Attorney-General and principal legal adviser to the
  National Executive was one of the country’s three Law Officers; the others being the
  Public Prosecutor and the Public Solicitor. The Chief Ombudsman added however
  that the matter was not free of doubt because of the wording of Section 180 of the
  Constitution. Section 180 tends to suggest that only the Public Prosecutor and the
  Public Solicitor are caught by Section 27(7)(b) of the Organic Law.

  The Chief Justice considered the matter in light of the Chief Ombudsman’s letter. On
  22 June 1999 he advised the Public Prosecutor that he would in fact proceed to
  appoint a tribunal as requested. However no appointment was made before 27 July
  2000 when Mr Gene’s appointment as Secretary of the Department of the Attorney-
  General (and hence Attorney-General) was revoked. Mr Gene on that date ceased to
  be subject to the Leadership Code. No further proceedings could take place. The
  matter is now on hold. It can be reactivated if and when Mr Gene occupies another
  office subject to the Leadership Code.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 58 of 141

• 53

  JlMKAS

  Overview

  Offices Member for Madang Provincial; Governor, Madang
  Province; Member, Madang Provincial Assembly
  (offices subject to the Leadership Code by virtue of
  Sections 26(1)(c) and 26(l)(d) of the Constitution).
  Date of referral to Public Prosecutor 12 April 2000.
  Date of request for appointment of 28 July 2000.
  tribunal
  Date of appointment of tribunal 7 August 2000.
  Composition of tribunal Mr Justice Mark Sevua (Chairman) and Senior
  Magistrates Mr Sition Passingan and Mr Mark Pupaka.
  . Date of referral to tribunal 17 August 2000 .
  Legal representation Mr Panuel Mogish, in person, for the Public Prosecutor;
  Mr Gregory Sheppard, of Maladinas Lawyers, for the
  leader.
  Hearing dates 17 August, 6, 14,20,21,27 September 2000.
  Decision and reconnnendation Guilty of the single allegation inquired into by the
  tribunal- tribunal recommended dismissal from office.
  Date recommendation given 4 October 2000.
  Implementation of recommendation 5 October 2000.
  Judicial review The leader applied for leave to seek judicial review of:
  the tribunal’s decision to accept the leader’s guilty plea;
  its decision on penalty; and its recommendation the
  leader be dismissed. On 24 October 2000 the National
  Court (Sakora J) refused leave. The leader then appealed
  to the Supreme Court. As at 31 December 2000 the
  appeal had not been heard.
  Result Subject to the outcome of the appeal against refusal to
  grant leave for judicial review, the leader is dismissed
  and disqualified from holding public office under
  Section 31 of the Constitution until 6 Octo,ber 2003.

  Details

  On 16 July 1997 Mr Kas took office as the member for Madang Provincial in the
  National Parliament. He thus became the Provincial Governor and a member of the
  Provincial Assembly.

  On 21 February 1998 he was involved in an incident at Madang Airport. He was
  running late for a flight he had booked to travel to Mt Hagen. He was drunk in a
  vehicle (his own) and was driven to the airport by a drunken policeman. There were
  two other drunken policemen in the vehicle. In an attempt to board the plane which
  had taxied to the end of the runway and had its engines running preparing to take off,
  he ordered his vehicle to be driven through a locked gate and across the aerodrome
  next to the plane. He was waved away by the pilot. Mr Kas then returned to the airport
  terrnina1 .and abused airline staff and airport officials. The incident was widely
  reported in the media. On EMTV news the following evening an interview conducted
  the day of the incident was telecast. In the interview he appeared drunk.

  He later faced crimmal proceedings over the incident. He was charged, together with
  the three police officers, with an offence under Section 442(1)(a) of the Criminal
  Code: dealing with an aircraft so as to endanger its free and safe use. He was found
  guilty (together with the three police officers) by the National Court (Sawong J) in
  November 1998 and sentenced to four years imprisonment.
  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 59 of 141

• 54

  While the criminal proceedings were continuing, the O!l1budsman Commission
  undertook its own investigation of Mr Kas’s conduct. On 4 January 1999, he was
  served with notice of his right to be heard. By that time he was an inmate of the Beon
  ,Corrective Institution. ‘

  On 30 April 1999 the Supreme Court’ (Aniet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Woods J, Los J and
  Sakora ‘J) upheld an appeal against the conviction of Mr Kas and the three police
  officers. They were all released from prison.

  The Ombrrdsman Commission considered, that Mr Kas’s acquittal had no effect on the
  allegations of misconduct in office. The Leadership Code and the Criminal Code are
  two separate codes of conduct leaders’must adhere to. Acquittal or conviction under
  one has no necessary flow-on effect on the initiation or result of proceedings under
  the other.

  Mr Kas did not exercise his right to be heard and on 12 April 2000 he was referred to
  the Public Prosecutor.

  On 17 August 2000 the Public Prosecutor referred the matter to the tribunal.
  Originally, the Public Prosecutor’s reference consisted of four allegations arising from
  the Madang airport incident. On 7 September 2000, however, the Public Prosecutor
  withdrew his original reference and substituted it with a reference containing only one
  allegation. The tribunal asked Mr Kas how he wished to respond. He replied that he
  was wrong and guilty. This was the first time a leader had pleaded guilty (0
  misconduct in office in a leadership tribunal.

  On 14 September 2000 the tribunal resumed and announced its decision. It noted that
  Mr Kas’s -guilty plea was unequivocal. A number of aspects of his conduct were
  highlighted. He had been drunk. He acted without lawful authority or excuse. He
  clearly violated the, Ci;il Aviation Regulation and committed a criminal offence. ‘lIe
  unlawfully directed the police officers to commit a criminal offence. He impeded the
  pilot of an aircraft in the performance of his duties. He acted in an abusive manner
  towards airline staff. His conduct was unbecoming of a leader, improper, unfitting and
  disgraceful.

  The tribunal concluded that Mr Kas had demeaned his office; allowed his public
  integrity and official integrity to ,be called into question; endangered respect for and
  confidence in the integrity of govemment; and engaged in an activity that might be
  expected to give rise to doubt in the public mind as to whether he was carrying out his
  duties as a leader. He was found guilty of misconduct in office under Sections
  27(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) and 27(2) of the Constitution.

  The tribunal adjourned to 20 September to hear submissions on penalty. On the
  aftemoon of 19 September 2000 however, the leader’,s lawyer delivered a letter to the
  tribunal indicating that an application would be made for the tribunal to disqualify
  itself. On 20 September the tribunal heard the application. The grounds were that in
  making its decision that the leader was guilty the, tribunal had departed from the
  statement of facts he had pleaded guilty to; had made findings of disgraceful and
  improper conduct he had not been charged with; purported to find the leader guilty of
  criminal offences; had failed to consider the transcript of the criminal trial in the
  Nation!!l Court; and had found the leader guilty of a breach of Section 27(2) of the
  Constitution when he had not beench!lrged with misconduct ,under that provision.
  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 60 of 141

• 55

  Accordingly it Was argued the tribunal had acted in excess of its jurisdiction and
  denied the leader natural justice in that its decision gave rise to a reasonable
  apprehension of bias.

  The next day, 21 September 2000, the tribunal handed down its ruling on the
  application. It dismissed the application. The tribunal also refused a request for a further
  adjournment. It then heard submissions on penalty a,nd adjoumed to consider its final
  decision.

  On 27 September 2000 the tribunal resumed. Prior to handing down its decision the
  leader’s lawyer submitted that the tribunal should halt its proceedings on the ground
  that thepreviols day the leader had commenced proceedings in the National Court
  seeking an order of prohibition against the tribunal. The tribunal considered the
  application. It ruled that in the absence of a Court order it would not stay its
  proceedings. It proceeded to armounce its decision.

  The tribunal accepted that Mr Kas was sincere in accepting responsibility over his
  foolish actions. But his successful appeal to the Supreme Court and his discharge
  from prison were related to a matter under the Criminal Code. He was incareerated for
  6 months but that did not relate to a Leadership Code offence.

  The tribunal concluded that Mr Kas’s conduct amounted to “serious culpability”. As
  to “public policy and the public good” the leader breached the standard of conduct
  expected not only by the people of Madang but the people ofPapua New Guinea. The
  incident was in a public place, witnessed by the public and then played out in the
  media resulting in the public perception of the leader’s conduct as a public disgrace.
  He deserved the maximum penalty.

  Though there was no allegation of corruption, to recommend any other penalty would
  downplay the seriousness and enormity of the incident. The Leadership Code is there
  to protect people not only from corrupt but also improper conduct. There were a lot of
  aggravating factors: driving a vehicle at high speed across the tarmac; stopping close
  to an aircraft preparing for takeoff; abusing airline staff; and being drunk throughout
  the incident. These deserved special condenmation.

  Reference was made to the leadership tribunal’s decision in Ted Diro ‘s case (1991)
  that commented on the quality ofleadership PNG should have. The tribunal stated:

  The purpose of the Leadership Code is to protect and preserve the People of Papua
  New Guinea from leaders whose conduct has been weighed in the balance and found
  wanting. As the tribunal found serious culpability, it was bound to recommend
  dismissaL On 4 October 2000 the tribunal conveyed its recommendation. to the
  Governor-General. The next day Mr Kas was dismissed from office.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 61 of 141

• 56

  PETER PEIPUL

  Overview

  Offices DeputyLeader of the Opposition; Member for Imbonggu
  Open; Member, Southern Highlands Provinci;ll
  Assembly (offices subject to the Leadership Code by
  virtue of Sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c) and 26(1)(d) of the
  Constitution).
  Date of referral to Public Prosecutor 7 AU2ust 2000.
  Date of request for appointment of 8 December 2000.
  tribunal
  Date of aooointment of tribunal 21 December 2000.
  Composition of tribunal Mr Justice Maurice Sheehan (Chairman) and Senior
  Ma2istrates Mr Orim Karapo and Mr lova Geita.
  Status at end of 2000 As at 31 December 2000 the matter had not been
  referred to the tribunal.

