More Top Stories

Economy
Health

STI cases on the rise

2 September 2024

Economy
Economy
Court
Education
Editor's Pick

TB cases detected

1 June 2024

Legality of payments ruling needed

Wednesday 2 July 2014 | Published in Regional

Share

Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Peter O’Neill will appeal to the Supreme Court to determine whether the bills paid to Paraka Lawyers are fraudulent or legally earned by the law firm.

“Because of the issues of the legality of the bills are very important that will determine which bills are fraudulent and which bills are legally earned by the law firm.”

“We are putting in an appeal to the Supreme Court because verification of the bills is very important,” O’Neill said.

“It may come to a situation where the bills were legally earned that you destroy the entire nation for the sake of political ambition of one or two.

“Let us get to the bottom of it and the truth will come out to set us all free.”

The prime minister said that the National Court decision stated clearly that the police commissioner under the constitution has the power to charge, prosecute and withdraw charges based on credible independent evidence.

“Now that the court has made its judgment, it is for all citizens to respect that decision. I will respect the decisions of the police commissioner in handling of any investigation.

“Two weeks ago when confronted with a highly suspicious warrant, I exercised my legal right to stay this proceeding. This was to allow time to get to the bottom of all the collusion that we knew were involved.”

"I have stated to police that I am ready to assist with proper and lawful police inquiries.”

O’Neill must accept the national court advice and go for the interview with the police, according to sacked attorney general Kerenga Kua, after the court refused O’Neill’s attempt to stop the warrant for his arrest.

“The national court has now spoken. It has given its advice to the Prime Minister that there is no basis to refuse to go in for an interview with the police, nor for any orders to be issued to stop the implementation of the warrant of arrest,” Kua said.

“This means that there are now no further impediments or restraints in the way of the warrant of arrest.

“By agreeing to be bound to its decision, he must now demonstrate it physically. He must now contact the police to secure an appointment to enable the process to commence.

“Considering the office that he occupies, it is incumbent upon him to do what is right, namely, to set the right example for the rest of the country.

“It must be understood that the majority of our citizens faced with a warrant of arrest do not have the privilege of sacking the police commissioner, the deputy police commissioner, the assistant police commissioner, sacking the Taskforce Sweep chairman, dismantling the taskforce, appointing a new commission of inquiry, setting up a new interim anti-corruption investigation unit – all with the view to evading an interview.

“Ordinary citizens simply turn up at the police station and are dealt with according to law. This is what the prime minister expects his people to do, and in turn, this is what his people expect him to do. Now, even the national court expects him to do so.

“It also goes to the question of standards that the prime minister wants to set for the people when it comes to obedience of the law. The higher he sets the standards, the better this country will be.

“All eyes are now on the new police commissioner Geoffrey Vaki. The question is whether he will implement the warrant of arrest or continue with his mischievous attempts to consent to the stay of the warrant of arrest or frustrate its compliance.

“A lot of people are now wondering whether he is serious about observing the independence of the police force given to them under the constitution, or is going to destroy the imagine of police that’s been built over hard work over many generations of policemen and their families. An interview is simply a part of the police investigatory process,” Kua said.

“The whole criminal justice system is designed to be fair and balanced. An accused person will be afforded maximum opportunity to clear his name by himself or through his lawyers.

“It’s a long process but fair at the same time. People should not become apprehensive about going through this process.”