Papua New Guinea Leadership Tribunal

Leadership Tribunal

N425 - Tribunal Hearing--Re the Hon Michael Pondros, MP

N425

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[LEADERSHIP TRIBUNAL]

REFERENCE NO.1 OF 1983

IN THE MATTER OF A REFERENCE BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR UNDER S.27(2) OF THE ORGANIC LAW

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE HON. MICHAEL PONDROS, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Waigani

Gajewicz J Lofena SM Toroken SM

21 June 1983

DETERMINATION, REASONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr Pondros said to this Tribunal that the group of which he was then the Chairman must have music. A band was organised by the group, the leader of which was Mr Pondros’ adopted son. Very large amounts of Government money were spent on musical instruments for that band. The Tribunal has heard evidence and reached its decision. Mr Pondros must now face the music.

The Tribunal is unanimous in its decision. We are satisfied that the first, second, fourth and fifth counts have been proved and we recommend that the Honourable Michael Pondros, M.P., be dismissed from the office of Member of Parliament.

The Tribunal has no hesitation in saying that Mr Pondros tricked the Government by false misrepresentation, to giving him the grant of K60,000. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Pondros is a shameless lier, a thoroughly dishonest man who used Government funds of K60,000 for his own personal enrichment and for the benefit of his associates. Had this matter been properly and thoroughly investigated and considered, in the Tribunal’s view, criminal charges should have been laid against Mr Pondros and his associates.

His place is not amongst the leaders, nor even amongst the law-abiding people of Papua New Guinea. The Tribunal has little doubt that had Mr Pondros been charged with criminal offences the charges would have been proved and proper punishment for the fraud he perpetrated would have been given.

This Tribunal was appointed, pursuant to the provisions of s.27(7)(e) of the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership (hereinafter referred to as “the Organic Law”) by the Chief Justice of Papua New Guinea on 18th April 1983 to enquire into certain allegations of misconduct in office, within the meaning of s.27(5) of the Organic Law, by the Honourable Michael Pondros a member of the National Parliament.

At the hearings the Public Prosecutor was represented by Mr Vele Noka and Mr Pondros by Mr Michael Cholai.

The Tribunal has before it a Reference by the Public Prosecutor dated the 19th April 1983 as well as a Statement of Reasons of the Ombudsman Commission which were forwarded by the Commission to the Public Prosecutor pursuant to s.29(1) of the Constitution and s.27(1) of the Organic Law. The Reference by the Public Prosecutor is made pursuant to s.27(2) of the Organic Law. This section requires that the Statement of the Ombudsman Commission shall be referred to the Tribunal.

The Reference by the Public Prosecutor originally contained four allegations against Mr Pondros of misconduct in his office. The allegations are described as counts in the Reference.

The second count is alternative to the first count. All counts allege that Mr Pondros contravened s.27(1) of the Constitution. Particulars of the alleged contraventions are stated in each count.

After initial delays, the Tribunal commenced its hearings on Monday, 2nd May 1983. The hearings continued with substantial interruptions on the 3rd, 4th and 5th May 1983 when the hearings were adjourned to Monday, 16th May 1983.

On 16th May 1983 Mr Noka made an application that counts three and four be amended by striking out and inserting certain words. These amendments were of a formal nature and were designed to ensure that the wording of the counts follows the wording of ss.27(1)(b) and 27(1)(d) of the Constitution. Mr Cholai did not oppose the application and counts three and four were amended.

Mr Noka also made an application to add to the Reference and additional count. Mr Cholai did not oppose the application and the fifth count was added to the Reference by the Public Prosecutor. Like the other four, this count alleges contravention of s.27(1) of the Constitution.

The hearings continued with interruptions on May 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 23rd, 25th and concluded on Thursday, 26th May 1983 when the Tribunal adjourned until Thursday, 2nd June 1983.

Members of the Tribunal discussed evidence and the issues involved in this matter and they reached a unanimous decision. The Chairman was then asked to draft reasons for the Tribunal’s decision for further detailed discussions by the members.

On Saturday 28th May 1983, on p.3 of the “Weekly Nius” a report appeared of an interview with the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. In the interview the Prime Minister made statements and comments relating to the issues in this matter which were for this Tribunal alone to decide. In doing that the Prime Minister arrogated to himself to exercise the functions of this Tribunal. This usurpation of the Tribunal’s functions amounted to a contempt of this Tribunal as it tended to create an impression among the general public that the Tribunal might yield to political pressure coming from such a high source. In other words, it tended to undermine the public confidence in the impartiality of the Tribunal.

On Sunday 29th May 1983, the Chairman of the Tribunal formally notified the Secretary, Department of Justice of the publication in the “Weekly Nius” requesting that appropriate action be taken for contempt of the Tribunal under s.33 of the Organic Law.

When the members of the Tribunal met again, they discussed the publication and its implications. The Tribunal decided that the o only course of action open to it, consistent with the Tribunal’s paramount duty to observe the principles of natural justice, was to reopen the hearings so as to give Mr Pondros an opportunity to comment, correct or contradict Prime Minister’s allegations made in the publication. In order to do that it was necessary to obtain from the Prime Minister an affidavit containing the published allegations. That was done and a copy of the affidavit was made available to Mr Cholai.

The hearings resumed on Tuesday 14th June 1983. Prime Minister’s affidavit was accepted in evidence as Exhibit 23. Mr Cholai requested that he be given an opportunity to cross-examine the Prime Minister on the contents of the affidavit. That was arranged. On 17th June, the Prime Minister attended the hearings and was cross-examined by Mr Cholai. Mr Cholai then made brief additional submissions and the hearings were adjourned until Monday 20th June 1983.

