Blog

SABL leases flawed

Women shocked, all agreements defective

By Grace Tiden

POMIO women expressed shock before the SABL inquiry in Kokopo yesterday when told they were signatories to the lease-lease back agreement.

They were in even more shock to learn that some of the signatories were their own children who were so young they would not even hold up an ink pen.

SABL Commission of Inquiry commissioner Alois Jerewai expressed concern at the findings which is hearing into four SABL leases in Pomio which involve Gilford Limited, a subsidiary of Rimbunan Hijau, the owners of The National newspaper.

Mr Jerewai said it appeared the documents involved in securing the SABLs were flawed.
He questioned the Land Investigation Report used to supplement the SABL leases.
Mr Jerewai heard from Pomio women leaders Claudia Koisilele and Ludwina Kora that they had never signed any agreement giving their land away.

Ms Koisilele, representing Portion 197C (Ralopal Investments Limited) and Ms Kora, from Portion 196C (Pomata Investments Limited) gave evidence during the second day of the inquiry in Kokopo, now into its third week. 

Both women, who have their names and signatures in the report including their very young children, denied signing the document and on behalf of their children. 

If this is the case then it would mean that all other subsequent documents and agreements in relation to the logging project in the West Pomio area of East New Britain Province would also be defective. 

Mr Jerewai, who had another long day yesterday with landowners’ representatives from all four SABL areas in Pomio, called mostly women landowners to give evidence especially in regards to the Lands Investigation Report.

Puipui Tuna, from the ENB lands division, was also called to verify if they had identified the customs of the landowners when carrying out the investigation. 

Commissioner Jerewai also asked if they had based their investigation report on what was provided by executives of ILGs and landowner companies. 

Mr Tuna said that was so and that they had given documents to executives to take up with the landowners. 

Commissioner Jerewai went on to tell him that ILGs did not own customary land and it was only a body formed by different clan members and so the landowners themselves did not have the opportunity to express themselves. 

Names and signatures of children under five years old were also found in the Land Investigation Report ownership schedules, including names of people appearing more than once with different signatures. 

In both the lease-lease back instrument as well as the sublease between landowner companies and the developer, Gilford Limited, a subsidiary of logging giant Rimbunan Hijau, names of signatories were all men and in their matrilineal custom, women were the ones to make any decision regarding their land.

ALSO of significance were the inconsistent signatures of some of these male signatories of these documents, suggesting possible forgery.

Mr Jerewai told the women that in the Lands Investigation Report they all agreed to surrender their land to the State. The State then sub-leases the land back to the landowners companies who then holds a leaseback title. However he raised serious doubt over the correctness of the Lands Investigation Report. 

Gilford representatives will be called to give evidence today.

Comments

If these reports are correct then a criminal act has taken place. Police fraud squad must immediately investigate and charge any criminals. No need to wait. Developer must vacate the site and compensate for any damages and resources taken such as timber.

Talk of landowners being liable to compensate the developer is nonsense if they participated in a fraudulent deal. They should withdraw peacefully, acknowledge the wrongs and start making things right. The perpetrators must not be portrayed as victims.

Post Courier Wednesday November 9th Alois Jerewai (CoI Pomio). “It would cost roughly K10 billion ….. to break up the sub-lease”. Etc. etc.etc. ad infinitum. If this was reported correctly it sounds like a serious attempt to convince these good ladies to give up; that any action will have serious consequences for them and their people. It sounds like a threat! If this front-page report is correct, we now know that this SABL Commission is designed be a white wash. If these lady landowners can show that they did not give informed consent to the SABL, the land should be returned to them, the developments should be forfeit . The parties conniving against the landowners should make compensation. This is a Government problem not a landowner one. I have a sinking feeling that the Commission will find against some expendable cases while ignoring the lucky ones who have influence at high level.

I am not against development, but if one does not know what risks, deceit and danger he is being lured into development schemes, such schemes should not be called development; these development schemes are more akin to plundering or exploitation. Regardless of any other fancy technicalities,does it have to take a rocket scientist to understand that flawed documentation, or forged signatures for that matter, etc.,should "naturally" render any inherent agreement "defective" right from the very start? It's wonderful to see announcements from the COI into SABL and all the media hype and fanfare, but can the prosecution start already?