The wife of former Kandep MP Don Polye has asked the National Court to lift restraining orders placed over her bank accounts, offering a formal undertaking that she will use the remaining project funds to complete the procurement of sports equipment ahead of the 2026 PNG Games.
Kathleen Ruth James, through her lawyer Edward Sasingian of Sasingian Lawyers, appeared before Justice Teresa Berrigan yesterday seeking to set aside the orders issued on 12 September 2025 under section 579(1)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). In the alternative, she asked the court to invoke its constitutional powers under section 155(4) to set aside the restrictions.
Central to her application is an undertaking she is willing to give the court: that she will complete the outstanding purchase and delivery of sports equipment required under her K1.7 million contract with the PNG Sports Foundation (PNGSF), ensuring the project is finalised before the 2026 PNG Games.
In supporting submissions, Mr Sasingian argued that investigations relied on misleading and incorrect statements, particularly within the affidavit of Detective Jeremiah Kalap which formed the basis of the ex parte restraining order. He said key claims concerning the status of the contract, payments allegedly linked to Mr Polye, work already completed, and the value of funds held in the applicant’s accounts were inaccurate.
He further highlighted correspondence from the PNG Sports Foundation confirming that the project remained active and that the Sport Mapping Report—valued at K500,000—had been received and accepted. This amount, he argued, should be deducted from the K1.757 million paid to Ms James’ company, Karma Investment, when assessing the funds in question.
Mr Sasingian also submitted that payments made to Sabbath Inn, a business owned by Mr Polye, did not come from PNGSF funds but from a Mappin Mande Trading, and that this distinction had been misrepresented to the court, unfairly implicating Mr Polye.
Reinforcing Ms James’ willingness to comply with the original project objectives, Mr Sasingian told the court she stands ready to continue the procurement process immediately if the restraining orders are lifted.
However, Acting Public Prosecutor Helen Roalakona opposed the application, arguing that the restraining orders should remain because an application for a confiscation order is already active under section 59 of the POCA. She maintained that Ms James has adequate remedies available within the POCA framework and therefore cannot rely on section 155(4) of the Constitution.
Justice Berrigan reserved her ruling to a later date.
Leave a Reply