We set out the five counts as amended. They read as follows:

FIRST COUNT

That between the 21st day of September 1979 and the 24th day of June 1981 the Leader:

(1)      demeaned his position; and

(2)      allowed his public and personal integrity to be called into question; and

(3)      endangered respect for an confidence in the integrity of government in Papua New Guinea;

in that during the said period he appropriated or was a party to the appropriation of, the sum of K60,000 which had been received from Government funds by the Leader on behalf of an unregistered and unincorporated organisation known as Admiralty Transport Corporation for the purpose of assisting the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main town centre, to his own benefit and to the benefit of his associates thereby contravening Section 27(1) of the Constitution.

SECOND COUNT (alternative to first count)

That between the 21st day of September 1979 and the 24th day June 1981 the Leader:

(1)      demeaned his position; and

(2)      allowed his public and personal integrity to be called into question; and

(3)      endangered respect for and confidence in the integrity of government in Papua New Guinea;

in that during the said period he applied or was a party to the application of, the sum of K60,000 which had been received from Government funds by the Leader on behalf of an unregistered and unincorporated organisation known as Admiralty Transport Corporation for the purpose of assisting the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main town centre, to purposes unrelated to the purpose for which the money was given thereby contravening Section 27(1) of the Constitution.

THIRD COUNT

That between the 24th day of March 1980 and the 28th day of January 1982 the Leader:

(1)      demeaned his position; and

(2)      allowed his public and personal integrity to be called into question; and

(3)      endangered respect for and confidence in the integrity of government of Papua New Guinea;

in that during the said period he was the sole signatory of an ANZ Bank Boroko Branch account in the name of the said Admiralty Transport Corporation into which account were paid the monies received from the business of operating in Port Moresby two PMV’s which were purchased out of the said Government funds of K60,000 thereby contravening Section 27(1) of the Constitution.

FOURTH COUNT

That on the 26th day of January 1982 the Leader:

(1)      demeaned his position; and

(2)      allowed his public and personal integrity to be called into question; and

(3)      endangered respect for and confidence in the integrity of government of Papua New Guinea;

in that he on that date arranged for the closing of the said ANZ Bank account in the name of the said Admiralty Transport Corporation and the transfer of the then balance of K4,123.73 in that account to the account of Pokayou Pty Ltd a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1963 in which the only shareholders are the Leader and his wife Josephine Pondros, at the ANZ Bank Boroko Branch, in relation to which account the Leader was the sole signatory thereby contravening Section 27(1) of the Constitution.

FIFTH COUNT

That on the 18th day of June 1982 the Leader:

(1)      demeaned his position; and

(2)      allowed his public and personal integrity to be called into question; and

(3)      endangered respect for and confidence in the integrity of the government in Papua New Guinea;

in that he on that date caused one Mitsubishi Bus, Registration No. ACX 022 to be pledged as security for an overdraft facility with ANZ Bank for his personal use during the election campaign and that this Mitsubishi bus was purchased with funds given to Admiralty Transport Corporation for a public purpose, thereby contravening Section 27(1) of the Constitution.

To make the counts and our reasons for decision more easily understandable we summarise very briefly the facts out of which these proceedings arose.

On an unknown date, sometime in about 1978 or 1979, a number of persons said to represent “members of every corner of Manus” formed a group. The exact number of persons is not certain. It would appear that initially at least five persons participated in the formation of the group. A document was prepared styled “Constitution of Manus Transport Corporation”. The group was to be known as “Admiralty Transport Corporation”. On an unknown date the document was endorsed on behalf of the “Board of Directors” of the group. Mr Pondros signed the document as the Chairman. Four other persons signed the document as well. Mr Bob Tawe, who gave evidence during these hearings, signed the document as the Secretary.

One of the aims of the group was to “develop the people of Manus to strengthen their confidence in their capabilities and to stimulate desire to improve a livelihood as a community”.

The group was not registered under any relevant legislation, but it used to meet on occasions. It was said that formal minutes of the meetings were made in which the resolutions of the “Board of Directors” were incorporated. Copies of only three such minutes were tendered in evidence.

On 31st August 1979 Mr Pondros wrote to the National Village Economic Development Fund Secretariat, Department of Commerce, on behalf of Admiralty Transport Corporation asking for financial assistance “in the basic amount of K50,000”. The third paragraph of the letter reads “The implication of the (A.T.C.) is to assist the people of Manus as to transporting their crops from isolated areas to the main town centre”.

In about September 1979 Mr Pondros approached the Right Honourably the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea seeking financial assistance on behalf of the group.

According to the Prime minister’s affidavit, Mr Pondros assured the Prime Minister that whatever money were allocated the funds would be used “to improve the transportation requirements in the Manus Province”. On 7th September 1979 the Prime Minister forwarded to Mr Pondros a cheque for K10,000 to assist Admiralty Transport Association. On 21st September that cheque, together with a sum of K520.00 was paid into a newly opened bank account with Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation at its Kavieng Branch.

On 3rd March 1980 Mr Pondros was handed a cheque for K50,000 payable to Admiralty Transport Corporation. The cheque was paid into the bank account on 25th March 1980. An additional amount of K300.00 was also paid in. On 25th March 1980 the balance of Admiralty Transport Corporation at its Kavieng Branch amounted to K60,881.00.

On 27th March 1980 an amount of K15,006.00 was withdrawn from the account to pay for two buses purchased from Toba Motors. Then followed a number of transactions to which we shall refer in detail later. Some transactions involved large amounts of money for the purchase of musical instruments for a band, whose leader was Mr. Pondros’ adopted son. Some money was given to his wife as a loan, which has not been repaid. Cheques were made out payable either to Mr. Pondros or they were cash cheques which Mr. Pondros cashed himself.

Before we discuss the actual counts and refer to the evidence we wish to make a few remarks of a general nature.

