NewsLink PNG

Tag: supreme-court

  • Polye’s wife makes undertaking to complete Sports contract before 2026 PNG Games

    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.

    Loading

  • Paraka fights a lone battle, tells court no lawyers willing to assist him

    Paul Paraka, once a prominent lawyer and a powerful figure who owned the biggest law firm in the country that recruited, groomed and build many lawyers, is now fighting a lone battle.

    “No lawyers are willing to assist me with my cases,” Paraka told a judge at the Waigani Supreme Court on Tuesday this week as he battles his conviction and 20-years imprisonment for misappropriating of over K162 million in public funds.

    His voice subdued but steady, Mr Paraka pleaded to the single Supreme Court judge, Justice David Cannings, to hear him out and grant him his application requesting for an extension of time to file an application for leave for a Slip Rule application.

    For Paraka, who once helped shape the lawyering profession by recruiting bulk of new law graduates every year, the courtroom has now become a place he walks into alone. He told the court that for more than a year he had pleaded for help from the Office of the Public Solicitor and approached private lawyers, only to be turned away each time.

    “My numerous requests to the Office of the Public Solicitor and even private lawyers were all unsuccessful,” he said, explaining why he was seeking an extension of time to file an application for leave to make a Slip Rule application.

    Seated as he made his submissions, Paraka painted a picture of a man battling not only the justice system but his own declining health. He recalled how he filed his initial application within the required 21-day period in November 2024, and how, almost immediately afterwards, his world collapsed.

    He became critically ill and was hospitalised on November 1, 2024. Doctors later diagnosed him with severe triple-vessel coronary artery disease. The emotional strain following the dismissal of his appeal, he said, “crushed” him and accelerated the deterioration of his health.

    Medical records tendered in court showed that Paraka had undergone multiple invasive angiogram procedures and currently suffers seven arterial blockages. Specialists, he said, are recommending urgent overseas surgery.

    “Your Honour, that is why I couldn’t file and serve my application for extension on time,” he told the court.

    With no legal assistance while in custody, Paraka said he prepared his Slip Rule arguments alone by drafting 37 grounds of alleged judicial “slips” from his prison cell.

    But Acting Public Prosecutor Helen Roalakona opposed the application, arguing that although Paraka filed on time, he failed to serve it within the mandatory 21-day period. She said the grounds raised were not slips at all, but attempts to revisit arguments already rejected by the National Court.

    Justice Cannings agreed that Paraka had managed to file other proceedings and should not be treated differently. However, because the application itself was filed within time, the court still had jurisdiction to grant an extension.

    Justice Cannings did grant Paraka his applicationg, allowing Paraka more time for him to file his application for leave for a Slip Rule application in the Supreme Court.

    Justice Cannings set the matter for directions hearing next Monday.

    The court will then determine whether a single Supreme Court judge or a full bench will hear the Slip Rule application. A tentative hearing date has been set for Tuesday, 16 December 2025, at 1:30pm. 

    Loading

  • Supreme Court to hear Yama’s substantive appeal

    After a long delay, the full hearing of the substantive appeal over the Madang Provincial seat will proceed in the Supreme Court at Waigani on November 27, 2025.

    The appeal is pursued by former Madang Governor Sir Peter Charles Yama, seeking to overturn a National Court decision that dismissed his election petition challenging the results of the 2022 national election for the Madang Provincial seat. The incumbent Ramsey Pariwa is named as first respondent, with the Electoral Commission as second respondent.

    Yama initially filed the election petition after the 2022 polls, alleging improper conduct and undue influences during the counting that swung votes to Pariwa.

    However, the National Court dismissed Sir Peter’s petition on October 23, 2023, on the basis that Yama’s key witness’s evidence was inconsistent and lacked necessary corroboration.

    The court found that Sir Peter’s key witness gave evidences that were not supported by other witnesses and that the evidences were not credible.

    This prompted Sir Peter to further appeal the dismissal in the Supreme Court, seeking leave to review the National Court’s decision.

    Following the grant of leave, the incumbent Mr Pariwa filed a number of applications to dismissed the review application.

    Recently, a Supreme Court bench allowed Sir Peter to press his review to a substantive hearing by dismissing objections from Pariwa that sought to halt the progress of the petition and granting Sir Peter the opportunity to have the case heard by a full bench.

    In the substantive hearing, the Supreme Court is expected to determine a grey area of law relating to arguments on whether corroboration was required in an election petition trial.

    Sir Peter contents that the trial judge had erred in fact and law when his (Sir Peter’s) witness in chief gave direct evidences during the trial and those evidences were not refuted or countered by Pariwa’s witnesses.

    He also argues that corroboration was not required in an election petition case as it was a provision of its own according to law, and that the trial judge had erred in finding otherwise.

