The State v 81600 Private Nebare Dege, 810096 Private Francis Mantenepoa, 89616 Corporal Suke Luka, 810594 Lance Corporal Liston Naged, 810604 Lance Corporal Anton Kawas, 811970 Private Paul Holonga, 812112 Private Thomas Paraka, 812350 Private Roland Roidi, 89680 Lance Corporal William Gube, 810903 Corporal Kila Lalai, 89263 Corporal Timbie Walome, 811831 Private Karama Linge, 812373 Private Benson Robert, 87740 Lance Corporal Evara Mohavila, 812052 Private Elvis Kabuni, 811994 Private Jimmy Miria, 810964 Lance Corporal Woglo Kambu, 812020 Private Bisian Nimol, 811912 Private Thomas Francis, 812241 Private Lelea Kegwale, 811879 Private Lowaiye Injo, 89296 Corporal Patrick Singeri, 810125 Corporal John Bandi, 812075 Private Jimmy Iwira, 812010 Private Tio Augustine, 811886 Private Paul Kera and 812070 Private Simanto Wariki (2002) N2333

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Salika J
• Judgment Date: 20 December 2002
• Court: National Court
• Citation: (2002) N2333
• Year: 2002
• Judgement Number: N2333

Full Title: The State v 81600 Private Nebare Dege, 810096 Private Francis Mantenepoa, 89616 Corporal Suke Luka, 810594 Lance Corporal Liston Naged, 810604 Lance Corporal Anton Kawas, 811970 Private Paul Holonga, 812112 Private Thomas Paraka, 812350 Private Roland Roidi, 89680 Lance Corporal William Gube, 810903 Corporal Kila Lalai, 89263 Corporal Timbie Walome, 811831 Private Karama Linge, 812373 Private Benson Robert, 87740 Lance Corporal Evara Mohavila, 812052 Private Elvis Kabuni, 811994 Private Jimmy Miria, 810964 Lance Corporal Woglo Kambu, 812020 Private Bisian Nimol, 811912 Private Thomas Francis, 812241 Private Lelea Kegwale, 811879 Private Lowaiye Injo, 89296 Corporal Patrick Singeri, 810125 Corporal John Bandi, 812075 Private Jimmy Iwira, 812010 Private Tio Augustine, 811886 Private Paul Kera and 812070 Private Simanto Wariki (2002) N2333

National Court: Salika J

Judgment Delivered: 19 and 20 December 2002

1 Court Martial—particular offences under the Defence Act—s53 and s55 of the Defence Act—Mutiny—Elements of—Breaking into armory—Breaking into transport pool—issuing of firearms and ammunition—driving military vehicles—impeding the performance of duty or service in the Defence Force.

2 The State v Albert Ugunnie [1988–89] PNGLR 101 and The State v Major Walter Enuma (1997) N1723 referred to

Held:

1. Setting fire to buildings, breaking into the armoury and getting weapons and ammunition without authority and breaking into the transport pool and driving military vehicles out of the pool without authority amounted to mutiny.

2. Commanding Officer was effectively overthrown out of command amounted to mutiny.

3. Driving military vehicles without authority amounted to mutiny—that is it impeded the performance of duty or service in the Defence Force.

___________________________

N2333

IN THE MILITARY COURT OF JUSTICE

THE STATE

AGAINST

81600 PRIVATE NEBARE DEGE and

810096 PRIVATE FRANCIS MANTENEPOA and

89616 CORPORAL SUKE LUKA and

810594 LANCE CORPORAL LISTON NAGED and

810604 LANCE CORPORAL ANTON KAWAS and

811970 PRIVATE PAUL HOLONGA and

812112 PRIVATE THOMAS PARAKA and

812350 PRIVATE ROLAND ROIDI and

89680 LANCE CORPORAL WILLIAM GUBE and

810903 CORPORAL KILA LALAI and

89263 CORPORAL TIMBIE WALOME and

811831 PRIVATE KARAMA LINGE and

812373 PRIVATE BENSON ROBERT and

87740 LANCE CORPORAL EVARA MOHAVILA and

812052 PRIVATE ELVIS KABUNI and

811994 PRIVATE JIMMY MIRIA and

810964 LANCE CORPORAL WOGLO KAMBU and

812020 PRIVATE BISIAN NIMOL and

811912 PRIVATE THOMAS FRANCIS and

812241 PRIVATE LELEA KEGWALE and

811879 PRIVATE LOWAIYE INJO and

89296 CORPORAL PATRICK SINGERI and

810125 CORPORAL JOHN BANDI and

812075 PRIVATE JIMMY IWIRA and

812010 PRIVATE TIO AUGUSTINE and

811886 PRIVATE PAUL KERA and

812070 PRIVATE SIMANTO WARIKI

WEWAK : SALIKA, J

19th December, 2002

Court Martial – particular offences under the Defence Act – sections 53 and 55 of the Defence Act – Mutiny – Elements of – Breaking into armory – Breaking into transport pool – issuing of firearms and ammunition – driving military vehicles – impeding the performance of duty or service in the Defence Force.

