TOP FLOOR, MURUK HAUS, WAIGANI, FRIDAY 28 OCTOBER 2011 AT A.M. (Continued from Thursday 27 October 2011)

Transcription

1 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Commission of Inquiry into SABL Department of Prime Minister & NEC P O Box 639 WAIGANI. NCD Papua New Guinea Telephone: (675) Facsimile : (675) COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO SABL MR JOHN NUMAPO THE CHAIRMAN & CHIEF COMMISSIONER TOP FLOOR, MURUK HAUS, WAIGANI, FRIDAY 28 OCTOBER 11 AT.40 A.M. (Continued from Thursday 27 October 11) SABL40- Waigani 28//11 1

2 [.40 am] THE CHAIRMAN: Counsels we will continue again from yesterday. I understand we have got Mr Malu for this morning and a number of --- MR PUPAKA: That is right Chief Commissioner, yes. We will be finalizing the matter of Roselaw today, Roselaw Limited. And depending on the turn out this morning in relation to Veadi and the two Konekaru matters we will advise the Commission in relation to as to whether we will continue to call witnesses in relation to those three matters. By way of recapping the activities this week, Chief Commissioner, we have opened up the files, substantive hearing files for the matters of Roselaw Limited and Veadi Holdings Limited, the two Konekaru files. That is four SABL files for part of the Central files and the one NCD matter. We have the last witness for Roselaw, Mr Simon Malu of the Lands Department present. We will be calling him first. By way of a wrap up on that matter, there were six witnesses to be called, in that case, we have called four of them. Mr Madaha Resena was a witness also in that matter, through counsel, he raised issues of his ability to provide evidence to the Commission. We did or Chief Commissioner you did point out and ruled that he had the option to file sworn evidence by way of an affidavit and that you will or the Commission will rule as to whether there would be any need for the calling of that witness. The Commission did write to his lawyers, Blake Dawson Lawyers, dated 26 August, letter explaining that there is no need for further calling of the witness for the reasons explained in that letter and that he is at liberty to file affidavit evidence subject to the Commission deciding on the weight to be placed in relation to in the context of other properly tendered evidence or received evidence. That will wrap up that witness and before we call the last of the witnesses for the Roselaw matter, we also need to explain that yesterday we called Mr Raphael Yipmaramba, the Central provincial administrator; Mr Emmanuel Mai, a lawyer involved in the processes, LIR processes of the two Konekaru matters and the Veadi matter; former secretary for Lands Department, Pepi Kimas; the registrar of titles Henry Wasa; and Mr Mako Aihi, a person of interest in those matters. That is in relation to those three matters. We will be calling, depending on the availability of them, witnesses Ms Sheila Sukwianomb of the DLPP Lands Department and Mr Joseph Baiau. There will be a need that needs to be further assessed in relation to calling of other interested person, particularly, ILG presidents of the three matters of Veadi Holdings and the two Konekaru matters. We will advise the Commission after the SABL40- Waigani 28//11 2

3 witnesses, the two witnesses that called. So that wraps up things to this point in time. Chief Commissioner, we are now prepared to call into the witness box Mr Simon Malu, of the DLPP in relation to the Konekaru matters. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, okay, have him sworn in..45 am] MR PUPAKA: Hang on, Chief Commissioner, sorry, I will retract that. In relation to the Roselaw file, we call witness Mr Malu. SIMON MALU, Sworn: XN: MR PUPAKA Q: Good morning again Mr Malu. A: Morning. Q: For the purposes of the record, first of all, thank you for answering the call from the Commission to give evidence in relation to the file in relation to the SABL case of Roselaw Limited. For the record could you tell the Commission, what position you hold now at the Department of Lands and Physical Planning? A: I was the customary lands officer during the time of investigation. Q: Of Roselaw? A: Yes. Q: Mr Malu, what position do you hold now? A: I am the director, customary lands acquisition. Q: Customary lands acquisition director, thank you. You have sighted a copy of or you have been served with a summons and appended to the summons, was a schedule that outlined in brief the sort of evidence that you will be required to provide to the Commission this morning. A: Yes, I do. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 3

4 Q: Chief Commissioner, that is a matter of records now so it is no need to tender this at this stage. In relation to the Roselaw matter, could you tell us in brief exactly what role you played in that and which other officers of the Lands Department and anybody else that was involved in the land investigation process? A: I did, I assisted the senior lands officer for Motu-Koitabu as the investigating officer over this matter. I was also assisted by the late Jacob Wafinduo --- THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, what is the name of the senior lands officer with the, did you say the Department of ---? A: Kevau Sabadi. Q: Sabadi? A: The senior lands officer for Motu-Koitabu Assembly. MR PUPAKA: Commissioner. Yes, Mr Sabadi has already testified in the Inquiry, Chief THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, Counsel. A: And prior to us actually going into the site to do the land investigation, Mr Sabadi was informed of what we were going to do. Q: Yes. It is a fair while back - 05, I believe. Do you recall exactly what role each one of the persons involved in that land investigation process did or you worked as a team? A: We worked as a team to investigate the land. [.55 am]q: All right, let me refresh your memory. In the LIR process among others, the principle activities that are involved are the walking of the boundaries, a public hearing and ascertaining or obtaining consent or statement or a certificate from people who own neighboring lands in relation to both the boundaries and in relation to whether they consent to the land being or the land in question being converted to SABL. And the land investigation report involves obtaining the consent of all or in some instances, in seems to be the representatives of the landowning groups. Those being the and of course, SABL40- Waigani 28//11 4