    If the Supreme Court rule in favor of Sir Peter, this would set a new precedent for future election petition cases.

    Loading

  • Yafai fights back, appealing his conviction

    Former Deputy Secretary of Finance, Jacob Yafai, has launched an appeal against his conviction and 22-year prison sentence handed down by Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika earlier this month.

    Yafai was found guilty of unlawfully approving K41.8 million in payments to Paul Paraka Lawyers without verifying the legitimacy of the claims between 2011 and 2012. He was convicted on four counts of misappropriation and one count of abuse of office.

    According to the appeal filed by Yafai’s lawyer, Edward Sasingian of Sasingian Lawyers, it argues that the trial judge erred in both law and fact, and that Yafai was not personally responsible for the controversial K41.8 million payment.

    “The main contention is that Mr. Yafai did not authorize or process the payments to Paul Paraka Lawyers. He was not the officer directed to verify those claims,” Mr Sasingian said.

    During trial, the National Court found that Yafai acted dishonestly by failing to verify the Paraka payment when directed by the then Finance Secretary, the late Steven Gibson. However, in his appeal, Yafai will argue that no such direction was ever issued to him and that the verification responsibility fell under a different deputy secretary — Strategic Management, not his own portfolio as Deputy Secretary for Operations.

    According to recent Post-Courier report, the  appeal argues that in all the evidence before the court, Yafai was never directed by the Secretary for Finance to verify the claim by Paraka Lawyers.

    It is also argued that the trial Judge erred in mixed fact and law when he did not make a definitive finding of dishonesty against the appellant in accordance with the subjective and objective test and the established legal principles of dishonesty.

    Further, it is argued that the primary  judge erred in mixed facts and law when he excluded vital evidence in his decision, and there was apprehension of bias in accepting the evidence of the then Financen Minister and current Prime Minister, James Marape.

    These and other crucial grounds would be put before the Higher Court for it’s deliberation.

    Loading

  • Sri Lankan judge join PNG judiciary

    A Sri Lankan judge has officially joined the judiciary of Papua New Guinea, taking his oath as a judge of the Supreme and National Courts during a ceremony held at Government House in Konedobu this afternoon.

    The swearing-in was officiated by the Acting Governor-General and Chief Justice of Papua New Guinea, Sir Gibbs Salika.

    In a solemn ceremony steeped in judicial tradition, the new judge took his oath of office and allegiance before Sir Gibbs Salika, pledging to serve with integrity, impartiality, and dedication to upholding the Constitution and laws of Papua New Guinea.

    The new judge joins a distinguished panel of justices serving both the Supreme and National Courts of Papua New Guinea — the country’s highest institutions for interpreting the law and safeguarding justice.

    He is expected to commence his duties immediately, presiding over cases in both the appellate and trial jurisdictions of the courts.

    This latest appointment underscores the judiciary’s ongoing efforts to maintain efficiency, integrity, and credibility in the administration of justice across the nation.

    Loading

  • Supreme Court allow review of Napanapa land issue

    The Supreme Court has allowed a landowner group of Napanapa in the Central province to challenge a decision of the National Court that removed them as recognized landowners.

    Chief Justice Sir Gibb’s Salika, sitting as a single Supreme Court judge, granted leave to Pastor Hanua Gadiki and his Rokurokuna sub-tribe of Koita to challenge the 2012 decision of the National Court that removed them as the landowners of the customary land described as DA5 – a land where the Napanapa PNG LNG refinery is situated.

    Pastor Gadiki and his Rokurokuna tribe of Koita were initially recognized as the legitimate landowners of the DA5 land by the Provincial Land Court in 2010.

    However, the opposing party- the Kuriu Incorporated Land Group- led by a Daure Gabe Pundi, applied to the National Court to review the decision of the Provincial Land Court.

    The National Court on July 18, 2012, ruled upheld the review Pundi and the Kuriu Incorporated Land Group and declared them as the principal traditional landowners of the DA5 Napanapa Land, replacing Pastor Hanua and his Rokurokuna sub-tribe of Kotia who were the initial principal traditional landowners of the subject land.

    The National Court during the ruling, did not refer the matter back to the Provincial Land Court or the Local Land Court to rehear and redetermine the traditional land dispute.

    This prompted Pastor Hanua to apply for leave in the Supreme Court to review the decision of the National Court.

    He argued that the National Court had erred in law and breached Section 3 and 26 of the Land Dispute Settlement Act in determining or declaring the ownership of the traditional land in dispute when it has no jurisdiction to do so.

    Pastor Hanua through his lawyer submitted during the leave application that there were case laws that supports the contention and that leave should be granted for the full Supreme Court to hear and determine the substantive issue.