The duties of the Tribunal are set out in s.28(1)(g) of the Constitution and s.27(4) of the Organic Law.

The first duty which the Tribunal shall perform is to “investigate and determine any cases of alleged or suspected misconduct in office referred to them in accordance with the Organic Law”. Section 29(1)(g) of the Constitution. “The Tribunal shall make due inquiry into the matter referred to it, without regard to legal formalities of the rules of evidence, and may inform itself in such manner as it thinks proper, subject to compliance with the principles of natural justice.” Section 27(4) of the Organic Law.

It is the view of the Tribunal that in determining the alleged misconduct in office the Tribunal must follow the decision of the Supreme Court announced in Reference S.C.R. No. 3 of 1981, unreported Supreme Court No. 211 of 1981 in which it was unanimously held by five judges that:

“There is no absolute degree of standard of proof to be applied by the Leadership Tribunal. The Tribunal must be reasonably satisfied of the truth of the allegations and it must give full weight to the gravity of a charge of misconduct in office by a person subject to the Leadership Code: to the adverse consequences which may follow and to the duty to act judicially and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Such satisfaction in matters so grave can never be achieved on a mere balance of probabilities”.

The Supreme Court also said:

“In practical terms the standard is not as high as the criminal proof beyond reasonable doubt but in our opinion, the very nature of the offence of misconduct in office created by the Constitution and the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership, will require a higher standard of proof originally applicable in civil cases, namely proof on a balance or preponderance of probabilities. In matters involving accusations amounting to criminal conduct, the standard must be close to that applicable to a criminal trial.”

Wherever we say in our reasons for decision that we are, or that the Tribunal is “satisfied”, it is to be understood that the Tribunal is satisfied to the degree of proof as stated above.

To remove any doubt, we wish to add that we agree with Mr. Choulai’s submission, which was not contested by Mr. Noka, that the burden of proof to satisfy us whether Mr. Pondros is guilty of misconduct in office as alleged lies on the Public Prosecutor.

At one stage of the proceedings, it appeared to be uncertain whether, in relation to the fifth count, Mr. Pondros was at the relevant time a “leader” within the meaning of Division 2 - Leadership Code of the Constitution. That uncertainty has been resolved and the Tribunal is satisfied that on 18th June 1982, Mr. Pondros was a “leader”.

These hearings may resemble hearings before a court of law sitting in its criminal jurisdiction. However, the function of a court hearing a criminal charge is different from the function of this Tribunal. Speaking very broadly, the function of a court is to hearken to the evidence, to ensure that the rules relating to the admissibility of evidence are observed and to decide on the evidence whether the person charged is guilty or innocent. As we said earlier, referring to s.28(1) (g) of the Constitution, the function of this Tribunal is to “investigate and determine any cases of alleged or suspected misconduct in office”.

During the hearings we requested that certain documents be made available to us. Before making the request we considered the nature of the documents and we concluded that the documents could have been obtained earlier either by the Ombudsman Commission or by the Public Prosecutor. No objection was made by Mr. Cholai to our request and such documents as were said to be available were tendered. In addition, the Tribunal obtained from the Deputy Registrar of Companies, photocopies of documents relating to the incorporation of Manus Development Corporation Pty Limited as well as particulars of shareholders, directors, managers and secretaries of that company. Copies of these documents were given to both counsel.

All five counts were heard together. It was not argued that some evidence related only to some counts and was inadmissible in relation to other counts. However, we wish it to be clearly understood that we considered each count separately. When doing that, we excluded from our consideration evidence which we thought to be irrelevant or inadmissible as far as that count was concerned. We also excluded from our consideration evidence the prejudicial effect of which would, in our view, be greater than the probative value of it.

Five specific instances of misconduct in office are alleged against Mr. Pondros. Each allegation is based on a number of separate acts done or allowed to be done over a long period of time by Mr. Pondros or his associate. The Tribunal is limited to those allegations of misconduct. The Tribunal cannot investigate and make enquiry whether Mr Pondros committed any other acts which would amount to misconduct in office. The Tribunal cannot, for instance, inquire whether Mr Pondros made full disclosure of his assets and his income to the Ombudsman Commission as he was obliged to do under s.4 of the Organic Law.

This Tribunal cannot investigate whether any other person, to whom the Organic Law applies, breached s.13 of it by intentionally applying “any money forming part of any fund under the control of Papua New Guinea to any purpose to which it (could) not lawfully be applied”.

To make this point clear we wish to refer to sworn evidence given by Mr Pondros. Answering questions put to him by the Tribunal Mr. Pondros said, with some confidence, that had he asked the Prime Minister for K10,000 to buy musical instruments for a band he was going to organise, the Prime Minister would have given him K10,000 from Government funds for that purpose. Mr. Pondros also said that had he asked the National V.E.D.F. Secretariat for K50,000 for the purpose of establishing and running for himself and his wife a bus service in Port Moresby, that amount would have been given to him from Government funds for that purpose. We were very surprised to hear Mr Pondros say that. Mr. Pondros has been a Member of the National Parliament for 13 years. He is a former Deputy Speaker of the Parliament. Until very recently, he was a Minister of State. At one stage of his political career, he was a “Chairman of the whole Parliamentary Committee, including Budget”. He was also a Chairman of an Expatriate Business Investigation Committee. Although he says that he has had only limited formal education, he has for a number of years been a member of the University of Technology Council. It was surprising to hear from a man of such importance and with such wide political and parliamentary experience that Government funds would be given for his own private purposes and for his own and his wife’s benefit.

The Tribunal wishes to make it quite clear that it cannot possibly accept Mr. Pondros’ statement. The point however, is that assuming that the statement were true, this Tribunal could not enquire into activities of persons other than Mr. Pondros and his associates which go outside the ambit of any of the five counts.