5 at the end of it, there is this sign of the certificate of alienability. Could you tell us starting with whether there was any public hearing, where and how it was conducted? A: Initially, there was an agreement between Roselaw and the clan to sell the land to Roselaw. And Roselaw because she had an intention to develop the land, she wants a title to the land, that is when she engaged us as Lands officers to do the necessary process that is required of us before the title can be issued to her. Q: So you are saying you principally acted at the request of Roselaw Limited? A: That is correct. THE CHAIRMAN: referring to? Sorry, what are these necessary processes that you are A: The land investigation which we did and finally coming up with the title. Q: What is the as part of the land investigation report, obviously there has to be some other activities conducted as well, like what the counsel has raised, earlier on public hearing, meeting with the landowners, their consent. So those will have to be reflected in the report ultimately as an indication of their consent or approval for the land to be issued a title to Roselaw. So I think the question is that, have you exhausted all these processes; have you completed all these processes as part of your - in preparing the land investigation report? A: Yes. Okay, there is an agreement which is in place between Roselaw and the landowners of Tatana, I think it is Tubumaga clan. Q: Is that in writing? Is that agreement in writing? A: Yes, it is. There is a copy of that letter too from Tubumaga to Roselaw. Q: Okay. A: We did actually went to the village. After we walked the boundaries of the land, we went to the village, there was nothing that we did that was hidden. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 5

6 We publicly went to the village, everybody was there and there was no objection to our presence in the village. [.55 am] MR PUPAKA: Do you recall if at that time there was a public hearing, and let me put that in perspective. It could have been people having turns to speak or some kind of gathering by which you go through the motion and process of having given everybody a chance to speak on it; give their consent if they wanted to. Did anything like that happen? A: No. But when we were in the village, I mean, if there was anybody who has got any concern to the land, they should have come up and confronted me when I was in the village doing my job as a customary lands officer. Q: Alright, I am getting the feeling that there was no meeting structured meeting in a way that normally happens; people gather together at the in compliance or as agreed prior to the meeting that there will be a public hearing to gauge the views of people before land is converted? A: There was no public hearing but there was actually a gathering after we walked the site, we went to the village, there was a gathering. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes. What was the gathering for? What was the purpose of the gathering? A: I mean, after we walked the site, we went to the village for refreshment and there were these members of the Tubumaga clan who were there to provide refreshment for us. Q: Was there any discussion about the land? A: Yes. Q: About what you have done and all these? A: Yes. Q: During that gathering? A: Yes, that is correct. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 6

7 Q: Apart from the refreshment, there were some other discussions? A: Correct. Q: Okay. MR PUPAKA: Did they understand that the land was being sold? A: I think they understood that the land was being sold by their clan to Roselaw who is their clan member. THE CHAIRMAN: There is a letter dated 11 February 05 and that is the letter regarding the sale of that land. Is that the one the counsel is referring to, and is signed by Madaha Resena? MR PUPAKA: Yes, most likely. THE CHAIRMAN: The land was sold for K125,000 to Roselaw Limited. MR PUPAKA: Most likely. At this stage, I am not prepared to guess. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I mean, the thing is, where is the agreement that states that the land can be sold for that? There are two or three lists of names and people are signing on it. I think we have gone through it yesterday or day before. But we need to ascertain where was that decision made, and by who or a group of people for the land to be sold for 125,000. I think that is the gist of it. MR PUPAKA: Yes, Chief Commissioner, we are coming to that shortly. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, fine, thanks. MR PUPAKA: Mr Malu, so you understood that the land that people understood or it was your impression that people understood the land was being sold. In the Land Investigation Report I am going to have to show that to you shortly the purpose for or the preferred option of those that were consulted, it appears, they wanted to lease the land for 99 years. A: That is correct. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 7

8 Q: I will raise that with you shortly. The answer is yes, Commissioner. I will raise that with you a little later. I am going to sidetrack here a bit and ask you. Who actually prepared the land investigation report - led in preparing it? Was it yourself or Mr Sabadi? A: Prior to us going to the site to do the actual land investigation, we consulted Mr Sabadi that we are doing this and if there is no dispute, we will get you to sign the report. [11.00 am] MR PUPAKA: You had an arrangement whereby you did the investigation and he will sign the report later. A: That is correct. Q: Why would that be? Is that not proper at all? A: He was not the he cannot make it during the time we went to the site. Q: Okay, he never went to the site? A: I took him another, the other time to see the land and we went back to his office. THE CHAIRMAN: But he was the one who compiled the report? A: The report - previously there were two; the first report was compiled by Lazarus Malesa who was a customary lands, who is also a customary lands officer but due to other work commitment we adopted half of his report to the report that we did. MR PUPAKA: I might agree with you that it was half done by someone and probably three people were involved. But that does not legitimize the fact of what I am saying. Is it not right that someone prepares or someone does the investigation and a person who was not involved in the process actually signs off it; signs off on the instrument, on the document. A: We actually got his consent to do that. THE CHAIRMAN: Whose consent? A: Kevau Sabadi as the senior lands officer for Motu-Koitabu. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 8