  Details
  On 16 July 1997 Mr Peipul took office as the member for Imbonggu Open in the
  Nlltional Parliament and became a member of the Southern Highlands Provincial
  Assembly. He had previously held a· number of other leadership positions over a
  period of fourteen years. He had been a member of the Public Services Commission
  (pSC), an ambassador and head of two government departments. From July 1997 he
  was a member of the Opposition when Mr Bernard Narokobi was the Leader of the
  Opposition. In November 1998 he moved to the Government. On 3 December 1998.
  he was appointed Minister for Public Service by the Prime Minister Mr Bill Skate.

  Mr Peipul had statutory and pOIltical responsibility for the PSC and the Department of
  Personnel Management. At the time of his appointment there was a vacancy’in one of
  the three offices of member of the PSC. These are constitutional office-holder
  positions.

  Six days after he was appointed Minister Mr Peipul instructed the Secretary for
  Personnel Management, Mr Bill Kua, to prepare a National Executive Council (NEC)
  submission for his signature, recommending that Moses Ipu Tawa.be appointed to the
  vacant PSC position. Mr Tawa is Mr Peipul’s brother. Mr Peipul did not tell Mr Kua
  that Mr Tawa was his brother. He proceeded to present a submission to the NEe;
  recommending his brother’s appointment. There was no mention in the submission
  that Mr Tawa was his brother. The Governor-General, acting on the advice of the
  NEC, made the appointment in late December 1998.

  On 29 December 1998 Mr Peipul wrote to the Ombudsman Commission stating that
  the new member of the PSC was his ”blood brother”. On 30 December 1998 the Chief
  Ombudsman replied, seeking further information from Mr Peiptil as well as drawing
  his attention to various relevant laws. Mr Peipul was asked to respond by 5 January
  1999 but failed to do so. Follow-up letters were sent. Mr Peipul was asked to contact
  the Chief Ombudsman by telephone, but never did. Mr Peipul eventually responded
  on 8 February 1999, but his response was incomplete. In view of.his failure to fully
  co-operate and the seriousness of the suggestion he had engineered a constitutional
  appointment for his brother within a matter of days after being appointed as the
  Minister the Ombudsman Commission decided on its own initiative to conduct an
  investigation into suspected misconduct in office.
  Cbapter6
  Leadersbip

• Page 62 of 141

• 57

  The Commission discovered that after Mr Peipul received the Chief Ombudsman’s
  letter of30 December 1998 he arranged the revocation ofMrTawa’s appointment and
  Mr Tawa’s immediate reappointment. But the Commission was still concerned that
  Mr Peipu1 had not complied with the Leadership Code. Section 6 of the Organic Law
  on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership imposes strict procedures in cases
  where leaders deal with lJlatters in which their associates have an interest. These
  . procedures had again, evidently, been by-passed.

  In July 1999 the Government changed and Mr Peipul ceased to be a Minister. He then
  became Deputy Leader of the Opposition. On 31 August 1999 a right to be heard
  notice was served on him. On 2 September 1999 he responded in writing. He
  maintained his brother was the best-qualified person for the job and all requirements
  of the Leadership Code had been satisfied.

  The Ombudsman Commission deliberated on Mr Peipu1’s response and concluded
  there was a prima facie case he had been guilty of misconduct in office. On 7 August
  2000 the matter was referred to the Public Prosecutor. In the statement of reasons
  presented to the Public Prosecutor the Ombudsman Commission stated that Mr
  Peipul:

  • Directed his Departmental Head, Mr Kua, to prepare a submission recommending
  his brother for appointment to a constitutional office and did not advise him or
  anyone else that it was his brother he was recommending.

  • Did not meaningfully consider any person other than his brother for appointment
  and put a misleading submission to the NEe.

  • Flouted the requirements of the Constitution concerning consultation wIth the
  Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Appointments and manipulated the
  appointment procedures prescribed by the Constitution.

  • Falsely stated to the National Executive. Council on two occasions that
  consultation with the Permanent Parliamentary Committee on Appointments had
  occurred.

  • Engaged in a duplicitous course of conduct motivated by the desire to get his
  brother appointed to a senior public office.

  • Compromised the position of the Chairman of the Permanent Parliamentary
  Committee on Appointments by presenting him with a prepared letter and asking
  him to sign it.

  • Knowingly placed his Excellency the Governor-General in a position where he
  executed an instmment that contained a false statement.

  • Arranged the revocation of the appointment of a constitutional office-holder and
  his immediate reappointment, without regard to the constimtional implications
  of his actions.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 63 of 141

• 58

  In the statement of reasons the Ombudsman Commission noted widespread
  concerns in PNG about nepotism. The word “nepotism” is defined by the New
  Oxford dictionary (1998 edition, Oxford University Press) in the following terms:

  There was a prima facie case that Mr Peipul had engaged in nepotism in that he:

  • Placed himself in a position where he had a conflict of interests, contrary to
  Sectiori 27(1)(a) of the Constitution.

  • Demeaned the office of Minister for Public Service, contrary to Section 27(1)(b) of
  the Constitution.

  • Allowed his official.and personal integrity to be called into question, contrary to
  Section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution.

  • Endangered respect for and confidence in the integrity of govemment in Papua
  New Guinea, contrary to Section 27(I)(d) of the Constitution.

  • Failed to reveal to the Ombudsman Commission, the Parliament and the National
  Executive Council the nature and extent of his associate’s interest in a matter with
  which he had to deal in an .official capacity, contrary to Section 6(1) of the
  Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities ofLeadership.

  • Took part in the deliberations and decisions to appoint his brother as a member of
  the PSC without the express approval (by resolution) of the NEC contrary to
  Section 15(3) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of
  Leadership.

  The Public Prosecutor deliberated on the matter and on 8 December 2000 exercised
  his discretion to bring proceedings by requesting the Chief Justice to appoint a
  leadership tribunal. The tribunal was appointed on 21 December 2000 and was
  expected to commence its hearings early in 200 I.

  ANDERSON AGIRU

  Overview

  Offices Member for Southern Highlands Provincial; Governor,
  Southern Highlands Province; Member, Southern
  Highlands Provincial Assembly (offices subject to the
  Leadership Code by virtue of Sections 26(1)(b), 26(1)(c)
  and 26(1)(,1) of the Constitution).
  Date of referral to Public Prosecutor 9 November 2000.
  Status at end of 2000 As at 31 December 2000, the Public Prosecutor had not
  made a decision whether to bring proceedings. So no
  request had been made for appointment of a tribunal.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 64 of 141

• 59

  Details

  On 16 July 1997 Mr Agiru took office as the member for Southern Highlands
  Provincial. He thus became the Provincial Governor and a member of the Provincial
  Assembly, He had previously held leadership positions as a member of the official
  personal staff of a number of different Ministers over a period of nine years.

  Various allegations of misconduct in office had been put to Mr Agiru in four separate
  right to be heard notices given to him in the period from December 1997 to September
  2000. .

  In December 1997 Mr Agiru was given notice of his right to be heard on his alleged
  failure to give annual statements to the Ombudsman Commission for the years
  1993/94; 1994/95 and 1995/96.

  In January 1998 Mr Agiru was given a right to be heard on his alleged failure to give
  an armual statement to the Ombudsman Commission for the year 1996/97.

  In August 2000 Mr Agiru was given a right to be heard on his alleged unlawful
  possession of a high-powered firearm. This matter came· to light when an article
  headed “Only God will remove us … ” was published on page 3 of the 31 July 2000·
  edition of the Post-Courier newspaper. A photograph showing Mr Agiru at Mendi
  airport shaking hands with the Minister for Provincial and Local-level Govemment
  Affairs, Mr Iairo Lasaro, accompanied it. In his left hand Mr Agiru was carrying what
  appeared to be an AR-15 semi-automatic high-powered firearm. Three other members
  of the Parliament also appeared in the photograph.

  In September 2000 Mr Agiru was given notice of his right to be heard on his alleged
  fuilure to give armual statements to the Ombudsman Commission for the years
  1997/98 and 1998/99.

  Mr Agiru did not respond to any of the above right to be heard notices.

  The Ombudsman Commission deliberated on these matters and concluded there was a
  prima facie case that Mr Agiru was guilty of misconduct in office. Accordingly, the
  Commission was obliged by Section 29(1) of the Constitution and Sections 17(d),
  20(4) and 27(1) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership
  to refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor, which it did on 9 November 2000.

  The Ombudsman Commission’s statement of reasons puts the allegations of
  misconduct in office into two categories.

  First, the six armual statements that Mr Agiru has allegedly failed to submit to the
  Ombudsman Commission. It is alleged that .as a consequence he has committed
  misconduct under Section 4(6)(a) of the Organic Law on the Duties and
  Responsibilities ofLeadership.

