Statement by the PNG Prime Minister on Bougainville lawsuit

Statement by the Prime Minister, Rt. Hon Sir Mekere Morauta, MP
In response to questions raised on 22 November 2001 by the
Rt. Hon. Sir Michael Somare, MP

On a court case in relation to Bougainville 04 December 2001 Mr Speaker, the Member for East Sepik Regional (and now Leader of the Opposition) has asked me a series of questions about a case before a United States District Court in which an American resident and a number of Bougainvilleans are suing RTZ Corporation for damages allegedly caused in Bougainville.

The timing of his questions, on the morning this House was due to debate the Bougainville Peace Agreement, raises a number of issues and questions.

The Opposition Leader's introductory remarks about the likely costs of establishing the autonomous Bougainville Government were seriously misleading in the way they cited a particular set of very high - and unsourced - estimates, without explanation or justification.

They were also based on newspaper reports that were totally inaccurate, irresponsible and ignorant of the policy and laws of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea and the rights and duties of sovereign nations.

They were made without any regard to provisions of the Bougainville Peace Agreement of August 2001. That Agreement, Mr Speaker, provides for Bougainville to meet the additional costs of autonomy and for Bougainville to continue to make an equitable contribution to national development and to the costs of functions that the National Government carries out on behalf of Papua New Guinea as a whole.

Mr Speaker, Rt Hon Sir Michael's remarks were not only misleading and inaccurate, they were also mischievous. They were mischievous in the way they implied that the Government is in some way an obstacle to obtaining vast sums of money that could be used to help fund restoration and development in Bougainville.

Mr Speaker, the State is not seeking to stop the court case per se. The case can still be brought before the Papua New Guinea courts, where it belongs.

The State is seeking to protect the integrity of Papua New Guinea.

It is doing so in a number of different ways.

One, it is trying to stop the case being heard in a foreign jurisdiction,
as is the right of every independent nation and as is according to laws and policies made by this Honourable Parliament.

Two, the State is determined to uphold and protect the reputation of Papua New Guinea, both because of the natural desire of all nations to protect their good names and because of the negative consequences likely to follow from the kinds of claims made in the case.

Twenty-one people are named as plaintiffs in the case: Alexis Holyweek Sarei, Paul E. Nerau, Thomas Tamuasi, Philip Miriori, Gregory Kopa, Methodius Nesiko, Aloysius Moses, Raphael Niniku, Gabriel Tareasi, Linus Takinu, Leo Wuis, Michael Akope, Benedict Pisi, Thomas Kobuko, John Tamuasi, Norman Mouvo, John Osani, Ben Korus, Namira Kawona, Joan Bosco, John Pigolo and Magdalene Pigolo.

It is not clear on what basis these twenty-one individuals can claim to
represent the people of Bougainville, especially when a number do not live in Bougainville and one, at least, not even in Papua New Guinea.

But it is clear that some of them, and their lawyers, would do very well
financially indeed.

Let me stress again that the Government is not opposed to these people pursuing their case inside our country using our judicial system. We are opposed to the use of foreign courts to decide matters that affect Papua New Guinea as a nation.

In fact, resort to foreign courts goes against laws made by this Parliament to safeguard the integrity and sovereignty of our national institutions.

Papua New Guinea has a judicial system the equal of any in the world. It is perfectly capable of judging matters relating to our own sovereignty. It is right and proper that it do so.

Mr Speaker, this simplified explanation captures the essence of the
Government's action, which is justified by a substantive legal framework. This legal framework is the Compensation (Prohibition of Foreign Proceedings) Act 1995 (the Compensation Act).

The Compensation Act prohibits the taking or pursuit in a foreign court of legal proceedings in relation to compensation claims arising from mining or petroleum projects in Papua New Guinea.

The Compensation Act does not set out expressly the people to whom it applies. However, it clearly applies at least to citizens of and residents in the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.

This Act was passed in 1995 to achieve three important objectives. First, "to protect the human rights of the citizens of Papua New Guinea". Second, "to encourage economic and social development of Papua New Guinea" and third, "to attract international companies and foreign investment".