To sustain the allegation of misconduct in office contained in the first count, the Public Prosecutor must satisfy the Tribunal of the following:

N2>(a)      that between 21st September 1979 and 24th June 1981, Mr Pondros appropriated, or was a party to the appropriation for his own benefit or for the benefit of his associates, the sum of K60,000 which had been received by him from Government funds;

N2>(b)      on behalf of an unregistered and unincorporated organisation known as Admiralty Transport Corporation;

N2>(c)      that the funds were given for the purpose of assisting the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main town centre.

Similar facts must be proved in respect of the second count. Instead of “appropriation” of funds, “application” must be proved. Instead of “for his own benefit or the benefit of his associates”, purposes unrelated to the purpose for which the money was given” must be proved. But the purpose is the same, namely, to assist “the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main town centre”.

The third count should have been phrased with greater accuracy. The count refers to “the said Government funds of K60,000”. By implication, one would assume that the funds were meant to be the funds described in the first two counts. However, the count alleges that Mr. Pondros was the sole signatory of a bank account into which moneys were paid which were received from the business of operating two buses which were purchased out of the K60,000. These facts have been admitted by Mr. Pondros and are supported by the evidence. We cannot understand how these facts establish a contravention of s.27(1) of the Constitution and, therefore, a misconduct in office. We read and re-read Mr. Noka’s submissions made in respect of this count, but they do not help us at all in clarifying the elements of the allegations contained in the third count. We therefore exclude that count from our considerations.

In respect of the fourth count the Public Prosecutor must satisfy the Tribunal of the following:

N2>(a)      That on 26th January 1982, Mr Pondros arranged for the closing of an account of Admiralty Transport Corporation with the A.N.Z. Bank;

N2>(b)      That on the same day, Mr Pondros arranged that the balance of K4,123.73 in that account be transferred into an account of Pokayou Pty Ltd with the same bank;

N2>(c)      That Pokayou Pty Ltd was then a company incorporated under the Companies Act;

N2>(d)      That the only shareholders in Pokayou Pty Ltd are Mr Pondros himself and his wife, Mrs. Josephine Pondros;

N2>(e)      That Mr Pondros was the sole signatory of the Pokayou Pty Ltd account with the A.N.Z. Bank, Boroko Branch.

In respect of the fifth count, the Public Prosecutor must prove:

N2>(a)      That on 18th June 1982, Mr Pondros caused a Mitsubishi bus, Registration No. ACX022 to be pledged as security for an overdraft facility with the A.N.Z. Bank;

N2>(b)      For his personal use during the election campaign;

N2>(c)      That the bus was purchased with funds given to Admiralty Transport Corporation for a public purpose.

Generally speaking, there has been practically no, or very little dispute about the facts in this case.

It is not disputed that Admiralty Transport Corporation is an unregistered and unincorporated organisation. Exhibit “N” which is a statutory declaration by the Registrar General proves that beyond any doubt.

It is not disputed that Mr Pondros received on behalf of Admiralty Transport Corporation from Government funds the total sum of K60,000. Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C”, one of which is a copy of a cheque for K10,000, prove that that amount was received by Mr Pondros from the Prime Minister. Exhibits “F”, “G” and “H” prove that a cheque for K50,000 was received by Mr Pondros from the V.E.D.F. Secretariat.

Exhibit “I”, which consists of bank statements and relating documents of Admiralty Transport Corporation with the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation at its Kavieng branch, proves that both cheques, plus additional money, were paid into that account which was opened on 19th September 1979.

The withdrawal of moneys from that account is not disputed. Exhibit “J”, as well as photocopies of relevant cheques which were tendered in evidence prove the amounts withdrawn and the names of the payees of the cheques.

It is not disputed that the buses were purchased on behalf of Admiralty Transport Corporation and that Mr Pondros, originally himself and later with the active help of his wife, ran a bus service in Port Moresby.

It is not disputed that the bus service run by Mr Pondros was a commercial venture and that therefore Mr Pondros and his associates committed numerous breaches of s.3 of the Business Names Act Ch. No.145, punishable by a fine not exceeding K200.00 with a default penalty not exceeding K20-00.

It is not disputed that on 24th March 1980, Admiralty Transport Corporation opened an account with the A.N.Z. Bank at its Boroko Branch. Exhibits “O” and “QQ”, which are the statements of account and the authority to operate the account respectively, are proof of that. Mr. Pondros was the sole signatory of that account.

It is not disputed that on 18th November 1981, Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd was incorporated. Exhibits “SS”, “TT”, and “UU”, which are the Certificate of Incorporation and other relating documents prove beyond doubt that the company’s only shareholders were Mr Pondros himself and his wife, Mrs. Josephine Pondros.

It is not disputed that on 6th January 1982, Mr. Pondros closed the account of the Admiralty Transport Corporation and transferred the balance of K4,123.73 into an account which he opened on that day with the same bank in the name of Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd of which account he was the sole signatory. Exhibits “P” and “RR” prove that.

It is not disputed and Mr Cholai specifically admitted that in addition, all assets of Admiralty Transport Corporation were transferred to Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd. The assets consisted mainly of the buses which Mr Pondros purchased at various times from the K60,000, as well of as musical instruments bought from the same fund. Mr Cholai submitted that Admiralty Transport Corporation would have equitable interest in those assets and presumably also in the money transferred.