  Secondly, the Mendi airport incident. It is alleged that Mr Agiru did not have a
  firearm licence; illegally carried the firearm in a helicopter; illegally carried the
  firearm in a public place; allowed himself to be photographed carrying the firearm;
  and misled the media and the/public by stating he had a licence for a high-powered
  firearm when in fact he was. unlicensed.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 65 of 141

• 60

  Consequently there is a prima facie case that Mr Agiru:

  • Demeaned the leadership offices he holds, contrary to Section 26(1 )(b) of the
  Constitution.

  • Allowed his official and personal inte’grity to be called into question, contrary to
  Section 26(1)(c) of the Constitution.

  • Endangered and diminished respect for and confidence in the integrity of
  goverument, contrary to Section 26(1)( d) ofthe Constitution.

  • Engaged in activities that might be expected to gi’ve rise to doubt in the public
  mind as to whether her was carrying out his duties as a leader, contrary to Section
  27(2) of the Constitution.

  The matter remains in the hands of the Public Prosecutor.

  ‘., JOHN WAKON

  Overview

  Offices Commissioner of Police; Departmental Head,
  Department of Police (offices subject to the Leadership
  Code by virtue of Sections 26(1 )(h) and 26(1)(1) of the
  ‘I’
  Constitution).
  I
  Date of referral to Public Prosecutor 20 December 2000.
  Status at end of 2000 As at 31 December 2000, the Public Prosecutor had not
  made a decision whether to bring proceedings. So no
  request had been made for appointment of a tribunal.

  Details

  On 20 July 1999 Mr Wakon was appointed to the office of Commissioner of Police. He
  was also appointed Departmental Head of the Department of Police under Section 27 of
  the Public Services (Management) Act.

  The allegation at the centre of this referral is that the leader received motor vehicle
  allowances to which he was not entitled and that he obtained the allowances under a
  false pretence. It is alleged that he represented that he had pilrchased a motor vehicle
  from his executive officer when no such transaction took place.
  Under a contract of employment between the leader and the State, the leader was entitled
  to:

  (a) a vehicle allowance paid fortnightly at a rate ofK31,800.00 per annum; or

  (b) a fully serviced and maintained vehicle provided to him and paid for by the State
  on a 24 hour unrestricted use basis.

  The Ombudsman Commission alleges that he has since September 1999, been receiving
  the benefit of both (a) and (b).

  On 30 May 2000 Mr Wakon was served with a right to be heard notice. He replied
  promptly in writing.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 66 of 141

• ‘I
  : ‘

  61

  !
  The Ombudsman Commission then deliberated on the matter. Out of fairness to the
  leader it took into account a number of matters that might be regarded as extenuating I.

  circumstances. In particular it considered whether Mr Wakon’s conduct might be I
  regarded as an “administrative indiscretion” rather than misconduct in office;

  However, the OmbudsmllIl Commission considered that the Commissioner of Police has
  a heightened duty, compared to other leaders, to abide by the law. He is the head of a
  disciplined fonce, a conspicuous leader who must be beyond reproach. To be seen to
  receive allowances to which he is not entitled can have a serious adverse effect on the
  morale of the force and the effectiveness of the command and control structure.

  The Ombudsman Commission concluded that there was a prima facie case Mr Wakon
  had been guilty of misconduct in office. Accordingly it was obliged by Section 27(1) of
  the Constitution to refer the matter to the Public Prosecutor, which it did on 20
  December 2000.

  The matter remains in the hands ofthe Public Prosecutor.

  M II-lI-s.rRY

  “‘” “h
  1′(.”‘101..{ VI..VV
  lA””‘”

  Leaders must never place themselves in a position where
  they could have a conflict of interests, or where they could
  be compromised in any way.

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 67 of 141

• 62

  – reprimanded

  4 LEO MORGAN Department of Works

  OPAl KUNANGEL

  9 EZEKIEL BROWN

  10 mLIUS Minister; Minister

  OBUM MAKARAI
  KEDEAURU National

  14 MP

  15 SUSUVE L~um=~ Chief of Staff, Office of Prime 1990 Public Prosecutor failed
  Minister to refer matter to tribWlal

  17 ESEROM BUREGE

  Minister; 1991 Guilty-
  for Forests for dismissal- but
  resigned before

  19 TOMAMAIU MP 1992

  ILA 1992 Guilty- but
  before decision on

  21 PETER guilty-

  23 MELCHIOR PEP MP guilty –
  dismissed

  24 PHILIPLAKI MP
  dismissal – but resigned
  before dismissal effected

  Chapter .6
  Leadership

• Page 68 of 141

• 63
  I
  I

  I

  MP; 1995
  and Provincial Affairs

  MP; Minister for Civil Aviation

  GABRIEL A Secretary, Department of Foreign
  Affairs

  JERRY SINGIROK Connnander of Defence Force 1999 Guilty – dismissed
  (judicial review by

  JIMKAS MP; Governor, Madang

  of the

  unal
  ,d

  ,diu

  gned
  fecled

  Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 69 of 141

• Chapter 6
  Leadership

• Page 70 of 141

• Page 71 of 141

• Purposes of the Ombudsman Commission

  Section 218 of the Constitution states:

  The purposes of the establishment of the Ombudsman Commission are-

  (a) to ensure that all governmental bodies are responsive to the needs and aspirations of
  the People; and

  (b) to help in the improvement of the work of governmental bodies and the
  elimination of unfairness and discrimination by them; and

  (c) to help in the elimination of unfair and otherwise defective legislation and practices
  affecting or administered by governmental bodies;. and

  (d) to supervise enforcement of Division III.2 (leadership code).

• Page 72 of 141

• 67

  7. OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION IN COURT

  OVERVIEW
  The Ombudsman Commission continued to be involved in a wide range of court
  proceedings in 2000. For the first time the Commission was subject to defani.ittfofi
  proceedings. This occurred in January after the Commission issued a press release
  about an investigation being conducted under the Leadership Code.

  In what has become a familiar pattern the two leadership tribunal decisions in 2000
  (Singirok and Kas, reported in Chapter 6) were subject to judicial review. There is no
  right of appeal against the decision of a tribunal. But those aggrieved can and almo.st
  invariably do apply for leave to seek judicial review.

  Litigation surrounding the Commission’s 1999 report into the purchase of The
  Conservatory building in Cairns by the Public Officers Superannuation Fund Board
  continued in 2000. Alfred Manase, trading as Pato Lawyers, commenced proceedings
  aimed at nullifying a recommendation that that law firm be banned from acting for the
  State for five years due to its role in the purchase.

  The duty of the National Parliament to sit regularly – an issue apparently resolved in a
  Special Reference by the Ombudsman Commission under Section 19 of the
  Constitution in 1999 – was revisited in two separate proceedings in 2000. In June the
  Parliament applied to the Court under the so-called “slip rule” to have the Court’s
  decision in SCR No 3 of 1999 (see the 1999 annual report) set aside. Iri-Vctober the
  Governor-General, acting on the advice of the National Executive Council, brought a
  new reference that raises many ofthe same issues covered by the 1999 case.

  Consistent with the classification of Court proceedings introduced in the 1999 annual
  ,report, cases in this chapter are dealt with as follows:

  • cases resolved during the year;

  • cases pending – those unresolved at the end of the year.

  The two cases classed as resolved are Singirok v Leadership Tribunal and the State
  and Kas v Leadership Tribunal and the State. Each was an applicatiun for leave to
  seek judicial review of the decision of a tribunal recommending dismissal from office.
  Both cases, however, led to’subsequent proceedings which were unresolved at the end
  of the year. In Singirok the application for leave was granted· in August and a
  substantive judicial review was heard in December, with judgment reserved. In Kas
  the application was refused in October and this led to an appeal to the Supreme Court
  that had not been heard at the end of2000.

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 73 of 141

• 68

  TABLE 7.1: Court cases 2000

  CASES RESOLVED
  National Court March 2000- Application for leave to
  Tribunal and the State OS 141 August 2000 seekjudicial review of
  (No I) leadership tribunal

  Kas v Leadership National Court October 2000 Application for to
  Tribunal and the State OS 570 of 2000 seek judicial review of
  (No 1) N2010 leadership tribunal
  decision refused –
  filed
  CASES PENDING
  National Court uu~:mem reserved
  OS 177 of 1991
  Conunission
  “alJunal Court reserved
  Bowl v Ombudsman OS 306 of 1996 December 2000
  Commission
  Berghuser v Ombudsman National Court October 1997 – Judgment reserved
  Conunission OS 320 of 1996 December 2000
  Kumbakor v Hitolo, Geno National Court 2000- Trial date to be set
  and Pentanu WS 40 of2000 2000
  Supreme Court Reference Supreme Court June 2000- Judgment reserved
  No 3 of 1999 – Special SCR 3 of 1999 December 2000
  Reference by the
  Ombudsman Commission
  Supreme Court Reference Supreme Court September 2000 – Set hearing in
  No 3 of 2000 – Special SCR 3 of2000 December 2000 early 2001
  Reference by the
  Governor-General
  August Judgment reserved
  Tribunal and the State OS 141 December 2000

  Manase 11 aU’ll1g as Court September 2000 – Trial date to be set
  Pato Lawyers v OC 582 of 2000 December 2000
  Ombudsman
  Commission, the
  Attorney-General and the

  Supreme Court
  SCM 11 of 2000 December 2000

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsmau Commissiou in Conrt

• Page 74 of 141

• 69

  CASES RESOLVED

  SINGmOK v LEADERSHIP TRIBUNAL AND THE STATE (No 1)
  National Conrt
  SheehanJ
  24,31 Angnst 2000

  On 22 March 2000 the Governor-General Sir Silas Atopare dismissed Mr Jerry
  Singirok as Commander of the Defence Force in accordance with the recommendation
  of a leadership tribunal. The tribunal case is reported in Chapter 6. Two days after his
  dismissal Mr Singirok filed an application for leave to seek judicial review of the
  tribunal’s recommendation.