9 Q: And is that the usual practice? A: No. Q: So, --- MR PUPAKA: All right, I am satisfied with that answer Chief Commissioner. The rights or wrongs of it will be decided by the Commission later. We will, for that aspect of the Inquiry, you will have to agree with me Associate, show him this page - the land was not sold. It was the intention of the people that land was not to be, even if this one is correct, that is something that the Commission will have to work out for - Commissioners will decide later on in the total context of what evidence is the total evidence available later. I am not saying it is, that at this stage the LIR is being investigated as properly done. Even if it was your initial statement that you were engaged or you were initially engaged by Roselaw Limited to do the land investigation report because the land was being sold to it, stands in contrast, diametrically opposed to the intention of the landowners in that they wanted the land leased and not sold. Have a look at that. THE CHAIRMAN: probably got it on file. What letter are you referring to, Counsel, that letter, I MR PUPAKA: No, that is the lands investigation report. It is already --- THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know. MR PUPAKA: Yes. That is the first Chief Commissioner, it is part of the first lot of documents on the land investigation report, I think page 3 or 4 or something which alludes to Leases in bold, capital letters. I am just trying to get a - there is a copy here. THE CHAIRMAN: No, it is all right, I got it here. I just have to find out where it is. [11.05 am] MR PUPAKA: Yes, it is page 4. Mr Malu, you do not have to labor yourself over it. It is just that the answer seems to be obvious. You could agree with me that that desire of people as captured on the LIR or land investigation report stands in contrast to this business about selling land. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 9

10 A: I understand that Rose is a landowner and she, as per this document, she is willing to lease the land. Q: Lease the land to who? A: Lease the land through by way of a Lease - lease Back. Q: I am not quite sure and I am with you there. This is a land investigation report which presumably captures the thoughts of everyone who is a landowner. And it does, the general consensus seem to be that the land was to be leased to whoever was to have title over it instead of being sold. So they do not, I am just for the record trying to get you to agree with me - you do not have to - that selling is another thing and leasing is another thing. So it was the original intention of landowners to have the land leased and not sold. Is that correct? A: You are correct. Q: All right, thank you. I need to show you another document, Mr Malu. Chief Commissioner, this affidavit is sworn on 26 April 06 by Mr Kevau Sabadi and it is already it has been tendered into the records. You will have a copy of it. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, okay, that is fine. I will find it. MR PUPAKA: Mr Malu, before I raise this one with you, it is the evidence of Mr Sabadi or actually two versions of it, but one version - there may be a third version of that gentleman s evidence before this Inquiry, but the two stands out are, first version is that he did the LIR and he signed it. The other sort of touches on, in relation to what you have just said, which is that you did the, you and the late Jacob --- A: Jacob. Q: Your colleague did the LIR and you asked him to sign. This expands on that version, the affidavit before you now, I have shown you a copy which is that or essentially, it says, you told him to sign on it, saying it was properly done. Now, this one is an affidavit that was filed for the purposes of challenging for the purposes of proceedings that challenged the lawfulness of your, I am SABL40- Waigani 28//11

11 going to retract that word lawfulness Chief Commissioner, the propriety of issuing a SABL and the land investigation report was challenged by this proceeding. And in response to it, Mr Sabadi prepared and filed his affidavit essentially destroying the first version of his evidence which is that he prepared and signed off on the land investigation report. Is that confusing or you want me to say it again? A: You repeat yourself. Q: Yes. What I am saying is, the essence of this affidavit is that you and your colleague forced him to sign the land investigation report? A: He was not forced to sign the land investigation report. He gave his consent before we actually asked him to, we told him that if there was any dispute we will not proceed with this report. Q: You did also mention earlier in your evidence that you had an agreement or arrangement whereby you will do the walking for the bloke who was going to sign the LIR and true to it, you got him to sign. 11. am] But he did say, the witness, if you could, I refer to paragraph 6 of that affidavit and I quote, In relation to this particular transaction I was never made aware of it until early December 05 when I was called by Jacob Wafinduo and Simon Malu to come to the Lands Department. A: That statement is incorrect. Because there was an earlier report that was done by Lazarus Malesa and of which I did ask him whether there was any consultation with the Motu Koita Assembly Lands officer and he said no. That is why I had to inform him before he can actually do the work. Q: All right, whatever, it was, we need to put a finality to that part of the Inquiry, Mr Malu and I need for you to you do not have to agree with me - I am suggesting to you that that way of doing a land investigation report and filing and executing and particularly so that it will influence the issue of a lease over a customary land is strange indeed, absolutely strange way of doing it; getting someone to walk the boundaries and without the knowledge of the layout of the land and what went down at the public hearing with the people who owned the land, someone else comes and signs it off as being SABL40- Waigani 28//11 11