It is not disputed that musical instruments were purchased from the K60,000 in Port Moresby and in Lae for a band, the leader of which was Mr Pondros adopted son. It is difficult to establish how much money was spent on the musical instruments. Mr Bob Tawe, the Secretary of the Admiralty Transport Corporation, said in evidence that he purchased instruments for K5,000. From a letter by the Managing Director of Keynote Music House in Port Moresby, which was tendered in evidence as Exhibit 19, it appears that Mr Pondros bought musical instruments to the tune of K5, 134-31. From a statutory declaration by the Manager of Rook’s Radio, Lae, Exhibit 24, it appears that he sold K1,700 worth of musical instruments. Payment was made by an Admiralty Transport Corporation cheque, which is part of Exhibit “XX”. The total of money spent on musical instruments from the K60,000 would amount to K11,834.31. Mr. Pondros, when giving evidence, estimated that about K15,000 was spent on musical instruments. In addition, a motor vehicle was purchased out of the K60,000 for the exclusive use of the band. Mr Pondros said that the reason why the band was organised and financed was “because the group must have music”. Mr. Bob Tawe, the Secretary, was supposed to look after the band. The band gave two performances at Lorengau Hotel, but it was not appreciated and the band moved to Lae, Goroka and other centres. Mr. Tawe said that he thought that the band gave nine or ten concerts and it was then left to its own devices. Members of the band, five of them, were being paid a fortnightly salary of K20.00 each. No financial records were kept of the alleged earnings and expenditures related to that band. At an unknown date, the band was disbanded. Nobody really knows what happened to the motor vehicle, it was apparently left abandoned in Goroka. Mr. Pondros said that the musical instruments are at his home in Port Moresby.

Exhibit 18, Minutes of Directors’ meeting dated 18th May 1980 which was signed by Mr Pondros, shows that the Directors approved payment of K200.00 to each of four members of Admiralty “for their individual financial needs”. A cheque for the amount of K800.00 was made out and was debited to the bank account on 20th May 1980. The members were: Mr M. Tuam; Mr H.P. Paliau, who, according to the minutes, was the lawyer of the organisation; Mr M. Kava and Mr J. Kupe.

It is not disputed that on 26th November 1980 a cheque, Exhibit “MM”, for K500.00 was made out payable to Mrs. Josephine Pondros. Mr. Pondros gave three different accounts of why that cheque was given to his wife. When appearing before the Ombudsman Commission, Mr. Pondros testified on oath that when he went to Africa for a conference, his wife, when looking after the bus service in Port Moresby, “was abused and assaulted on a road”. When Mr. Pondros came back from the conference, Mrs. Pondros complained about it. He then wrote out the cheque and gave it to her. When giving evidence before us, Mr. Pondros said at first that the cheque for K500.00 was given to his wife because she was actively helping him in running the bus service and that she deserved the money as compensation for services rendered to the Admiralty Transport Corporation. Later, Mr. Pondros said that whilst he was in Lusaka attending the conference, he lost all his luggage and his wife sent him K400.00. Mr. Pondros then said that at a meeting, the Directors agreed that Mrs. Pondros be given the cheque for K500.00, K400.00 of which was to repay her the K400.00 which she had sent to Africa and K100.00 was to pay for her helping running the bus service whilst Mr. Pondros was away in Africa.

It is not disputed that on 25th November 1980, Mr. Pondros wrote out a cheque for K710.40. Exhibit “NN”, payable to A.G.C. Pacific Ltd. That cheque was debited on 1st December 1980. He explained to the Tribunal that the cheque was for payment of hire purchase instalments for his own personal car. He apparently fell into arrears with his monthly payments and the car had been repossessed. To the Ombudsman Commission he said, that he did not have sufficient funds in his own private bank account and used that cheque to pay off the car and regain the possession of it. To the Tribunal, Mr. Pondros said that the K710.40 was a gift to him from Admiralty Transport Corporation. From a bank statement of one or two personal accounts Mr. Pondros had with the Bank of New South Wales, Exhibit 16, it appears that on 26th November 1980, Mr. Pondros had to his credit the sum of K2,094.85. In cross examination by Mr. Noka, Mr. Pondros admitted that. He admitted that he asked the Directors of the group to assist him to pay that amount because he did not have sufficient money to do that. He also admitted that that was not true and that he misled the Directors.

It is not disputed that on 2nd May 1980, Mr. Pondros was given a cash cheque for K4,000, Exhibit “DD”. He stated that he cashed the cheque himself and gave the money to his wife. She used the money to pay the balance of a loan she obtained from the Development Bank at Rabaul when she bought a truck for herself. Apparently, the Bank was pressing her for payment of that amount which had been outstanding for some time.

It is not disputed that two Bills of Sale, Exhibits “CCC” and “DDD”, were executed by Mr. Pondros in favour of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group (PNG) Limited, that is, “the ANZ Bank” referred to in the fourth and fifth counts. The first Bill of Sale was executed on 12th March 1981, the grantor being Mr. Michael Pondros, trading as Admiralty Transport Corporation. It is not disputed that that Bill of Sale was given as security for a loan of K10,000 by the Bank to Admiralty Transport Corporation. Mr. Pondros assigned to the Bank two buses which were purchased from the Government grant of K60,000. The second Bill of Sale was executed on 18th June 1982 to secure an overdraft extended by the Bank to Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd. The fifth count alleges that one bus was pledged as security for an overdraft facility with the Bank. The first schedule to the Bill of Sale shows that three buses were assigned to the Bank. Mr. Pondros’ evidence is to the effect that all three buses were the property of Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd. They, or at least two of them, were purchased by Admiralty Transport Corporation as replacements for the original buses which, over a period of time, were either damaged or became unserviceable.

Both Bills of Sale were duly registered. It is not necessary to disscuss in detail what a Bill of Sale is. It is sufficient if we say that when a Bill of Sale is executed and registered the property in the chattels assigned passes to the grantee. The grantor retains a mere possession of them, subject to conditions stipulated in the Bill. In other words, in this case the Bank became the owner of the buses until Mr. Pondros fulfilled his obligation to repay the amounts of money borrowed. Mr. Pondros retained the possession of the buses, subject to very strict conditions stipulated in the documents.