  The application for leave was argued before Sheehan J on 24 August 2000. Messrs
  Moses Murray and Colin Mikail of Murray and Associates represented Mr Singirok.
  The Acting Solicitor-General, Mrs Hitelai Polume’Kiele, represented the tribunal and
  the State.

  Mr Murray did not raise any challenge to the tribunal’s decision that the leader was
  guilty of misconduct in office. The challenge was confined to the penalty. It was
  argued that no reasonable tribunal could have recommended dismissal given the
  circumstances of the case; that the tribunal had not taken into account the good things
  Mr Singirok had done for the nation; that the tribunal had failed to consider Mr
  Singirok’s honesty during 1997 in returning US$450,000.00 seized from Sandline
  personnel and which he had been keeping in his house for some months; and that the
  tribunal had in effect found Mr Singirok guilty of accepting a bribe from the Franklins
  company when he had not been charged with bribery.

  The Acting Solicitor-General argued that the tribunal applied the relevant provisions
  of the Constitution and the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of
  Leadership when it addressed the question of penalty; thatthe tribunal had a strictly
  confined discretion; that it had exercised that discretion carefully and taken into
  account all relevant considerations; and that accordingly an arguable case had not
  been established.

  On 31 August 2000 Sheehan J handed down an oral decision. His Honour said he was
  I
  satisfied that Mr Singirok had the necessary standing to bring the application. He was
  also satisfied he had raised an arguable case and was therefore entitled to have his·
  case heard in a substantive hearing. His Honour added that he did not intend to make II
  any further comment on the merits ofthe application for leave to seek judicial review. I

  The case was put in the callover list to obtain a date for judicial review. The i
  I’
  substantive hearing was held on 13 December 2000, also before Sheehan J, and is !I
  reported below as a case pending. II
  I

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 75 of 141

• 70

  KAS v LEADERSIDP TRIBUNAL AND THE STATE (No 1)
  National Court
  SakoraJ
  16, 24 October 2000

  This was an application for leave to seek judicial review of various decisions of and
  surrounding a leadership tribunal that recommended the Governor of Madang
  Province, Mr Jim Kas, be dismissed from office. The Governor-General dismissed
  him on 5 October 2000. The tribunal case is reported in Chapter 6.

  Mr Kas sought leave to review the following decisions:

  • The tribunal’s decision of 14 September 2000, after accepting his guilty plea, in
  which it gave detailed reasons for its conclusion that he was guilty of
  misconduct in office.

  • The ruling of 21 September rejecting an application that the tribunal should
  disqualify itself on the grounds of bias.

  • A subsequent ruling of 21 September rejecting an application for a one-week
  adjournment.

  • The decision on penalty of 27 September recommending that Mr Kas be
  dismissed.

  • The formal recommendation to the Governor-General of27 September.

  • The dismissal ofMr Kas by the Governor-General of 5 October.

  Mr Kas’s lawyer, Mr Greg Sheppard of Maladinas Lawyers, argued that the tribunal
  exceeded its jurisdiction. At the start of the case the leader, the Public Prosecutor and
  the tribunal agreed, and it had been determined by the tribunal, that its proceedings
  would be akin to criminal proceedings. When the leader pleaded guilty he was only
  accepting what was within the four corners of the single “charge” preferred against
  him and. the statement of facts sununarised in the Ombudsman Commission’s
  statement of reasons – nothing more. On 14 September the tribunal went beyond those
  four corners. It made findings of fact and law that had not been put to the leader. It
  therefore breached the rules of natural justice. Furthermore, the tribunal’s various
  statements condemnatory of the leader gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

  Mr Sheppard argued that the tribunal should have conducted its proceedings in so far
  as dealing with the guilty plea was concerned as if it were a criminal court. It should
  . have just announced that it accepted the guilty plea and found Mr Kas guilty of
  misconduct in office; and then invited submissions on penalty.

  lri the National Court Sakora J delivered a 27-page judgment, refu~ing leave. His
  Honour emphasised the fundamental principle that in considering leave for judicial
  review the court is not concerned with the merits of the decision but ”the decision-
  making process itself”. He spelt out the purpose of the requirement to seek leave: to
  detect unmeritorious challenges “before they clog up the system”. He explained the four
  factors that the National Court must consider: sufficient interest; an arguable case;

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 76 of 141

• 71
  I’
  exhaustion of other remedies; and whether there has been delay. in making the
  application for leave. His Honour said there were no problems With three of the four I
  prerequisites: Mr Kas had a sufficient interest, he had exhausted other remedies and I.

  there was no delay.

  He then ciune to the crux of the case – whether there was an arguable case. Sakora J
  stated:

  His Honour noted that there were various “unfortunate and premature” remarks.in the
  tribunal’s decision of 14 September. Nevertheless the tribunal’s decision was based
  on factual circumstances properly before it. The tribunal was quite justified in
  referring to these in its remarks.

  As to the tribunal’s decision not to disqualify itselfSakora J stated:

  Sakora J seemed to be indicating that though criticism might be made of the tribunal
  for the manner in which it conducted itself that did not necessarily mean it was biased
  or that a reasonable apprehension of bias had arisen or it had committed a
  jurisdictional error.

  His Honour considered the recommendation of 27 September 2000 and the actual
  dismissal from office effected on 5 October 2000 and found no arguable case of error of
  law. The application for leave was therefore refused.

  On 16 November 2000 Mr Kas appealed to the Supreme Court against Sakora J’s
  judgment. At the end of2000 a hearing date had not been set. .

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in. Court

• Page 77 of 141

• 72

  CASES PENDING

  NATIONAL PROVIDENT FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES v OMBUDSMAN
  COMMISSION
  National Court
  Sheehan J
  8 October 1991

  This case arose when the Ombudsman Commission lauuched a major investigation
  under the Organic Law on the Ombudsman Commission into the decision of the
  National Provident Fuud Board to award a substantial contract for management of its
  superannuation fund to an overseas company.

  The Board argl.ed that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman
  Commission. On the other hand, the Commission argued that the Board was a
  “governnlental body” and therefore its conduct could be investigated.

  At the end of2000 judgment was still reserved.

  TONY CHAN AND GOLDEN BOWL PTY LTD v OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION
  National Court
  Hinchliffe J
  21 October 1997

  Mr Chan and Golden Bowl Pty Ltd applied for judicial review of the Ombudsman
  Commission’s preliminary report of the investigation into the awarding of contracts
  for the Port Moresby water supply project. The contracts for this project, worth in
  excess of KI billion, were awarded in 1995. A report of the Commission’s
  investigation was presented to the Parliament in October 1996. Both Mr Chan and his
  company were mentioned in the report.

  The plaintiffs argued that the Commission did not have the power to report on private
  individuals and companies and had not given them an adequate opportuuity to state
  their case and was biased. .

  SIR HUGO BERGHUSER v OMBUDSMAN COMMISSION
  National Court
  Hinchliffe J
  21 October 1997

  Sir Hugo Berghuser was also mentioned in the Water Report. He applied for judicial
  review and his case was argued, together with Mr Chan’s case, before Hinchliffe J in
  October 1997.

  At the end of 2000 judgment was still reserved.

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 78 of 141

• 73

  KUMBAKOR v HITOLOj GENO AND.PENTANU
  NationalCo~rt

  This is a defamation action commenced by the member for Nuku Open, Mr Andrew
  . Kumbakor.

  On 11 January 2000 the Commission issued a press release on a leadership
  investigation concerning Mr Kumbakor. He was at the time the Minister for Rural
  Development.
  :’,!

  The following week Mr Kumbakor filed a defamation writ in the National Court
  against the three members of the Commission. The writ sought an injunction
  restraining further publication of the statements in the press release and damages.

  It was claimed the press release contained unfounded imputations and defamatory
  innuendoes. Further, Sections 17 and 20 of the Organic Law on the Ombudsman
  Commission prohibited the publication of such statements. Section 17 states the
  Commission must conduct every investigation in private. Section 20 of the Organic
  Law on the Ombudsman Commission obliges all members and officers of the
  Ombudsman Commission to maintain secrecy in relation to the affairs of the
  Commission. It was claimed that by breaching these obligations the defendants
  “injured the good name and standing of the plaintiff and induced others to shun, avoid
  or despise him as the Member for Nuku and a Minister of the Government”.
  ,I
  Pato Lawyers, acting forMr Kumbakor, filed a number of affidavits from people in lil
  Mr Kumbakor’s electorate deposing that they previously respected him but after the
  press release they despised, shunned, avoided or gQssiped about him.

  On 12 May 2000 the Ombudsman Commission filed its defence. This explained why
  the press release was issued. The person who made the complaint about the conduct
  of the leader planned to issue a press release stating that the investigation of his
  complaint had been delayed by “bribery and corruption” in the Ombudsman , I

  Commission and the Police Fraud Squad. It was therefore decided that the most I
  appropriate thing to do was to respond to the allegations made by the complainant
  immediately.