12 the truth of that land investigation report he was not part of. Do you not think that is a strange way of doing business, executing a very important function? A: I have no comment. Q: Yes. All right, we will be done shortly. I just need to clear this one with you. Land investigation report, you would not, like I said I would understand if you said you did not know or cannot recall properly. You know when the land investigation report was completed, around like approximate time? Let me make that easy. It says December of 05, would that be right, the land investigation alludes to it? A: December 08. Q: 05? A: 05. Q: That would be correct? A: Yes. Q: Could you explain why someone added the date 06 on the report? A: Sorry? Q: The other, I am not it is just symptomatic Chief Commissioner. It does seem to indicate too many people landed too many dates and wrote over, typed, wrote over by hand different versions of typed dates which seem to throw in a lot more confusion than clarity. And one of them is that a land investigation report was completely probably in 05 and the person signing off says it was done in 06. I am just, you could have a look at the land investigation report I gave you, Mr Sabadi s report. That is the date captured; page 4 is one of them. The thing about being written over by hand is, instance of it, you can discover that in page of it. That is a date that was, I cannot work out, it looks like 04 to me. Somebody wrote later 5 over it by hand. A: It is 05. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 12

13 Q: Yes. A: There was an error on this, on the 06 date. Supposed to be 8 December am] And there was another report that we adopted which was done by Lazarus. Q: By Malaisa? A: Yes, that is right. Q: All right, that is some indication of that, that is not to say it highlights or clarifies to an acceptable level what all these things are about. But the fact of the matter is that those are on the record now so we do accept that someone else other than yourself and Mr Sabadi were involved. That is the least of my problems at the moment. What I am struggling to understand is that around December 8 of 05, the land investigation report was signed off by someone who did not prepare it and it was presented to the ministerial delegate on or around, maybe the same day, but the date that comes out of these documents on file seems to indicate it was at least before the office of the ministerial delegate around the next day, 9 December 05. And then the intervention of the weekend and it gets gazetted the very next working day which is 13 th, I think, on the Monday, 13 December 05. That must be some kind of record in fast execution. Do you think that is what do you think, that is normal practice or some kind of urgency, something somewhere? What was happening that the need to fast track these things? A: As long as the papers are okay, then it can be done in a shortest time. Q: All right, I can live with that. My other problem Mr Malu is that there is no agreement with the State and the landowners of the intention to have this converted to a leasehold, section 11 of the Land Act agreement. A: We have the section notice; section 11 notice prior to the current instrument that we use. We do not have a standard form in the past so we use the section 11 notice which is in the report file. Q: You got a copy of that? SABL40- Waigani 28//11 13

14 A: I have it here. Q: I might have a look at it subject to, if it is up to the Commission to accept that but I might want to have a look at it. Associate? THE CHAIRMAN: If we can have a look at it. It is more like a instrument lease that we are talking about, is it, section 11? MR PUPAKA: Yes. You have a look at it. Do you have a copy of it? I think we do. We do have a copy of this, I think. That is a Notice of what, Direct Grant? A: The Notice of Direct Grant is section 2 Notice. Q: Yes, this one is --- A: Section 11. Q: How do you capture the consent of landowners? Section 11 the last time I read it, it called for active consent, recording of consent, signature agreement which go towards the, as evidence in for posterity, the intention of people who own the land. How do you capture land with a one page document like that, how do you capture landowner agreement, consent? It is a requirement of law. A: The land investigation report should indicate to us that the applicant to the title is willing to sell or lease the land. 11. am] Q: All right, fair enough. I am not going to it probably borders on unfairness to be able to put other people s answer to use it as sort of this is an Inquiry, Mr Malu, you do not have to answer this. So it is not cross examination or anything. I really, fully realize, Chief Commissioner, the difference between cross examination and seeking the truth but this one needs to be clarified here. Yesterday, in relation to other Inquiries that are also happening, Mr Malu, the former secretary for Lands, Mr Pepi Kimas, said the practice since - and he should know, he has been there 40 years - is that without an agreement of the State and the landowners, State does not acquire title to lease land to anyone. I thought that was what the law says too. Like I said, you do not have to it is something that you do not really need to answer. If you are not in a position to answer that, it is not your it is not within your SABL40- Waigani 28//11 14

