Ombudsman Commission Annual Report 2000

Mentions of people and company names in this document

We have not found any names of companies or people in this document that match names in our corporate records.

  • About

    Ombudsman Commission Annual Report for 2000

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