  The Commission asserted that the press release was not defamatory. But if it was
  there were defences available under the Defamation Act that made the publication
  lawful. These were: the issuing of the press release was published in the course of an
  official inquiry under the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of
  Leadership; .the press release amounted to fair comment respecting the conduct of a
  public officer in the discharge of his public functions; all the statements were true and
  it was for the public benefit that the press release be issued; and the press release was
  published in good faith for the public good. The Commission denied breaching
  Sections 17 or 20 of the Organic Law on the Ombudsman Commission.

  At the end of 2000 a date for the trial had not been set.

  I
  :1

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court
  I

• Page 79 of 141

• 74

  SUPREME COURT REFERENCE No 3 OF 1999
  Supreme Court
  Amet CJ, Kapi DCJ, Los J, Sheehan J, Sakora J, Sevua J
  28,30 November 2000

  This was a special reference to the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the
  Constitution by the Ombudsman Commission. Section 19 allows a limited number of
  authorities including the Ombudsman Commission to seek from the Supreme Court a
  binding opinion on any question relating to the interpretation or application of any
  provision of a Constitutional Law. In 1999, the Ombudsman Commission sought the
  Court’s binding opinion on the application of Section 124(1) of the Constitution and a
  number of other provisions dealing with meetings of the Parliament.

  Section 124(1) states:

  The Parliament shall be called to meet not more than seven days after the day
  fixed for the return of the writs for a general election, and shall meet not less
  frequently than three times in each period of 12 months, and, in principle, for
  not less than nine weeks in each such period.

  The reference was brought amid growing public concern about prolonged
  adjoumments of the Parliament. In the parliamentary year that commenced on 16 July
  1998 the Parliament had met for only 17 days when on 2 December 1998 it decided to
  adjourn until 13 July 1999, a period of more than seven months. If the Parliament
  were to meet on each of 13, 14 and 15 July 1999, the most it could sit was 20 days.
  This seemed substantially less than “nine weeks”. The Ombudsman Commission was
  concerned that Parliament was not fulfilling its constitutional obligations and decided to
  refer the question to the Supreme Court.

  There were two main issues in Supreme Court Reference No 3 of 1999:

  • Was Section 124(1) of the Constitution breached by reason of the adjournment
  of Parliament from 2 December 1998 to 13 July 1999?

  • If the Constitution was breached, can any action be taken to remedy that
  breach?

  The Supreme Court’s original decision was handed down in June 1999 and is reported
  in detail in the Ombudsman Commission’s 1999 annual report. It was decided by a
  6:1 majority that the Parliament breached Section 124(1). The following principles
  emerged:.

  • The Parliament has a duty to sit, in principle, for 63 days each parliamentary year.

  • During 1998-1999 the Parliament was in clear breach of the Constitution.

  • If the Parliament fails to comply with that duty proceedings may be commenced
  in the National Court by a person or authority (e.g. the . Ombudsman
  Commission) to enforce the duty.

  • The National Court can, in an appropriate case, Issue orders requiring the
  Parliament to sit the necessary number of days.

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 80 of 141

• 75

  In June 2000 the Parliament filed an application to have that decision set aside relying
  on the so-called “slip rule”.

  The application was heard in November 2000 by a six-member Supreme Court bench.
  This comprised six of the seven Judgls who dealt with the case in 1999. The only
  omission was Sir Robert Woods who had resigned in the interim.

  Mr Camillus Narokobi ofNarokobi Lawyers rIJPresented the National Parliament. He
  asserted that the majority ofthe Supreme Court made mistakes or “slips” in their June
  1999 judgements. In particular, they overIooked the constitutional sIJParation of
  powers between the legislature (the Parliament) and the judiciary (the Courts). This
  led to an injustice to the Parliament and to individual members of the Parliament. The
  I
  Court should set aside the 1999 decision and allow reargument of the issues. I
  The National Executive Council was granted leave to be a party to the proceedings
  and was represented by Dr John Nonggorr of Nonggorr and Associates. Dr Nonggor
  supported Mr Narokobi’s submissions. The Court had misinterpreted Section 124(1)
  of the Constitution. The Parliament’s duty was only to meet for nine weeks “in
  principle”. The Constitution was just telling the Parliament what it should aim to do.
  If it didn’t meet the aim that was a matter for the Parliament. It did not follow that the
  Constitution was breached.

  The Ombudsman Commission was represented by Counsel David Cannings and
  Senior Legal Officer Tabitha Suwae. The Commission argued that Supreme Court
  Reference No 3 of 1999 was a momentous constitutional decision carefully and
  correctly made and the application to set it aside puts in issue the principle of certainty
  in the law. There were no material mistakes made in the 1999 decision. The
  Parliament had had ample opportunity to make submissions on all aspects of the case.
  Fresh argument should not be permitted. Most of the arguments now being
  propounded were a rehash of arguments rejected previously. There was a handful of
  new arguments but they should not be permitted to be raised now, more than 12
  months after the Court had given its decision. The jurisdiction to reopen a decision
  could only be exercised in rare and excIJPtional circumstances which did not exist
  here.

  The Supreme Court finished hearing the slip rule application on 30 November 2000
  and reserved its judgment.

  SUPREME COURT REFERENCE No 3 OF 2000
  Supreme Court

  This is another Supreme Court reference filed under Section 19 of the Constitution. It
  also raises questions as to Parliament’s duty to meet regularly. It was filed in October
  2000 in the name of Governor-General, Sir Silas Atopare, acting on the advice of the
  National Executive Council.

  The questions raised are:

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 81 of 141

• 76

  Question 1
  What do the following words and expressions in Section 124(1) of the Constitution mean:-
  (a) “meet”?
  (b) “in principle”?
  (c) “nine weeks”?

  Question 2
  If the words “nine weeks” in Section 124(1) refer to a defined number of days, what
  constitutes a day?

  Question 3
  If the Parliament is adjourned for lack of quorum on a “day” scheduled for it to “meet”
  within the meaning of those words as interpreted in answer to questions 1 and .2, is such
  adjourned day included in the number of days the Parliament is required to meet?

  Question 4
  Is it mandatory for the Parliament to “meet” for “nine weeks” within the meaning of these
  expressions as interpreted in answer to question 1?

  Question 5
  If the answer to question 4 is yes – is the Parliament in breach of Section 124(1) of the
  Constitution if it does not meet for the required period?

  Question 6
  If the answer to question 5 is yes, and if, within a period of 12 months of a Parliament year,
  the Parliament completes its business in less than “nine weeks” within the meaning of that
  expression as interpreted in answer to question 1, is it still in breach of Section 124(1) of
  the Constitution?

  Question 7
  If the answer to question 5 or 6 is yes – in either case, who is to be held q,”ponsible for the
  breach?

  Question 8
  Having regard to the anSwer to question 7, what sanctions arc to be imposed on those held
  responsible for a proven breach?

  Question 9
  Having regard to Sections 99, 100 and U5 of the Constitution, do the Courts have
  jurisdiction to impose sanctions on those determined as being responsible in the answer to
  question 7?

  Question 10
  Having regard to Sections 99 and 115 of the Constitution, is the question as to the number
  of days and weeks Parliament meets in each 12 months a matter of Parliament procedure
  and is a legislative fuuction and therefore not subject to judicial supervision?

  Question 11
  Having regard to Sections 99 and 115 of the Constitution, do the NatioDlil and Supreme
  Courts have the constitutioual authority to:-
  (a) decide that the Parliament is in breach of Sectiou 124(1) of the Constitution; and
  (b) impose sanctions on Parliament or members of Parliament?

  Many of the issues raised by this reference overlap those dealt with in Supreme Court
  Reference No 3 of 1999. Towards the end of 2000 the Chief Justice Sir An;told Amet
  indicated in directions hearings that the Court would not hear the reference filed in
  October 2000 until after the Court handed down its decision on the “slip rule”
  application by the Parliament to have the 1999 decision set aside.

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 82 of 141

• 77

  SINGIROK v LEADERSHIP TRIBUNAL AND THE STATE (No 2)
  National Court
  SheehanJ
  13 December 2000

  Mr Jerry Singirok’s judicial review .application was heard in the National Court on 13
  December 2000 before Mr Justice Maurice Sheehan.

  Mr Singirok was challenging the leadership tribunal decision of March 2000 that
  found him guilty of misconduct in office and resulted in his dismissal from office as
  Commander of the Defence Force. In August 2000 he was granted leave to bring the
  judicial review. (The tribunal’s decision is reported in detail in Chapter 6. The
  .. granting of leave for judicial review is reported earlier in this chapter.)

  Mr Moses Murray and Mr Colin Makail of Murray and Associates argued Mr
  Singirok’s case. Mr John Kumura of the Office of Solicitor-General appeared for the
  tribuna1. The Ombudsman Commission’s Counsel, David Cannings, argued the case
  for the State on instructions from the Public Prosecutor.

  At the start of the hearing Mr Murray objected to Mr Cannings’ appearance. He
  argued that the matter was no longer within the ambit of the Ombudsman
  Commission.. Sheehan J stated however that he saw no reason why Mr Cannings
  should not be allowed to argue the case and ruled accordingly.

  Mr Murray then made another preliminary application. He sought leave of the Court
  to allow·Mr Singirok to give evidence in the witness box about the circumstances in
  which he had handed In US$450,000.00 cash he had obtained from Mr Tim Spicer
  during the height of the Sandline crisis. Mr Cannings objected on the ground of
  relevance. The objection was upheld. Sheehan J ruled that the subject matter of the
  case was the tribunal’s decision and its reasoning and whether the tribunal had made
  any error oflaw.