15 Terms of Reference in the department to have the final say on what the law s intent is. So Chief Commissioner, I am not going to labor the witness with an answer to that one. Mr Malu, I am about done with you. It is I also need to stress this that I am going to accept your answer that when a job needs to be done, it needs to be done with due speed, relative speed under the circumstances, but I stress for the record that this SABL, given all of what had happened was concluded to finality with unacceptable level of haste. Do you not agree? Land investigation report gets signed off on the 8 th, the ministerial delegate signs off on the 9 th and gets published - it could have happened on the next day that weekend intervened, so on the next working day available which was on a Monday, 13 December 05, this got published. A: As I have stated earlier, as long as the papers are; everything in the report is correct, there is no reason why we should derail the process. Q: All right. Just for your information, you do not have to answer this as well. About a couple of weeks later, as soon as people realized what had happened, they instructed lawyers and tried to stop it. But if someone had waited for the land lease agreement to be signed between the State and the landowners, and if they had allowed for sufficient lapse of time, recheck things, reconfirm things, it would have been discovered fairly quickly that active consent had not been universally given because people went straight to court relatively soon after. That document, the affidavit that I showed you is in relation to a matter that was filed around, it is dated 13 February 06. But lawyer correspondences that we have indicates, lawyers were engaged around soon after that, around December or what was left of December 05 and confirmed and proceedings filed in January 06. So that just gives you an indication that if people had allowed this thing to take its normal course, it would have been fairly soon discovered that there was no universal agreement; consent given. But I will leave it at that. I thank you for having or Chief Commissioner, you have got a --- THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, just one question. Mr Malu, what is the - from your understanding, what is the difference between a lease and a sale? SABL40- Waigani 28//11 15

16 A: A sale of land is giving outright rights to the State and a lease is temporary. It is not - the rights to the customary land still remains with the landowner am] Q: Okay. But as you can appreciate, we got on file a letter stating that the land has been sold off to Roselaw for K125,000. And then the actual land investigation report states that it is a lease. So that is the difficulty we have to try and understand which is which. Has the land been sold off completely, which means that the landowners will have any more say on that land, they sold out for good, as you stated, or is it on a lease whereby at the end of the term of the lease, the land will return back to the landowners. So it appears to be two conflicting situation here; with the sale of that land and plus the lease. And that is, you do not have to say anything. That is a finding that the Commission will make ultimately at the end. I just want to make that point to you. Okay, counsel? XN: MS KOISEN Q: Thank you Chief Commissioner, just one question to Mr Malu. Mr Malu, you have said in evidence that you contacted Mr Sabadi and he happens to work for the --- A: Motu-Koitabu Assembly. Q: Motu-Koitabu Assembly. I am just having a problem trying to work out who has the mandate with provincial land matters. Is it the Central Provincial Government or the Motu-Koita Assembly? A: It depends on where the land is. If it is in NCD, the Motu-Koitabu officer is engaged to do what is required, and if it is outside of NCD, the Central provincial lands officers are asked to do what is required. Q: So in this case, the land that the SABL is located in NCD? A: That is correct. Q: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay counsel, I have got no further questions to ask Mr Malu. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 16

17 MR PUPAKA: Mr Malu, thank you. I did, Commissioner, indicate it to the witness as to whether he would be prepared to at this stage be of assistance with the other two, three matters on this morning. He has no part in it. So that --- THE CHAIRMAN: Is that the Veadi and Konekaru? MR PUPAKA: Veadi and two Konekaru matters. So that wraps up the evidence in relation to the Roselaw Limited file, unless the Commission desires to call any other witness or we are done with the witness Mr Simon Malu, at this time. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, that is fine. Thank you for coming Mr Malu. MR PUPAKA: Mr Malu, thank you very much for having come in. Like I do wish to stress out, you will be coming in for the purposes of other remaining matters, not only in relation to the Central and NCD cases, others as well. You are assured that the evidence that you give or the statements that you make will be utilized specific to the purposes of the Inquiry into these matters, and that is where the utility lies. It will not be used particularly for any other purposes particularly to your detriment. You understand that? You are still under oath and you are responsible officer in the Lands Department and we will be calling for your assistance in relation to other continuing investigations and we would like for you to understand that. For the time being thank you very much for having come in. A: Thank you. THE WITNESS WITHDREW THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, have you got any other witness counsel, apart from Mr Malu for this morning? We have issued a summons for one or two from the Department of Lands and Physical Planning for today. Are they coming in this morning or what is the story on that? MR PUPAKA: Yes. We have while that is being sorted out, we have a witness that is present to be called in relation to the Veadi and Chief Commissioner, that is in relation to the Veadi matter. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 17

18 11. am] We can call that whilst we solve the other witness that was to be called this morning in relation to these three matters; that is from the DLPP. Chief Commissioner, we call witness Mr Joseph Baiau. THE CHAIRMAN: Is he here? Counsel, that is in relation to Veadi, is it? MR PUPAKA: That is in relation to Veadi, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: All right. JOSEPH ATA BAIAU, Sworn: XN: MS KOISEN Q: Mr Baiau, thank you for coming in. For the record, could you please tell us what your name is? A: Thank you Chief Commission and Inquiry. I am Joseph Ata Baiau. I am the Chairman of the Vanimata Incorporated Land Group, the Land Group No and of Vani clan of Papa village. Q: You are here this morning regarding? A: The three matters; the subject matters regarding, surrounding the plant site, portion 512, the plant site in Papa village, next to Papa village. Q: Thank you. The three matters are, could you please for the record state them? A: Matters are Veadi Holdings, Konekaru 1 and 2. Q: Mr Baiau, we will start with the land investigation report. We have one for Veadi. So I would like to just ask your recollection of the exercise that was taken in Papa village for that particular portion. A: Okay. Q: Tell us in your own words what you recollect. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 18