    The questions posed to the court include;

    Whether the National Court has jurisdiction to determine ownership of traditional land or determine who the principal landowner is?


    And whether it is fair and just to allow the decision of the National Court to stand, contrary to Section 3(1) and 26 of the Land Dispute Act and the Supreme Court decision in Louis Lucian Siu vs Wasime Land Group Incoporated, and Simon Ekanda vs Hon Pila Niningi, Attorney General of Papua New Guinea.


    The Chief Justice after assessing the submissions, was satisfied with the grounds raised by the applicant (Pastor Hanua), noting that the application raised arguable grounds and therefore granted the leave sought.

    This means the substantive issue will go before a full Supreme Court bench to be heard and determined.

    Loading

  • MARAPE’S 2025 BUDGET BRANDED A FAILURE

    The Marape government’s much-celebrated 2025 national budget has come under heavy fire, with strong criticism describing it as a “spectacular failure” marred by poor implementation, excessive borrowing, and inequitable distribution of funds.

    Member for Chuave James Nomane launched this scathing attack on the government, branding the 2025 K28.357 billion “game-changer” budget as nothing more than another slogan-driven promise that has failed to deliver tangible outcomes for ordinary Papua New Guineans.

    “In Parliament, I have said repeatedly that this 11th Parliament is overwhelmed with pleasantries, platitudes, and pollyanna,” the MP said.  “Leadership has become superficial. Vanity, pride, and ego have replaced substance.”

    He accused the Marape-led administration of starving districts and provinces of their rightful funds while promoting political favoritism and selective warranting. “Chuave has not received its K20 million DSIP, DIP, or Kina-for-Kina funds. The Simbu Provincial Government is still waiting for its K34 million functional grants. Why should we beg for money that rightfully belongs to our people?” he questioned.

    Nomane said the 2025 budget failed because it was built on “unsustainable spending, unrealistic revenue projections, and weak fiscal management,” with political interference worsening the problem. “We must judge the Prime Minister and his Treasurer by results. If sectors, provinces, and districts miss out through selective warranting, then something is seriously wrong,” he said.

    After six years of what he called “a pathetic Pangu-led government,” the Chuave MP declared the time had come to end “petty politics, cronyism, and favoritism.” He said the Prime Minister’s promises of one million jobs, agricultural revival, and foreign investment have not materialized.

    “Where is the fiscal discipline? Where is the vision for youth, for rural development, for sovereign dignity?” he asked. “We are stuck with astronomical loans and inflation while government elites globetrot and perform for the cameras.”

    Nomane announced he will seek Supreme Court enforcement of the Appropriations Act, citing inequities in the distribution of budget funds and the government’s failure to recognize the people of Chuave and Simbu.

    “The people’s money is being plundered by a small kitchen cabinet. Effective budget implementation defines competent leadership — and this government has failed that test miserably,” he said. “Our national debt now stands at K65 billion, and we have no significant investment to show for it. Who will stop this madness?” Nomane asked.

    Loading

  • Landmark achievement initiated by Sir Salamo and O’Neill

    The recently opened Waigani National Court Complex stands as a landmark achievement for Papua New Guinea’s judiciary — a vision first conceived by former Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia and made possible through the early support and funding of the former Peter O’Neill government.

    Arial view of the new Waigani Court Complex. Image: Supplied

    Current Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika acknowledged Sir Salamo and Mr O’Neill during the official opening of the state-of-the-art court facility on September 10.

    Sir Salamo, who served as Chief Justice from 2011 to 2018, had long championed reforms to strengthen the independence and efficiency of the courts.

    Central to his vision was the creation of a three-tier judicial system, with a modern purpose-built complex in Waigani to house the National, Supreme and Appeals Courts.

    He had said that a facility of such scale would not only provide functional space for judges, registries and court staff but also anchor judicial autonomy by giving the courts control over their own infrastructure planning and execution.

    The initial ground breaking ceremony for the Waigani Court Complex officiated by Sir Salamo officiating back in February, 2015. Image: File photo

    That dream took shape in 2016 when then Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s government formally approved the project and provided its initial funding. The ambitious undertaking was budgeted at K450 million at the time, though costs later rose to nearly K700 million.

    Despite delays and shifting timelines, successive government under Prime Minister James Marape, continued to prioritise the project, recognising its importance to law, order and governance.

    The complex boasts 15 courtrooms including a state-of-the-art Banco Court, 31 judges’ chambers, a modern registry, research and reporting facilities, and an ICT data centre designed to bring the judiciary into the digital age.

    From Injia’s bold idea to O’Neill’s funding approval and the final completion under Prime Minister James Marape ‘s government and Sir Gibbs Salika’s administration, the Waigani Court Complex stands as a symbol of continuity in nation-building and the enduring value of investing in justice.

    Loading