  The main arguments put on Mr Singirok’s behalf were:

  • The tribunal’s mind was “clouded” by its assessment that the money he received
  from a United Kingdom military goods supplier, Franklins, was a bribe.
  ,I
  ,!”
  • There was a breach of natural justice because Mr Singirok had not been charged
  with receiving bribes, but the tribunal found him guilty of this.

  • The tribunal failed to take account of mitigating factors.

  • The tribunal’s decision to recommend dismissal from office was so
  unreason.able no tribunal could have recommended dismissa1.

  The State’s arguments were:

  • The tribunal was entitled to draw the inference that the leader had received
  bribes.

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsmau Commission in Court

  —~~~~~~~~–.-

• Page 83 of 141

• 78

  • It could not possibly be said that the tribunal had made an “outrageous”
  decision. Nor could it be said that the decision defied logic.

  • Most of the so-called mitigating factors were mere assertions that were not
  proven in evidence.

  • The tribunal properly applied the penalty regime. It properly found there was
  serious culpability.

  The hearing lasted one day at the end of which Sheehan J reserved his decision.
  Judgment was still reserved at the end of2000.

  ALFRED MANASE TRADING, AS PATO LAWYERS v OMBUDSMAN
  COMMISSION AND THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE STATE
  National Conrt

  Pato Lawyers is suing the Ombudsman Commission and the Attorney-General over
  the recommendations concerning it in the Cairns Conservatory Report. That report
  was tabled in Parliament on 1 December 1999. Recommendation No16 was:

  On 28 September 2000 Alfred Manaietradingas Pato Lawyers filed an originating
  summons in the National Court asserting amongst other things that Recommendation
  No16:

  • is unconstitutional; and

  • was made in breach of the rules of natural justice; and

  • is harsh or oppressive.

  He is seeking declarations to the above effect and also damages.

  At the end of 2000 the case had not been set down for trial.

  KAS v LEADERSHIP TRIBUNAL AND THE STATE (No 2)
  Supreme Court

  This is an appeal against the refusal ofleave by the National Court for judicial review
  of the proceedings of a leadership tribunal. The refusal to grant leave is dealt with
  earlier in this chapter under Cases Resolved. The sole ground of the appeal is that
  Sakora J erred in fact and law in finding that Mr Kas had not established an arguable
  case. It is contended on Mr Kas’ s behalf “the evidence clearly demonstrated that there
  was such an arguable case ripe for substantive hearing”.

  At the end of 2000 a hearing date for the appeal had not been set.

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commissioniu Court

• Page 84 of 141

• 79

  ‘I1ItS MONS’/
  WI~L Mel.P TlIE
  bEVELOI’MIINT M~
  Of’ ‘{OUR SILO”” c,>(JMI
  .iLEC.llJAAl’! … EM 1 C.UTl’ELA
  MANIA •••

  Misappropriation of pnblic funds is misconduct in office under the Leadership Code and
  a criminal offence under the Criminal Code.

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Conrt

• Page 85 of 141

• 80

  Ombudsman Commission staff at the National Court Waigani

  Chapter 7
  Ombudsman Commission in Court

• Page 86 of 141

• Page 87 of 141

• Primary functions of the Ombudsman Commission

  I Investigation of alleged wrong conduct and defective administration by governmental
  bodies – Constitution, Sections 219(1)(a) & (b); Organic Law on the Ombudsman
  Commission.

  2 Investigation of alleged discriminatory practices, by any person or body –
  Constitution, Section 219(1)(c); Organic Law on the Ombudsman Commission.

  3 Investigation of alleged misconduct in office under the Leadership Code _
  Constitution, Section 219(1)(d); Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of
  Leadership.

• Page 88 of 141

• 83

  8. EXTERNAL RELATIONS

  EXTERNAL RELATIONS PLAN

  The Ombudsman Commission’s external relations plan aims to define and improve
  the Commission’s relationships – with complainants, governmental bodies, public
  servants, Parliament, other constitutional offices, the media and the People of Papua
  New Guinea. The plan began in 1999, but 2000 was the first full year of its
  implementation. The Commission set a number of targets for the external relations
  plan to achieve during the year.

  TARGETS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

  Leaders to have a clear understanding of and support for the purposes and fUnctions of
  the Commission.

  Information seminars were conducted with Local-level Government members at the
  following centres:

  1. Alotau, Milue Bay (April)
  2. Kerema, Gulf (June)
  3. Malalaua, Gulf (June)
  4; Lae City Chambers, Morobe (July)
  5. Wabag, Enga (August)
  6. Wapenamanda, Enga (August)
  7. Vunadidir, East New Britain (August)
  8. Popondetta, Oro (October)

  12 newsletters to be issued in 2000 as a communication medium to inform the
  Commission staff and external recipients about the Commission and what it does.

  Twelve editions of the Newsletter were issued during the year including a bumper
  edition in December to cornmemorate the change of Chief Ombudsman from Simon
  Pentanu to Ha Geno.

  12 schools to be visited as part of the Commission’s public awareness program.

  Presentations (with overhead projector where electricity was available) were’made at
  the following 20 schools:

  1. Goilanai Top Up School, Miln. Bay (April)
  2. Alotau Primary School, Milne Bay (April)
  3. Hagita High School, Milne Bay (April)
  4. Cameron Secondary High School, Milne Bay (April)
  5. Rabe Top Up School, Milne Bay (April)
  6. Kerema High School, Gulf (June)
  7. lIa Karaeta Primary School, Gulf (Juue)

  Chapter 8
  External Relations

• Page 89 of 141

• 84

  8. Malalaua High School, Gulf (June)
  9. Karea PrimarylMalalaua Vocational Schools, Gulf (June)
  , 10. Wabag High School, Enga (August)
  11. Kopen Secondary School, Enga (August)
  12. Kokopo High School, East New Britain (August)
  13. George Brpwn High School, East new Britain (August)
  14. ‘Kerevat National High School, East New Britain (August)
  15. Malabunga Secondary High School, East New Britain (August)
  16. Popondetta High School, Oro (October)
  17. Martyr’s Memorial High School, Oro (October)
  18. St Mary’s Primary School, East Sepik (October)
  19. Brandi High School, East Sepik (October)
  20. Vanimo High School, SandaulI (October)

  Regular media releases,

  28 media releases and editions of the Commission’s Legal Nius were issued by the
  Ombudsman Commission to the PNG media and selected Australian media outlets
  during the year. This compares with 22 media releases in 1999, nine in 1998 and four
  in 1997 (see graph below).

  GRAPH 8.1: Keeping the people informed – media releases 2000

  30~————————————–,

  25+———————————-
  20+—~—————–

  15+———————–
  10+—————~—–

  5 +—–,__——
  o
  1997 1998 1999 2000

  Issue of a Media Guide to assist journalists in their reportillg of issues relating to the
  Oll/h,lllsmllll Commissioll.

  A 26-pagc ~edia Guide was released in September. The purpose of the guide is to
  provide a concise and handy reference for all media outlets on the role of the
  Ombudsman Commission. During the month of September, education sessions were
  held with journalists in Port Moresby and Lae and with journalism students’ at UPNG.
  Copies of the Media Guide were distributed to all who attended and delivered to
  others who were unable to attend.

  Issue of pamphlets. hook/ets and hrochures about the role and fUIlCtions of the
  Omhudsmall Commissioll.

  In addition to the Media Guide, a new pamphlet, Making a Comp/ailll, was issued in
  March and more than 2500 copies of the pamphlet were distributed in the course of
  Ihe Commission’s public awareness work.

  Chapter 8
  External Relations

• Page 90 of 141

• 85

  The Commission ‘.I’ 1999 Annual Report produced and tabled in the Parliament before
  the end ofthe year.

  The 1999 Annual Report was tabled in the Parliament on 30 November 2000.

  Regular viSits to provinces to receive new complaints, conduct investigations and
  undertake awareness activities.

  Table 8.1 shows the various public· awareness activities undertaken by the
  Ombudsman Commission as part of the external relations plan in 2000.

  TABLE 8.1: Ombudsman Commission public awareness activities 2000

  upon
  complaints, collecting new

  Thomas Kairi, Mavara Sere, Josh
  Meadows
  19-23 June Kerema and Public awareness, complaints Roslyn Pochelep,
  Malalaua, Gulf gathering, school visits Royanna Minapi, J osh Meadows,

  course

  25

  27 September

  , ,

  ii
  3-7
  I1
  ,!II’

  9-20 and
  Vanimo, East
  and West Sepik

  Port session with John ToGuata,
  Josh Meadows
  Hevie, Andrew lkufu

  Bomana Police internal
  Training training

  ‘I,
  Chapter 8
  External Relations

• Page 91 of 141

• 86

  SEMINARS, WORKSHOPS AND CONFERENCES, ETC
  Speeches by members and officers of the Ombudsman Commission continued to be
  an important external relations tool for the Commission in 2000. Table 8.2 shows
  some of the public speeches given by the C01llli1ission during the year. Many of these
  talks were well covered in the media, effectively reaching many more people than just
  the original audience. A selection of speeches is included in the appendix.