19 A: I am aware of the land investigation report that was going on at that time, especially by way of awareness and handing out of forms to clans in Papa. And our clan has been given copy of the same but we have not filled the copy of the LIR knowing the consequences that we are likely to face because of some of the issues that we were sensitive about, that were not right. Q: What were those issues? A: Well, the issues of getting landowners as well as non-landowners together to do an LIR. Q: We are talking about Veadi, portion 285C? A: Okay, 85C, right. Q: Okay, so, you have also heard earlier Mr Malu and earlier witnesses yesterday, they are also from Tatana village regarding Veadi. You also make your claim to that - this is not a land dispute hearing - but you also make claim to both--- A: Correct. Q: The Tatana ownership and yourself as well as. Is there some connection? A: I am aware that the Inquiry does not have the jurisdiction to determine on issues of ownership. Q: Yes. A: But we raised the issues in light, surrounding our position in terms of land rights but we do not need to push further into the issues. Q: So you are aware that there was a land investigation report, you did not sign that report? A: We did not sign, the ILG has never signed nor appointed anyone to sign the LIR form, fill the LIR form or sign on behalf of the ILG or the clan. Q: Mr Baiau, prior to the handing out of those forms, was there a public hearing to your recollection? SABL40- Waigani 28//11 19

20 A: Like I said, by way of awareness, there was one. But again, let me inform this Commission that the manner in which the LIR was conducted was highly suspicious. Q: Why do you say that Mr Baiau? A: Well, I say that because it was, one; it was randomly done, quickly done that we all suspected it. Q: How long did it take to have that done? A: Just less than one week. Q: Less than one week? A: Within the space of one week, yes. [11.35am]Q: Were there any public gatherings at all? A: There were public gatherings called, but then we have complaints from within our own people, within the clan, the ILG, as well as our relatives within the other clans that the also including the exercise which is part of the LIR, to determine the LIR, especially the boundary walking. It was incomplete, even when it was walkable. They could have walked the boundary that easily and it was incomplete. Q: Incomplete in what way, Mr Baiau? A: I have walked the land I walked, previously I walked with some mediators regarding another land on the other side, regarding the landowners from Papa and Lealea. So we got to walk the entire boundary when it is practicable. When there are difficulties, we do not need to walk but in this case, it was walkable. They can just go the full turn. But then our people - some of our people are complaining that they have to turn from turn without completing the actual boundary walking. Q: So what you are saying, Mr Baiau, the boundary walk was not completed? A: Of course, that is right. Q: Boundary walk was not completed? SABL40- Waigani 28//11

21 A: Yes. Q: So when you did not sign the LIR, did you lodge in your official complaint to those people who conducted the Land Investigation Report, was there - were they aware that you were not agreeable to some of the things --- A: No, that we have not done but we have had serious discussions within the ILG and the clan that we should not participate knowing the issues. So we did not sign. Q: I see, okay. Let me take you to after the completion of the LIR. What efforts did you make to ensure that your interests were protected in terms of you not agreeing to those, the LIR conducted and the way in which it was conducted? A: I think it is the result of the LIR and what we suspected which was not proper, we led to file a dispute at the Central Provincial Land Court. Q: Can you tell us specifically what time you filed that dispute? A: 6 th of April of and the proceedings were fixed CPL18 of. Q: So 6 April,? A: Yes. Q: To your recollection, Mr Baiau, when that proceeding started, was anyone in the Department of Lands and the Central Provincial Lands Department alerted to that proceedings? A: The old relevant line of agencies and persons in authority were well informed. Q: Do you have any evidence of that? 40 A: We do have evidence of that in - which was which is part of the substantive material that is before the Inquiry. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 21

22 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry Counsel, can I ask this question? Did you say you filed a dispute before the was it before the Local Land Court? A: Central Land Court, the Local Land Court. Q: Land Court, Local Land Court, okay. What was the date again for that, did you say? A: 6 th of April. Q: So what was the outcome? A: The outcome the matter in a way was - we had court orders on the 29 th of July as a result of the proceedings, the dispute that we registered with the Local Land Court. And then the defendant clans, the clans that make up the Veadi Holdings, the entity, that is holding the title to the lease, through their lawyers filed an urgent application motion. The date I can remember on the 19 th of August and at the same time of filing, they got in an ex parte and they got orders and dismissed the existing order that we have. [11.40am]MS KOISEN: Mr Baiau, before we get to August, can you tell us the events that took place from the date you started the proceedings? When did you get your order? A: On the 29 th of July. Q: On the 29 th of July? THE CHAIRMAN: What was the date again? A:. Q:. MS KOISEN: I am just trying to find the copy to confirm that. I believe you may have got it earlier. Can you repeat that? If you have your documents there, you can have a look at it. 40 A: Sorry, it is 29 th June. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 22