Mr Speaker, anyone who takes or pursues compensation proceedings in a foreign court is guilty of an offence under this Act.

The people listed above may, therefore, be guilty of a punishable offence under the Act and liable to a fine not exceeding K10,000, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both.

Mr Speaker, the Compensation Act also denies the enforcement of
compensation claims based on the judgement of foreign courts.

At issue here are the sovereignty and the integrity of the laws of the
Independent State of Papua New Guinea. In other words, the independence, the jurisdiction and the integrity of the state and the judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, although in this case Papua New Guinea is not named as a defendant, the statement of claim strongly implicates Papua New Guinea. This is why the State acted as it did.

The statement of claim contains some very strong allegations against Papua New Guinea.

It seeks to cast blame for certain actions on the State alone.

In doing so, it runs counter to the spirit of reconciliation in which the
peace process has been proceeding, including the agreement to grant amnesty and pardon for crisis-related activities on all sides. (Let me emphasise all sides.)

If the State did not respond to these allegations, then we would, by
default, allow others to make some very serious, one-sided slurs against the National Government and its institutions.

That would, in turn, raise very serious questions about the quality of
governance in Papua New Guinea - and doubts about our continuing
eligibility for foreign aid, foreign loans and other forms of international
development co-operation.

Failure to make our position clear would disadvantage the entire country by damaging Papua New Guinea's reputation. In doing so, it would cause suffering for the entire nation - without necessarily benefiting Bougainville in any way at all.

The Government has, therefore, responded to the District Court's invitation to make our views known to the Government of the United States.

American law provides for this - and for us to ask the United States to
intercede in the matter so that the laws and sovereignty of Papua New
Guinea are protected and respected.

Mr, Speaker, a foreign court may not question the validity of the actions of Papua New Guinea within its own sovereign borders. Foreign judicial interference with the role of the Executive of a sovereign nation is not only unacceptable but also goes against basic principles of international law.

We view any litigation that takes place outside Papua New Guinea and involves its citizens and events that occur within its sovereign territory or territorial waters as a form of legal imperialism.

The Honorable Member's other questions relate to the role of Rio Tinto. The State cannot speak for others such as Rio Tinto's lawyers. The Government is protecting the national interests of Papua New Guinea, not anyone else. It has taken a completely independent decision after examining the implications of the lawsuit for the Independent State of Papua New Guinea.

Our position, which was delivered to the Government of the United States, serves the interest of Papua New Guinea and its people, not Rio Tinto.

Mr Speaker, the Government was also motivated by the need to preserve the peace on Bougainville, which has come after enormous human cost. The Government will not allow the peace, and progress towards completion of a political settlement, to be destabilized by tactics that compromise the integrity of the State.

The success of the previous Government and this Government in achieving peace culminated in the signing of the Bougainville Peace Agreement on 30 August this year. That Agreement, combined with action to restore democratic government on Bougainville within the framework of the Papua New Guinea Constitution through the current legislation before this Parliament, demonstrate my Government's commitment to Bougainville.

It is hypocritical for a former Bougainville Affairs Minister to support an action that threatens the integrity and sovereign rights of Papua New Guinea, the political settlement we are now debating, and the co-operation on which the reconstruction of Bougainville depends.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I am shocked and saddened to hear that our first Prime Minister believes that Papua New Guinea's legal system [QUOTE] "does not have the same impartiality and independence as exists in the United States."

The Leader of the Opposition should apologise to the members of the
judicial system for these grossly insulting and contemptuous remarks. They bring into disrepute one of the three pillars of our democracy.

Mr Speaker, I unequivocally maintain the position taken by the Government in the interest of the integrity of Papua New Guinea, and of peace-building based on reconciliation and co-operation.

Thank you.

Morauta House, Waigani, P.O. BOX 639, WAIGANI, Papua New Guinea
Telephone: (675) 327 6544 Facsimile: (675) 327 6630
Parliament Office, National Paliament House, WAIGANI, N.C.D., Papua New Guinea.
Telephone: (675) 327 7325, (675) 327 7311 Facsimile: (675) 327 7328
Email: pmsmedia@datec.com.pg