  TABLE 8.2:Speeches by the Ombudsman Commission 2000

  Date ISpeaker Organisation, Topic Venne Audience

  22 March Simon Transparency “Practical steps Islander TImembers
  Pentanu International the OC is taking Travelodge and supporters
  in the fight against
  corruption”

  15-26 May lIa Geno Centre for “Dealing with Workshops in Representatives
  Democratic corruption in Sydney and of Asia-Pacific
  Institutions, PNG” Canberra law
  Australian National enforcement
  University agencies

  7 June lIa Geno Rotary Club of Port “Corruption – its Port Moresby 30 young
  Moresby impact on Bankers people,
  society” College identified by
  their employers
  as potential
  future leaders

  13 June Raho Australian Institute ”The OCofPNG Australian Other
  Hitolo of Administrative – Key features Institute of ombudsmen,
  Law and current issues Administrative the legal
  and trends” Law forum, fraternity
  Adelaide

  11 July lIa Geno UN Population “Masculinity a!Id Islander Panel
  Fund its impact on Travelodge discussion
  violence and broadcast
  conflict in PNG” nationally on
  NBCRadio

  22 September Simon British High “The role of the Residence of Heads of
  Pentanu Commission OCand British High international
  challenges in the Connnissioner missions in
  future” Port Moresby
  30 October Simon’ Durban, South “Balancing the International Other
  Pentanu Africa exercise of Ombudsman ombudsmen,
  goverrunental Institute representatives
  power and its from the
  accountability – United Nations
  The role of the and the
  Ombudsman National
  Human Rights
  Institutiolis

  ChapterS
  External Relations

• Page 92 of 141

• 87

  1 November David PNGMedia Freedomof . Granville J onnalists and the
  Cannings Council Information in Motel general public
  PNG-Howthe
  Ombudsman
  Commission can
  fit into the picture

  1 December Simon Port Moresby Graduation Port Moresby Graduating
  Pentanu Technical College ceremony speech Technical technical
  College students,
  fantilies, staff

  8 December !la Geno ICRAF Public ‘The Constitutional Tabari Place, General public
  Forum on right to freedom of Boroko
  International assembly and i’
  h
  r Human Rights Day association”

  21 December Simon Ombudsman Dinner to farewell Islander Ombudsman
  Pentanu, Commission outgoing Chief and Travelodge Comntission staff
  !la Geno, welcome new Ballroom, and invited
  Raho Chief Port Moresby guests
  Hitolo

  INTERNATIONAL PARTICIPATION

  In June Chief Ombudsman Simon Pentanu spent three weeks in Africa as a member
  of the Commonwealth Observer Group for the parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe.
  Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon invited Mr Pentanu to join the
  Observer Group, which was constituted under the Millbrook Commonwealth Action
  Program adopted by the Commonwealth Heads of Government at their meeting in
  New Zealand in 1995. This program allows for the observation of elections by an
  Observer Group as a means of supporting democratic processes and institutions in
  Commonwealth countries.

  The group inCluded parliamentarians, ombudsmen and other eminent citizens from a
  variety of Commonwealth nations. Chief Ombudsman Pentanu Was the only
  representative’ of Fapua New Guinea in the group. The parliamentary elections in
  l’
  Zimbabwe were considered a crucial test for democracy in the southern African
  nation, which was the scene of much unrest in 2000.

  In its editorial on Monday 12 June 2000 The National described Mr Pentanu’s
  involvement as “an excellent opportunity for one of our most senior and respected
  s public figures to be exposed to another nation’s political and administrative problems
  and. solutions – and all part of the process of enrichment of public life and experience
  .S which is so vital for PNG’s future” .

  Upon his return to PNG the Chief Ombudsman gave a briefing on the trip to the
  media and representatives of international missions based in Port Moresby.
  The costs of the trip were covered by the Commonwealth Secretariat.

  Chapter 8
  External Relations

• Page 93 of 141

• 88

  Chief Ombudsman Pentanu briefs representatives of diplomatic missions in Port Moresby
  along with Ombudsman Commission members and staff upon his return from Zimbabwe.

  LINKAGES WITH INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES

  On 28 November 2000 the Ombudsman Commission approved a policy paper entitled
  A strategy paper to develop linkages with external agencies to facilitate investigations
  2001-2003.

  The aim of the strategy is to guide and assist the Commission in improving current
  linkages and creating new linkages with anti-corruption and other similar bodies.
  Effective linkages will bring benefits to the Commission and the other organisations
  involved.

  Through this policy paper the Commission is seeking to enhance its own expertise and
  performance in conducting investigations.

  ChapterS
  External Relations

• Page 94 of 141

• Page 95 of 141

• ,(

  Complementary functions of the Onibudsman Commission
  1 Power to make special references to the Supreme Court on questions of
  constitutional interpretation – Constitution, Section 19.

  2 (Implied) power to enforce the Basic Rights – Constitution, Section 57.

  3 Power to advise (jointly with the National Executive Council) the Queen and Head of
  State, to consent to the Governor-General holding another office or position or
  engaging in another calling – Constitution, Sections 87(3) and (4).

  4 Power to help a<l!ninister the Organic Law regulating political parties, political
  donations and the protection of elections from outside or hidden influences –
  Constitution, Sections 129 and 130.

  5 Power given to Chief Ombudsman to participate in judicial appointments etc, by
  virtue of his membership of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission –
  Constitution, Section 183; Organic Law on the Judicial and Legal Services
  Commission.

• Page 96 of 141

• ‘l””
  I

  91 i I
  I

  9. HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT , ‘

  During 2000 the Ombudsman Commission’s Human Resources Development Unit
  undertook a number of activities in order to achieve the overall ‘goals of the
  . Commission’s annual workplan, ‘Ombudsplan 2000′. The Human Resources
  Development Unit had the full quota of staff in 2000,. consistent ~th the
  Commission’s overall structure.
  TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

  In January the Ombudsman Commission approved the Training and Development
  policy submission. Many of the Commission’s staff development and training activities
  during the year derived from the policy. A five-year staff development plan is part of·
  the policy document
  In consultation with .the institutional s~gthening project team’s human resources
  adviser, the Commission’s 2001 stiff training and development needs were identified
  ithrOUgh workshops with directors and team leaders.
  , ,
  The training program has four levels of priority: : ,,’

  Levell Training that forms part of the institutional strengthening project in the ,!. 1

  I,

  areas of IT training, investigation skills and report writing.

  Level 2 Other project related training activities.
  il
  Level J Non-project related training and development activities, funded by the
  Commission.
  Level 4 Training that is not included in the 2001 program, but will be considered
  on an ad hoc basis as needs arise.
  Staff development programs have tried to address the skill gaps and specific
  requirements of each officer. Special consideration has been given to maximising use
  of the Commission’s resources, taking measures to ensure training and development is
  cost effective.

  Table 9.1 shows the number of different training courses and programs undertaken by
  officers of the Commission in 2000. Officers are categorised by job group or position.

  Chapte~9
  Humaa Reso~ee. Development

• Page 97 of 141

• 92

  TABLE 9.1: Number oftr.aining programs undertaken in ~OOO, by position

  Position WithinPNG Overseas
  Senior Managers (Salary Band 4) 4 2
  Team Leaders (Band 3L 39 4
  Senior Investigators (Band 3) 42 0
  Senior Administrative Officers (Band 2) 29 0
  Investigators (Ban<! 2) 16 0 .
  Assessors (Band 2) 19 0
  Legal Officer (Band 2) I 0
  Assistant Investigators (Band I) 4 0
  Clerical positions (Band 1) 9 0
  Secretarial positions~and 11 8 0
  Drivers/Security Officers (Band 1) 6 0
  Total 177 6

  From that total of 183 training programs, 146 were undertaken by male officers, 37 by
  female officers.

  The vast majority of training has been delivered in-country and in-house. Graph 9.1
  shows the percentage breakdown of training programs attended within PNG for the
  various levels of officers. Positions are grouped into the four salary ”bands” used by
  the Commission.
  GRAPH 9.1: Training within PNG 2000

  Band 4 (Senior
  Managers)
  2% Band 1 (Assistant
  Investi9?1tors,
  CIE:uical positions,
  Secretarial
  positions, Drivers
  and Security
  Officers)
  15%

  Band 2
  (Investigators,
  ,_ _–·As”es’·’ors, Legal
  Officers)
  Band 3 (Team 37%
  leaders, Senior
  Investigators)
  46%

  During the year, two senior managers and four team leaders attended training courses
  abroad. Overseas training was kept to a minimum in order to reduce the costs of airline
  tickets, accommodation and other related travel expenses. Five of the six overseas
  training courses were funded by the .donor countries. The Commission is grateful for
  the sponsorship assistance received from AusAID, the British High Commission, the
  Commonwealth Secretariat and the Australian National University’s Centre for
  Democratic Institutions.

  Chapter 9
  Human Resources Development

• Page 98 of 141

• [‘ ‘

  :1
  ]I
  93

  ii
  I:’I
  PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS ‘I
  The Ombudsman Commission now has an improved perfonnance appraisal system in !
  ii
  place. The system has been developed as an institutional strengthening project activity.
  It is intended to improve the overall work perfonnance of every staff member in the il
  Commission through regular appraisal of the officer’s perfonnance, encouragement and i
  :i
  disciplining, where necessary. Comprehensive sessions have been conducted with all
  officers, at Port Moresby and in the regional offices, on the objectives of the appraisal !i,
  ”

  system.

  The perfonnance appraisal system aims to:

  • encourage effective and efficient work perfonnance in officers to enable them to
  achieve their respective divisional goals;

  • identify perfonnance gaps and close these gaps by training, counselling and other
  development activities; and

  • provide a means to reward hard-working officers through annual salary increases.