The fifth count also alleges that Mr. Pondros used the overdraft facility with the A.N.Z. Bank secured by the second Bill of Sale, Exhibit “DDD”, for his personal use during the election campaign. The count does not specify the election campaign but it is a common ground that it was the campaign conducted by Mr. Pondros during the last National Election.

In his examination-in-chief, Mr. Pondros denied strenuously the allegation. He appeared to be very indignant about the allegation. He maintained that at no stage Admiralty Transport Corporation funds were used for his election campaign, nor any money derived from the running of the bus service in Port Moresby. He said that the Pangu Pati allotted him K6,000 for the campaign and that was sufficient for his purposes. However, in cross examination, when he was confronted with his sworn statement given before the Ombudsman Commission, Mr. Pondros admitted that he requested the Directors of the group that a sum of K1,000 be given to him for his electoral campaign and that that amount was granted to him and that he used it for that purpose. Mr. Noka put to Mr Pondros that, according to the transcript of the statement he made before the Ombudsman Commission, he said that K3,000 was used by him for the campaign. Mr. Pondros said that he did not say that K3,000 was used, but only K1,000.

When earlier during these hearings, Mr. Noka tried to tender parts of the transcript of the proceedings before the Ombudsman Commission, Mr Cholai objected to the transcript being tendered on the ground that the transcript was inaccurate. These hearings were adjourned to enable both counsel to agree on what was the correct transcript. The transcript was corrected and it was tendered in evidence, by consent, as Exhibit “BBB”.

In his submissions, Mr Cholai said that as far as he was concerned, his only objection to tendering the transcript in its original form was because he was not satisfied that the transcript was correct. The errors were rectified and he consented to the transcript being tendered in evidence as being an accurate record of what was said on that occasion.

Mr. Pondros in his examination-in-chief, told deliberate lies to this Tribunal about the use of Government funds granted to Admiralty Transport Corporation. He said that no money from that fund was used for his election campaign. The Tribunal has no hesitation whatever in accepting that Mr. Pondros told the Ombudsman Commission that he used K3,000 from Admiralty Transport Corporation for his election campaign. The Tribunal cannot say whether Mr. Pondros lied to the Ombudsman Commission when he said that he had used K3,000 for his election campaign, or whether he lied to this Tribunal when he said that he had used only K1,000 for that purpose. There is no evidence how much money was used from the Government fund by Mr. Pondros for the last National Election campaign. Having seen and heard Mr. Pondros in the witness box, all members of the Tribunal think that it is more likely that K3,000 was used for that purpose, but, of course, the standard of proof in this case is not on the balance of probabilities. We must therefore, say that we are satisfied that K1,000 was spent from Government funds for his personal use during the election campaign.

We no refer to some of the cheques which, as we said earlier, were either cash cheques which Mr Pondros cashed, or cheques made payable to Mr. Pondros, some of which he banked into one of his two private accounts he had with the Bank of New South Wales. These cheques are:

N2>(a)      Exhibit “BB”, a cash cheque dated 21.4.80 for K700.00. Mr. Pondros said that he cashed the cheque to pay for fuel and drivers’ salaries when he was running the bus service in Port Moresby;

N2>(b)      Exhibit “CC”, a cash cheque dated 26.4.80 for K518.00. Mr. Pondros cashed it and used the money to pay drivers’ salaries and for spare parts for the buses. As we said earlier, Mr Pondros opened an account with the ANZ Bank in Boroko on 24th March 1980 in the name of Admiralty Transport Corporation and he was the sole signatory of that account;

N2>(c)      Exhibit “EEE”, a cheque dated 3.6.80 for K7,900.00 payable to Michael Pondros. That cheque was credited to Mr. Pondros’ personal account on 4th July 1980. Mr. Pondros said that he used that money to pay for repairs of the buses, to pay various service stations, for spare parts, fuel and drivers’ salaries;

N2>(d)      Exhibit “FF”, a cash cheque dated 29.7.80 for K1,001.50. Mr. Pondros cashed it and used the money for the same purposes as previously stated;

N2>(e)      Exhibit “GG”, a cheque for K532.56, payable to Kayco Electric Pty Ltd. Mr. Pondros said that the money was used for electrical safety installations at his residence where the buses were kept when not running. He said that the expenditure was necessary to ensure the safety of the buses;

N2>(f)      Exhibit “LL”, a cheque for K2,000 dated 25.11.80 payable to Michael Pondros. That cheque was also paid into Mr. Pondros’ private bank account. Mr. Pondros, in his evidence-in-chief, told the Tribunal that at about that time he knew that he would be required to attend a conference in Lusaka in Africa as the Chairman of the PNG Parliamentary Delegation. His wife, Mrs. Josephine Pondros, agreed to look after the running of the bus service in Port Moresby while he was away in Africa. She would need money to pay the drivers and other expenses connected with the bus service. She was not authorised to sign cheques on behalf of Admiralty Transport Corporation. Therefore, before Mr. Pondros left for Africa, the cheque was paid into his account to enable Mrs. Pondros to meet current expenses of the bus service. During one of the adjournments, one of the members of the Tribunal, Senior Magistrate, Mr. Lofena, obtained a copy of an official report relating to that conference. The report is signed by Mr. Pondros. From the report it appears that the conference in Lusaka started on 21st September 1980 and finished on 4th October 1980. This was pointed out to Mr Pondros when the hearings resumed. He said that he could not remember the dates when he went to Africa and returned to Port Moresby but he was sure that he banked the cheque before he left so that Mrs. Pondros could use the money for the bus services. The cheque was then right in front of Mr. Pondros. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Pondros told a deliberate lie about this cheque. A quick look at a statement of account with the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation is sufficient to prove that from July to the beginning of November 1980, no cheque for K2,000 was debited to the account; the highest amount debited is Exhibit “GG”, that is the cheque for K532.56 payable to Kayco Electrical Pty Ltd;

N2>(g)      Exhibit “KK”, a cash cheque for K600.00, dated 21.11.80. Mr. Pondros explained that the money was used to pay drivers’ salaries, service stations and fuel;

N2>(h)      Exhibit “PP”, a cheque dated 6.12.80 for K2,000 payable to M. Pondros. That cheque was also paid into Mr Pondros’ private account. He said that the money was spent on musical instruments and equipment for the band. He could not explain why it was necessary to pay that amount into his private bank account instead, which would be the normal practice, of paying directly to the supplier, or suppliers, of the instruments and equipment.

