and In The Matter of Contempt of Court Charges against Valentine Kambori (2003) N2490

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Sevua J
• Judgment Date: 11 December 2003
• Citation: (2003) N2490
• Docket Number: Bewa Tou on his own behalf and on behalf of Isou Clan of Krissa Village, Vanimo, Sandaun Province v Papua New Guinea Forest Authority, Vele Iamo Secretary for Department of Finance and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Year: 2003
• Judgement Number: N2490

Full Title: Bewa Tou on his own behalf and on behalf of Isou Clan of Krissa Village, Vanimo, Sandaun Province v Papua New Guinea Forest Authority, Vele Iamo Secretary for Department of Finance and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea; and In The Matter of Contempt of Court Charges against Valentine Kambori (2003) N2490

National Court: Sevua J

Judgment Delivered: 11 December 2003

N2490

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[National Court of Justice]

WS 756 of 2001

BETWEEN

BEWA TOU on his own behalf and on behalf of Isou Clan

of Krissa Village, Vanimo, Sandaun Province

Plaintiffs

AND

PAPUA NEW GUINEA FOREST AUTHORITY

First Defendant

AND

VELE IAMO

Secretary for Department of Finance

Second Defendant

AND

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Third Defendant

AND

AND IN THE MATTER OF CONTEMPT OF COURT CHARGES AGAINST VALENTINE KAMBORI

Waigani : Sevua, J

2003 : 11th December

CONTEMPT – Contempt of Court – Disobedience of Court order – Order not to leave National Capital District – Contemnor traveled out of National Capital District contrary to order – Power of Court to punish – Public interest in upholding integrity of Courts – Public interest in due administration of justice – Punishment for contempt ought to take values into consideration – Imprisonment is appropriate punishment for contempt.

Cases cited:

Pius Mark for and on behalf of the Council of the Mount Hagen Technical College v. Korali Iki [1995] PNGLR 116

Public Prosecutor v. Nahau Rooney (No. 2) [1979] PNGLR 448

The Attorney General and The State v. Dr. Pirouz Hamidian Rad, SC 668, unreported, 5th October 1999

Richard Sikani v. Peter Luga in SCA 79 of 2002

The State v. Foxy Kia Tala [1995] PNGLR 303

The State v. Lucas Sasoruo [1997] PNGLR 676

Peter Luga v. Richard Sikani and The State, unreported, N.2285 and N.2286, 1st October and 4th October 2002

Attorney General v. Times Newspaper [1974] AC 273, 302

John Rumet Kaputin v. The State [1979] PNGLR 559

The State v. Mark Taua Awaita [1985] PNGLR 178

The State v. Lucas Sasaruo [1997] PNGLR 676

The State v. Raymond Tupundu, N. 1536, unreported, 30th May 1996

Mr. P. Parkop for Plaintiffs

Mr. B. Koae for Registrar/Applicant

Ms. N. Eliakim for Contemnor

11th December 2003

SEVUA, J : Yesterday, I found Mr. Valentine Kambori, Chairman of National Forest Board and Secretary for National Planning and Rural Development guilty of contempt of court on two counts of contempt in his capacity as Chairman of the National Forest Board.

The facts were outlined in my judgment on verdict yesterday, but for the purpose of sentence, I will allude to the facts again.

On 24th April 2003, this Court granted a default judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and against the National Forest Authority in the sum of K942,809.71 with interest and costs. That order was in relation to timber royalties in Vanimo invested in 1990 for and on behalf of the landowners of Bewani area, Vanimo. Therefore this is not an ordinary claim for a debt but for monies invested for the landowners of Bewani. The National Forest Authority did not pay the interest and costs submitted by the plaintiffs nor did they dispute the quantum.

On 10th October 2003, the plaintiffs prosecuted their application by way of notice of motion seeking that the Chairman of the National Forest Board, Valentine Kambori, and the two other officers of the National Forest Authority, namely, Terry Wara, Acting Managing Director, and Joseph Pea, Acting Finance Manager be cited and punished for contempt in respect of the order of 24th April 2003.

I convicted the Chairman and the other two officers of contempt of court and adjourned the proceedings from 10th October to 17th October 2003 to hear submissions on penalty. In the meantime, I fell ill on the 10th October 2003 and was unwell for sometime. When the contemnors were convicted on 10th October 2003; they applied for bail through their counsel Mr. Ian Shepherd and were granted bail. The third order of the bail conditions was that the contemnors were not to leave the National Capital District without the leave of the Court.