Held:

1. Setting fire to buildings, breaking into the armonry and getting weapons and ammunition without authority and breaking into the transport pool and driving military vehicles out of the pool without authority amounted to mutiny.

2. Commanding Officer was effectively overthrown out of Command amounted to mutiny.

3. Driving military vehicles without authority amounted to mutiny – that is it impeded the performance of duty or service in the Defence Force.

Major J. Kesan & Major R. Kassman for the State

Major T. Navigate for the First Defendant

Major D. Koeget for Defendants.

Cases cited:

State v Ugunie and Ors (1988-89) PNGLR 101

State v Renagi, Namah and Osaba N1723.

19 December 2002.

The accused in this matter are serving soldiers of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force based at its Second Battalion in Moem, East Sepik Province. They are each charged with one count of mutiny under the Defence Act. The Charge reads:

The above named being persons subject to the Code of Military Discipline are charged that the said persons did take part in a Mutiny jointly and severally between 08th March 2002 to 23rd March 2002 at 2RPIR Moem Barracks Wewak, East Sepik Province contrary to Section 55(1) of the Defence Act Chapter No. 74 of the Revised Laws.

The Prosecution alleged that :

1. being persons subject to the Code of Military Discipline jointly and severally did overthrow and or resist the lawful authority within the Moem Barracks 2RPIR and the authority of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force.

2. It was further alleged that they disobeyed such authority in such circumstances as to make the disobedience subversive to discipline.

3. The Papua New Guinea Defence Force also alleged that these group of soldiers at the material time impeded the lawful performance of duty and service in the Papua New Guinea Defence Force at the Moem Barracks of 2RPIR.

4. It was also alleged that all these soldiers were and are subject to the Code of Military Discipline.

The Prosecution says that 1, 2 and 3 above have been committed in that the soldiers :-

1. jointly and severally drew a petition demanding the resignation of the Commander of the Papua New Guinea Defence Force and the Prime Minister of PNG.

2. Without lawful authority took high power automatic military weapons, ammunition and stores by unlawfully breaking and entering the armory and magazine, and using the weapons to overthrow or resist lawful authority.

3. Took out a substantial number of weapons, ammunitions and stores some of which are remaining missing or unaccounted for.

4. Unlawfully set fire to certain buildings situated at Moem Barracks namely the MI Block and the ComCentre Buildings.

5. Unlawfully broke and entered the officers mess at Moem Barracks and stole a substantial amount of property.

6. Unlawfully broke and entered the Commanding Officer’s Residence and set it on fire.

The prosecution team alleged that all the accused were involved in the above named activities which amounted to mutiny, thereby contravening s.55(1) of the Defence Act Chapter 74. Mutiny under s.53 of the Defence Act is defined :

“Mutiny” means a combination of two or more persons subject to the Code of Military Discipline or the service law of an ally of Papua New Guinea, or between persons of who at least two are such persons:-

(a) to overthrow or resist lawful authority in the Defence Forve or any force co-operating with the Defence Force, or in any part of the Defence Force or any such force; or

(b) to disobey any such authority in such circumstances as to make the disobedience subversive to discipline, or with the object of avoiding any service or duty against, or in connexion with operations against, an enemy; or

(c) to impede the performance of any duty or service in the Defence Force or any force co-operating with the Defence Force, or in any part of the Defence Force or any such force.

The prosecution called 36 witnesses in its endeavor to prove its case against the accused. The witnesses were called in the following order :-

EREMIA RAPHAEL

This witness is Captain 811369 Eremia Raphael. He was the adjutant at Moem Barracks at the time of the problems. He had been at Moem for only 2 months before the problems. The relevant parts of his evidence are that on the 8 March 2002 in the evening the then Commanding Officer of the 2RPIR Lieutenant Colonel John Rakatani together with other officers gathered at the Officers Mess to farewell Colonel Lai. After the farewell gathering he had gone home and fallen asleep when he was woken by gun shots. He then went to the Commanding Officer’s house and watched the first building burn down. By 4.00 am he said another building started burning down. Some more officers congregated at the Commanding Officers’s house. He said the buildings that burnt down were the Military Instruction Block and the Communication Centre.

Captain Rapahel also gave evidence of what his role as an adjutant is. He said his...