We did not include in this list, cheques relating to purchases of buses although the initial purchases from Toba Motors and Ela Motors are well documented. It appears from the evidence that old buses were traded in for new, but the details of those transactions are unavailable.

We also did not include in the list a very large number of other cheques. Money was spent on airfares and accommodation for Mr. Bob Tawe in Port Moresby when he said he came and inspected the “books” of Admiralty Transport Corporation. In fact no books of account were kept by Mr. Pondros. He said that he only kept receipts and vouchers. They were given to the Ombudsman Commission and were not tendered to us.

We consider that it would be unprofitable to list every cheque or invoice relating to the commercial activities of Admiralty Transport Corporation.

We added, however, the debit and credit columns in all three accounts, that is Admiralty Transport Corporation account with the PNG Banking Corporation, Kavieng Branch, the Corporation account with the ANZ Bank, Boroko and the account of Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd with the same bank. The highest credit balance with the PNG Banking Corporation amount to K68,124.00. That includes a payment of K7,000 made on 25th April 1980. This amount represents a payment for a bus which was smashed or destroyed about one month after it was purchased. The wreck was sold by Mr Pondros. That was the last payment made into that account. On 20th April 1982, the balance was nil.

Payments were made into the Corporation account with the ANZ Bank. From 24th March 1980 until 26th January 1982 when, as we said, the balance was transferred to Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd, the total of payments amounted to K59,490-35.

The payments into Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd’s account which started with K4,123.73 on 26th January 1982, until 10th August 1982, that is, about five months, amounted to K16,513.05. The total of payments from 19th September 1979 to 10th August 1982 amounted to K144,127.40. There were of course heavy withdrawals from all three accounts because, on 19th August 1982, which is the last date shown on the bank statement of Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd, the credit balance was a mere K72.49. No other bank statements were tendered by Mr. Noka.

These figures were put by the Tribunal to Mr. Pondros. His reply was, “You are right, Mr. Chairman, but if you give me time to add all how much I spent, I could have spent more than K100,000”.

It is obvious that he did spend K144,054.91. In making the calculations we assumed, as we are obliged to do because there is no evidence to the contrary, that every kina and every toea received from the running of the bus service had been banked and appears in the bank statement.

Mr. Pondros stated to the Tribunal that he first realised that the bus service was running at a loss and not making any profit, was when the first bus, a 25 seater, was either smashed or destroyed some time early in April 1980. The Tribunal does not believe that the bus service was run at a loss. The figures in the credit column of the bank statement show that. Mr. Pondros could not explain why he continued to run the bus service despite the losses. The Tribunal is satisfied that the bus service was run as a private enterprise by Mr. Pondros and for his own and his associates’ financial gains. This is borne out by the following passage taken from the transcript of the interview with the Ombudsman Commission which we quote verbatim:

N2>“Q.     (In Pidgin) Olsem by profit i go lon ol memba tasol ah? Who are going to be the beneficiaries? Ah direct or indirect beneficiaries. These three people you have here or ten people.

N2>A.       Ten of us.

N2>Q.       Ten of you. And then how are you going to make sure that the benefits or this flow down to the Manus people, ordinary people.

N2>A.       The aim of the business whether its because its not register if it is registered, incorporation of the business means that the profit, its our business, ten of us, because we share it, the contribution and whatever come from the government subsidise to our business.

N2>Q.       Subsidise? They paid the whole lot they didn’t subsidise it. They paid everything, you haven’t got any money of your own, have you Mr Pondros?

N2>A.       No we pay 900, 900 hours.

N2>Q.       Is that all.

N2>A.       Yes, Mr Anderson, I know that it wasn’t record but its 900 hours, I myself paid 2,000. Its according to ah you know we have that cut. We split the cuts around.

N2>Q.       Mr Pondros, the point is that right now, the money, and proceeds and profits of that bus operation is going to your personal company.

N2>A.       Yes

N2>Q.       By law it is wrong.

N2>A.       Well, as I said, probably its wrong, but I just can’t let the business alone.

N2>Q.       Can you point to any single thing that has been done with the K50,000, any single thing, any single thing that you have done that has benefited the people of Manus?

N2>A.       I have ah, well its a big island (laughs). But, well you mean benefit the people of Manus?

N2>Q.       Yes

N2>A.       Well Manus at home, is not, but Manus here sometime they have, they run the bus, like they have a celebration down there I put two buses ...”

immediately after that the following was said:

N2>“Q.     I just want an answer to that question, that none of the K50,000 that came from the VEDF grant has ever been spent to benefit the people back home at Manus?

N2>A.       No, no, we use it for this ah .......

N2>Q.       So the answer to that question is yes.

N2>A.       Well, the question is yes.”

This is the evidence to which we wished to refer at this stage.

What is contested very strongly by Mr Cholai is that there is no evidence, or insufficient evidence, upon which the Tribunal could be satisfied that the sum of K60,000 which was received from Government funds was received “for the purpose of assisting the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main town centre.”