On 19th October 2003, the contemnor, Valentine Kambori, traveled to Malaysia without a variation to that condition of bail. He knew full well that he was prohibited from leaving National Capital District unless he was granted permission by the Court. On the same date, the contemnor made a hand-written undertaking to the Court addressed to me via the plaintiffs lawyers. The undertaking was that the week he returned, he would change the name of the payee on the cheque from National Court Trust to Powes Parkop Lawyers Trust. As it were he did not effect the change.

Accordingly, on 20th October 2003, I ordered that he be arrested for breaching the order for bail, and consequently revoked his bail. I also ordered that he be cited for two counts of contempt of court. The Registrar’s motion filed in accordance with Order 14 Rule 47 (1) of National Court Rules, was filed on that basis.

On 24th October 2003, the contemnor was brought before Gavara-Nanu, J who reinstated bail and made other orders. However, His Honour did not deal with contempt as ordered in paragraph 3 of the orders of 20th October 2003.

On 21st November 2003, the contemnor appeared before me on his application to vary his bail condition so that he could be permitted to travel to Wewak and Rabaul and other places. I refused his application and revoked bail previously granted and imposed other terms and conditions of bail. The Court cited him for contempt, the basis of which, has been adverted to earlier on. The contempt proceedings were adjourned to Wednesday, 26th November 2003, however, due to the Supreme Court sittings, it was further adjourned to Wednesday, 3rd December 2003. Again on that day, the contemnor was informed of the two charges of contempt of court. He acknowledged the charges on both occasions. The procedures were further adjourned to Wednesday, 10th December 2003.

It was on 3rd December 2003, that the Court, at the contemnor’s counsel’s submission, ordered the Registrar to file a motion for punishment for contempt in accordance with Order 14 Rule 47 (1) of the National Court Rules. It is not necessary to refer to the procedure in Rule 47 (1) as I have already canvassed that briefly in my judgment on Wednesday, 10th December 2003.

I have carefully listened to the contemnor in his allocutus and considered everything he said. He acknowledged that he did breach the order for bail although he maintained that he “did not have any willful intention.” Since the disobedience of the order, he said he has learnt two things which he had misconceived. Firstly, he said he did not know that he could go before another Judge to seek leave, and secondly, he was mindful that I was the presiding Judge and therefore felt he should come before me.

The problem with those issues are that he had the services of two very experienced lawyers in one of the biggest foreign law firms in the country. At the material time, he was being represented by Mr. Mills and Mr. Shepherd of Blake Dawson Waldron. Secondly, Mr. Kambori is no ordinary small man on the street or a grassroot, if I could put it that way. He, as his counsel puts it, is a graduate of the University of Technology in Lae with a degree in Business and Agriculture. His substantive position is Secretary of National Planning and Rural Development. However, he is also the Chairman of the National Forest Board. He worked as a private entrepreneur previously and was later appointed to these very high and esteemed public service offices. As he himself puts it, he is the “Chief Advisor” to the government in National Planning and Development.

Therefore as one can see the contemnor is no ordinary small man, but a highly educated person and a very experienced and intelligent man. Either he was just being arrogant or he lied. I have difficulty in accepting that a highly educated man with a lot of experiences in both private and public life and holding two very senior posts in government could think that he could only come to me and not another Judge. What is the use of engaging and paying private expensive expatriate lawyers if they cannot offer simple advices?

So in relation to the contemnor’s disobedience of the Court order of 10th October 2003, in traveling out of National Capital District to Malaysia without the Court’s permission, it is evident that he is not exempted from culpability. There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the conduct of the contemnor was willful despite him maintaining otherwise.

As part of his explanation, the contemnor attempted to convince the Court that his travel was influenced by the Minister for State Enterprises, Mr. Arthur Somare, because it was not his plan to travel, but was co-opted at the last minute, therefore had little time to seek a variation to his bail. Perhaps the Minister played a leading role in this contempt, perhaps he did not. This Court will not really know the position. However, the crux of the matter is that Mr. Kambori was on bail and one of his bail conditions is an order that he must not leave National Capital District. The obligation, by law, is therefore his. He knew better than just run off to Malaysia because on the same day, he and others were granted bail, his lawyer, Mr. Shepherd came to my Chambers to apply for a variation so that he (contemnor) could...