23 Q: June, yes. A: 29 th June. THE CHAIRMAN:? A:. MS KOISEN: I have a copy of that order. If I can hand it up to you and also to the Chief Commissioner. You have your copy, so the Chief Commissioner can--- THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I can silently go through the folder. Q: On the 29 th of June, your entered an order which, the effect of the order, if I may read, the orders says; The First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants, the servants and agents, and whosoever restrain from dealing with the land described as Iokoru pending determination of the said land, the Defendants and their servant and agents and whosoever are restrained from dealing with the land or entering into any agreements pending determination of ownership of the land known as Iokoru. The land known as Iokoru is also this land 2485C? Am I correct? So it is with regard to Veadi? A: Correct. Q: Could you tell us in your own words, what happened after these orders were granted? A: After the orders were granted, the defending clans, together with us, we attended the Local Land Court proceedings. Q: You attended the Local Land proceedings and what about the Department of Lands and the other agency that, yes, mostly the Department of Lands, did any of their officials become aware of this particular proceeding? 40 A: Correct. They were all notified and the various correspondences were before the Departments. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 23

24 Q: Mr Commissioner, if I may recall, refer your memory to yesterday when we submitted that letter on the 6 th April, that was sent to the Solicitor General and a copy to Department of Lands. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, that is from Stevens Lawyers? MS KOISEN: Correct. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have got it, yes. Q: So they were aware? A: Yes. Q: But despite being aware of that, could you tell us what happened after that? With regards to whether or not did they stop the proceedings because under the Land Investigation exercise, if there is a dispute, then that should be sorted our first. But what was the activity of the what was the response of the Department of Lands after that? A: The Department of Lands, let me say, blatantly neglected the fact that there is a dispute and even been notified. Q: So the Department of Lands proceeded to act on the Lands Investigation Report? Did they stop or did they continue? A: The Land Investigation Report? Q: Yes. A: That was like, in the space of waiting or less than a week so, that concluded well earlier on. Q: So after that, what further action was taken by the Department of Lands in terms of competing this in terms of issuance of the lease, when did that take place? Obviously, as the lease was issued, what time did that lease take place; did the issuance of that lease take place? Before or after your court proceedings? 40 A: I think it was before. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 24

25 Q: The title deed? A: Should be well after our proceedings. Q: Do you recall when the title deed may have been issued? What day - dates, it may have been issued? [11.45am] Okay, let me refresh your memory, Mr Baiau. I have here with me a State lease of Veadi Holdings. The date on which the State lease was issued here says 5August and your orders were entered on the 29 June. So that is basically a few months after that order. So preceding that, after you had found out that the title deed had been issued, what action have you taken so far? A: We lodged in a caveat with the --- Q: Department of Lands? A: Yes, Department of Lands and Physical Planning. Q: What is the status of that caveat now? Has it been registered? A: No, it has not been registered up until today. Q: I think we have already covered the essential grounds of the Land Investigation Report, so to your understanding, what do you think should have happened in terms of when you registered your dispute in the courts and a letter to the Department of Lands? What do you think the normal process should have been? What do you think is the proper action that the Department of Lands should have taken? A: That we thought and trusted in the Department that they should have not registered the title to Veadi Holdings Limited until the proceedings with the Central Provincial Land Court determined the status of ownership. Q: So has that happened so far? No? 40 A: It has not happened. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 25

26 Q: Okay, thank you. Mr Commissioner, I have no further questions. If you wish to ask further questions or Mr Pupaka? CHIEF COMMISSIONER: Are you able to recall, after the caveat was filed and sent to the Lands Department, the decision for that lease you have ordered, are you able to recall how many days it took from the time - okay, let me put things into perspective. Firstly the Court. So you took the matter to the Provincial Land Court, Central Provincial Land Court. Okay, and then what did you say, there was an ex parte application? A: Yes. Q: Too set aside --- A: Our orders. Q: Your orders? And then what happened after that. You were supposed to go back? A: We were supposed to go back and the matter is still pending before Central Provincial Lands Court. Q: The Central Provincial Lands Court? A: Yes. And we requested to reinstate the matter on grounds of abuse of process and breach of court orders. But up to now, they have not given us a date to go back. Q: So the matter is still pending? A: It is still pending. Q: And then, your lawyers, Stevens Lawyers, then wrote to the Lands Department, is that correct? A: Yes, correct. Q: To advise them of that? 40 A: Correct. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 26

27 Q: And then, ask the to place a caveat? A: Correct. That followed on. Q: But despite that, they went ahead and - the Department of Lands went ahead and issued the lease--- A: Issued the title. Q: The title? A: Correct. [11.50 am]mr PUPAKA: Mr Baiau, I just need to, for the purposes of reporting and understanding everybody in perspective, ask you to say for the record, we have categorized witnesses like yourself as people or persons of interest. So what is your interest in this? I will just give you a couple of options here. Persons of interest are being heard in relation to particularly in relation to issue of the SABL and normally that entity who will have the - under whose name the SABL will be, and to a lesser extent, the persons that were consulted to be able to come up with the - or settle on the nominated entity, meaning who will the title, or whether or not first thing, whether or not the land will have or can or cannot be converted to a state lease, one; and two, if it has to be converted, who should have the title? Those are the issues that need to be clear. We have been at pains to tell everybody that the issue of landownership should not come in. But that is better said than done because it always complicates the whole thing because it basically goes back to the issue of whether those who need to give consent have a standing to do so and it is all cut to the chase. Mr Baiau, tell us, what is your principal interest? You dispute the issue of SABL or converting of the land or the nominated entity? A: One, it is nominated entity and importantly the approach they have in getting the land that is customarily owned by that entity. So it was only proper, I believe that it was proper to consult the legitimate customary landowners on the ground. 40 Q: I am not sure whether I am permitted to probe a bit more deeply than that but like I am saying, you will be wasting your time if you have no agenda as SABL40- Waigani 28//11 27