  RECRUITMENT
  Office of Counsel
  Under the organisational structure there were three senior legal officer positions and
  two legal officer positions which remained vacant for much of the year. The positions
  were advertised in May 2000. By the end of the year, two appointments had been made ,I
  – one senior legal officer and one legal officer. It is anticipated the other positions will
  be filled early in 2001.

  Vacancies
  At the end of the year, a number of other positions were vacant or being.filled by
  officers in an acting capacity. These were:

  • Manager Corporate Services
  • IT Manager
  • IT Hardware Officer
  • Investigator (Lae)
  • Driver (Kokopo)

  CONTRACT OFFICERS

  There are 38 citizen officers on contracts within the Commission (thirty-five male and
  three female). Table 9.2 shows numbers of citizen contract officers at each pay point.
  These officers all have three-year employment contracts with the Commission.

  ‘I
  Chapter 9
  Human Resources Development

• Page 99 of 141

• 94

  TABLE 9.2: Citizen officers on contracts 2000

  Pllv DOlnt Iballll) N° of citizen contract officers
  4.5 I
  4.4 I
  4.3 I
  4.1 I
  3.4 11
  3.3 2
  3.2 18
  3.1 3

  A total of 34 officers received gratuity payments In 2000. The others will receive
  gratuity payments in 2001.

  The Commission employed seven non-citizen contract officers in 2000. Table 9.3
  shows the numbers of non-citizen contract officers at each pay point.

  TABLE 9.3: Non-citizen officers on contracts 2000

  l’ay ~int(ban~_ N” of non-eitizen contract officers
  4.5 1
  3.6 2
  3.4 3
  3.2 I

  One officer has a three-year contract. The other six have IS-month contracts. Gratuity
  is paid at the expiry of the’contract for those on IS-month contracts and annually for the
  officer on the three-year contract.

  SUCCESSION PLANNING
  In line with the training and development policy the Commission will embark on a
  succession-planning program in 2001. It is considered important to establish career
  path planning for staff. The Commission should be able to identifY a pool of skilled and
  competent officers to select from to fill senior positions, should they become vacant.
  The first step of this program will be to identify officers considered to have the potential
  to go on to more senior positions within the Ombudsman Commission.

  Chapter 9
  Human Resources Development

• Page 100 of 141

• of a wider series of
  PNG~ They.wejre~’e
  Early in 1997,
  interested in

• Page 101 of 141

• “The holders of responsible positions, the leaders, because of the positions they hold are
  very often in the public eye. How they conduct themselves is observed by many. For their
  part the people naturally expect great things of their leaders, who can set the tone for the
  whole nation and make a positive contribution to the national morale. For without being
  able to formalise their sentiments the citizens like to see embodied in their leaders all that is
  best in the nation; and they like to have leaders worthy of identifying themselves with. To
  this deep and traditional feeling, the leaders of the cOUntry must respond positively and
  truly. By doing so they will build up the confidence of the people, and give the nation
  additional solidarity, so that the citizens, inspired by the high standards set by their elected
  representative and officials, can feel one with their leaders in contributing to and
  consolidating the national ethos.”

  Final Report of the Constitutional Planning Committee, para 3.10.

• Page 102 of 141

• i!
  I!
  97
  I1

  li
  ,!
  I1

  10. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING il
  ”

  PROJECT ii!l
  i!ii
  !j

  !iii
  In November 1997 the Ombudsman Commission embarked on an institutional
  strengthening project funded by the Australian Government (through AusAID) and 1I

  the Government ofPapua New Guinea.
  ‘Ithe project is assisting the Commission to increase and strengthen its capacity to
  carry out exercises such as organisational structuring, recruiting, introducing new and
  improved work processes, planning and review of performance targets and regular
  monitoring and reporting of productivity. The expansion and upgrading of the
  Commission’s information technology network and a robust external relations
  program are prominent resultant features of the institutional strengthening project.

  The project, sponsored by AusAID, is a cooperative venture owned by the
  Commission and assisted by professional services provided by Educo Pty Ltd. The
  project was extended in September 2000 until 31 July 2002 to enable completition of
  continued activities designed to strengthen the Commission. While the installation of
  the new IT network was to be delayed throughout 2000, pending the relocation of the
  ,I
  commission to Deloitte ,Tower, agreement was reached towards the end of the year to
  !!
  H
  ii

  install the network at Garden City. Further, the operations of Regional Offices were !;
  reviewed by the Project Team Leader and the Director (Complaints and ‘i
  i
  Administrative Investigations Division). A new Internal Communications Policy was
  introduced, reflecting a desire by Commission staff for improved communications. :1
  ”
  ‘I
  The Commission prepared Ombudsplan 2001 which formed the basis of the budget
  submission that year. The Commission was widely praised for its comprehensive
  plan, especially for the content which spelt out the Commission contribution to
  improved governance. Such was the impact, the Commission was allocated a
  substantial increase to its annual budget allocation.

  The Commission also completed its annual reports for the period 1994-98 and for
  1999 with all repOlis submitted to Parliament.

  The project in consultation with the Commission prepared a Staff Development Plan
  for 2001-2002. That gave priority to project related training but contained – in
  response to staff needs – a range of Commission-sponsored training.
  Throughout the year work processes introduced in previous years under the project
  have been incorporated in the Commission’s daily operations. Notably, the
  Commission’s external relations program gained momentum, exposing to the broader
  population, including in the provinces, much of the Commission’s work in an
  endeavour to educate people throughout Papua New Guinea on its role under the
  Constitution. The above achievements in 2000 positioned the Ombudsman
  Commission well for the implementation of key project activities such as the
  Information Technology (IT) installation and associated user training, scheduled for
  2001.

  Chaptel·tO
  Institutional Strengthening Project

• Page 103 of 141

• 98

  Chapter 10
  Institutional’ Strengthening Project

• Page 104 of 141

• Page 105 of 141

• Sections 213 and 214 ofthe Constitution provide for the establishment of
  the office of Auditor-General and the functions of that office .

  . Subdivision B-The Auditor-General.
  213. Establishment of the office of Auditor-General.
  (1) An office of Auditor-General is hereby established.
  (2) The Auditor-General shall be appointed by the Head of State, acting with, and in
  accordance with, the advice of the National Executive Council given after receiving
  reports from the Public Services Commission and the Public Accounts Committee.
  (3) In the performance of his functions under this Constitution, the Auditor-General is
  not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.
  214. Functions of the Auditor-General.
  (1) The primary functions of the Auditor-General are to inspect and audit, and to report
  at least once in every fiscal year (as provided by an Act of the Parliament) to the
  Parliament on the public accounts ofPapua New Guinea, and on the control of and
  on transactions with or concerning the public moneys and property ofPapua New
  Guinea, and such other functions as are prescribed by or under a Constitutional
  Law.
  (2) Unless other provision is made by law in respect of the inspection and audit of
  them, Subsection (1) extends to the accounts, finances and property of-
  (a) all arms, departments, agencies and instrumentalities of the National
  Government; and
  (b) all bodies set up by an Act of the Parliament, or by executive or
  administrative act ofthe National Executive, for governmental or official
  purposes.
  (3) Notwithstanding that other provision for inspection or audit is made as provided for
  by Subsection (2), the Auditor-General may, if he thinks it proper to do so, inspect
  and audit, and report to the Parliament on, any accounts, finances or property of an
  institution referred to in that subsection, insofar as they relate to, or consist of or are
  derived from, public moneys or property ofPapua New Guinea.

• Page 106 of 141

• 101

  ‘CE1JBPHllNB:1012200 P.ll; B61/;423.
  F A X : 325’1871 WMOANI
  P.tJiUANIlWOUINIlA

  The·Chief·Ombl,ldsman om. : JIIllJltllylll. 21X/2
  Ombudsman Commission O.r.Rof.,…. : .i1~25·4
  P.O. Box 852
  B0B.0KO
  National Capital District

  ,
  il

  Dear Sir,

  SUBJECT: 2000 • AUDlTREPORT

  I enclose a copy of the Auditor-Oenerai’s R,eport issued under Section 8(4)oftlle.AuditAct.
  /989. (as amended),.togelher with a copy of the Financial·Siatementsofyouf'(l:omltlissioo..i1r .. I

  the year ended 31 Decemilel’. 2()OO. . .. !

  I would like to extend my appreciation to. your staff tbrthe cO*operationand assistance remte~d’
  during the course oflhe audit.

  Yours taithfully.

  GEORGE W. SULLIMANN
  alFirst Assistant Auditor-General
  (Slalu/()rvBot/ies &Speciai Audits)

  For: Auditor-General

• Page 107 of 141

• Page 108 of 141

• Page 109 of 141

• Page 110 of 141

• Page 111 of 141

• Page 112 of 141

• Page 113 of 141

• Page 114 of 141

• Page 115 of 141

• Page 116 of 141

• Page 117 of 141

• Page 118 of 141

• Page 119 of 141

• Page 120 of 141

• Page 121 of 141

• Page 122 of 141

• Page 123 of 141

• Page 124 of 141

• Page 125 of 141

• Page 126 of 141

• Page 127 of 141

• Page 128 of 141

• Page 129 of 141

• Page 130 of 141

• Page 131 of 141

• Page 132 of 141

• Page 133 of 141

• Page 134 of 141

• Page 135 of 141

• Page 136 of 141

• Page 137 of 141

• Page 138 of 141

• Page 139 of 141

• Page 140 of 141

• Page 141 of 141