28 to why you are coming for this Inquiry as an interested person. We can, with or without your assistance, ascertain as to whether the Lands Department got it right in relation to ticking all the boxes to be able to issue that SABL. We can do that quite easily by back tracking with them as to the steps they did or did not take. We want to while everybody else is listening, have you on record saying whether you are principally against the nominated entity or as far as you are concerned, you do not want that land to be converted to an SABL? Do you understand what I saying? THE CHAIRMAN: Do you have a position on that or you want the questions to be asked again and --- A: Counsel, please, can you --- MR PUPAKA: I could amplify that Chief Commissioner. A: Yes, rephrase it please? Q: The other thing is putting it differently, you know as far as you are concerned, you want the land remaining traditional land as far as you are concerned, future generation can do with it, whatever, however way they want? That is the first question I asked. The second is, okay, if the land you are not so much against conversion of the land or putting the land to commercial use, but it is the company by which you want the land developed? [11.55 am] Q: You are against the company or you are against converting the land to a lease hold? A: For? Q: Or maybe I might ask you the question that I did not want to ask you which is, you are coming here because you are not partly or you are not you do not have any share in all of these things? 40 A: Counsel, okay, I get what you are saying. What we have on record before the Commission, our clan is also involved earlier on in the negotiations and then also our clan name has been used by certain individuals within our clan. And so our interest to convert the customary land for commercial use is there; we do embrace that, we treasure that. SABL40- Waigani 28//11 28

29 Q: Yes. A: But then the thing is that the composition of the entity and the whole entire approach in them converting the land for whatever use. Q: All right, so it only amplifies the thing that the landowner position, the interest position meaning, you and people you represent feel you have been not embraced; you have been you have not been included in the processes? A: No. Like I said, we have been part of the negotiations, but then we have sighted a lot things been said and done are against our desires and during the negotiations. And then we decided it was important to forewarn those that were leading the negotiations and then for us to take proper action to stop the land from being used without an agreement that really suits the or serves the interest of the landowners. Q: All right. Thank you Mr Baiau. It is not a easy thing to it is not a easy sort of question on my part and true enough, it is not - you find it not easy going also to give me an answer to that. But you do realize we need to know what interest you represent quite apart from who is the principal landowner or who is the subsidiary title holder or things that are needed to be resolved elsewhere. So that wraps up what I wanted to get from you. You do realize you have been privileged to have been allowed to come to the Inquiry to present evidence and be heard. It, for the records need to be said that your overall or the reason why you have been allowed to give evidence is so that the Commissioners would be the understanding process is easier towards resolving the issue of whether informed consent was given for the purposes of converting the LIR or converting the land through the LIR, Land Investigation Process, as well as whether informed consent was given in relation to the nominated entity. And up to now, you have proceedings that some of them completed, others may be not. The issues that we have not touched and deliberated, you can progress them in your own ways at the appropriate forums. Counsel will ask the last question and we will be done, Chief Commissioner. [12.00 pm]ms KOISEN: Just one last question, Mr Baiau. Just explain to us the company that holds the title deed, Veadi Holdings Limited. Are you in any way connected SABL40- Waigani 28//11 29

30 to that company, and if you are not, can you explain who are the people that are running the company and how, the nature of how that company came about? A: I am not part of the entity and the company as you know, has the representation of clans in Papa Village and they have their own Board of Directors and Shareholders which I am not part of. Q: Why are you not part of that? A: Because of the disputes that had already transpired in between the but we do have the defected members of our clan who are part of the entity as Directors as a Director as well as a shareholder. Q: Thank you. No further questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I have got no questions to ask, Mr Baiau. MR PUPAKA: Thank you Mr Baiau for coming in and answering the summons from this Commission. As I have said, you have the choice to call, one among the interested persons has been yourself. There may be other people called, not necessarily yourself but in the event that we do feel the need for you to be recalled again, you are under oath so meaning you are obligated to tell the truth. Thank you for coming. A: Thank you. THE WITNESS WITHDREW THE CHAIRMAN: All right Counsel. You have got any other witness? 40 MR PUPAKA: It does look like the witness we have summoned from the he is not here - the recipient of the DLPP; he is not here. Counsellor has identified couple of other witnesses to be called and we are yet undecided as to which one of them they are among the general category persons of interest at this stage. The summons that was issued this morning as a consequence of the one unfolded yesterday was to the Deputy Provincial Administrator of the Mr Manasseh Rapilla. He has been summoned to appear on the 9 th of November. We do think SABL40- Waigani 28//11