It was argued that when the funds were given no directions whatever were given how and for what purposes these funds were to be used, or appropriated, or applied. It was an unconditional gift of K60,000 to the members of Admiralty Transport Corporation. In other words, the sum of K60,000 was a nucleus, a starting capital given to the members to assist them in their efforts to generate further money for their own enruchment by commercial activities. It was further argued that once the funds were received, the Board of Directors had the sole and unfettered discretion to decide how and for what purposes the funds were to be appropriated or applied. Mr Cholai further submitted that every time money from the funds was applied, it had always been done with the prior knowledge and express approval of the Board of Directors.

He called two witnesses, Mr Pondros and Mr Bob Tawe, the Secretary of the group. Mr Cholai spent hour after hour with Mr Pondros going through some provisions of the “draft constitution” of the group in order to demonstrate his points. He chose only such provisions as he thought would support his arguments and disregarded the other provisions which were clearly unfavourable to his arguments. He was not only constantly asking both witnesses leading questions, but when a witness gave a clear and unambiguous answer which did not suit Mr Cholai, he would cross-examine his witness until he received the answer he wanted to have. On occasions he tried to suggest to the witness answers which were clearly wrong and improper inferences drawn from the document he was asking questions about. Mr Cholai’s questions on the “draft constitution” were mainly concentrated on one of the five “general aims and objectives” namely that the group could “invest the money so raised by the member in purchase of equipment, material and any other asset...” He glossed over the beginning of that sentence which reads: “To raised money by membership fee ...” That should obviously read: “To raise money by membership fees ...”

The Tribunal intervened as little as was possible in this cross-examination, but on occasions we simply had to ask the witness clarifying questions.

When hearing Mr Cholai’s submissions that the Government funds and especially the K50,000, were granted without any conditions or restrictions as to how that money was to be used or accounted for, the Tribunal referred him to the case of John Kasaipwalova v. The State (1977) P.N.G.L.R. 257. The facts in that case were very similar to the facts of this case. We also reminded Mr Cholai that as a consequence of the decision in Kasaipwalova (supra), an amendment to the Criminal Code was enacted in 1981 which changed the law relating to misappropriation of property. Kasaipwalova’s case was concerned with the stealing of Government funds given to establish an art centre. The funds were used dishonestly for unrelated purposes. The National Court convicted Kasaipwalova and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. He appealed against the conviction. By a majority of two to one, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.

We pointed out to Mr Cholai that in that case the appellant did not receive the cheque. The cheque was received by somebody else. In the present case, Mr Pondros received both cheques, that is, the cheque for K10,000 from the Prime Minister and the cheque for K50,000 from the V.E.D.F. Secretariat. We also pointed out that the appeal was allowed on a purely technical ground, namely that once money was paid into a bank it ceased to be an object, or chattel capable of being stolen. We also pointed out to Mr Cholai that in that case all three judges made it quite clear that they agreed with the primary judge that the appellant was a dishonest man and that the 1981 amendment to the Criminal Code cured the situation, and that had that appeal been heard after the amendment the conviction would undoubtedly have been confirmed.

Mr Cholai said he was not really familiar with that case. We granted an adjournment to give Mr Cholai sufficient time to read and digest that case. After the adjournment, Mr Cholai made submissions relating to that case, drawing comparisons with the present case. We were surprised and disappointed to hear Mr Cholai repeat what he did when he was cross-examining his own witness on the “draft constitution”. Mr Cholai deliberately chose to quote from that case only those excerpts which suited him. He completely disregarded the passages which were against his submissions. Mr Cholai cited Frost C.J., quoting at p.267 from R v. Evans [1964] VicRp 92; (1964) V.R. 717 at p.725. That quotation was as follows:

“A direction by one person to another or command to do a specified act or take a specified course intended and understood to be presently bindinq and operative as between the person giving and the person receiving the direction if it be couched in terms of uncertainty or ambiguity this intention may not be sufficiently clear and in this event what has transpired will simply not amount to a direction”.

The Tribunal pointed out to Mr Cholai that Sir Sydney Frost said at the same page: “From cases cited with approval in the judgment it is clear that the Full Court considered that a direction could be omplied from the circumstances”. Mr Cholai did not say anything about the direction to apply funds which could be implied from the circumstances. In order to make the question of directions quite clear the Tribunal then asked Mr Cholai to read aloud the last paragraph from p.267. Mr. Cholai did that. The paragraph reads as follows:

“Further, there can, in my opinion, be a direction within the meaning of s.393 even although the purpose specified is of a general nature. Otherwise, for example, a person who received a cheque with a direction to apply it for the purpose of establishing a school for traditional dancing and who then cashed the cheque and fraudulently applied the money to use of another, say, by paying off hire purchase arrears on his brother’s car, would not be guilty of an offence, a result unlikely to have been intended by the legislature”.

We asked Mr Cholai to comment on that passage. His reply was that unless a direction was given, that is an order to do a specified act or to take a specified course intended and understood, there would be no direction at all and the person who received funds could do whatever he liked with the money. Mr Cholai ignored completely that “a direction could be implied from the circumstances”.

On 17th June, after the Prime Minister had given evidence, Mr Cholai made additional brief submissions. He repeated what he had said earlier. No directions were given how the money was to be applied and therefore Mr Pondros could deal with the money whatever way he liked provided he obtained prior authorisation from the “Board of Directors”, and on every occasion such authorisation was given.

The Tribunal cannot accept this proposition. When deciding whether a leader is guilty of misconduct in office the standard of proof “must be close to that applicable to a criminal trial”. But the standard of moral behaviour and the obligation to observe the spirit of the Leadership Code are much higher than the standard applicable to criminal offences.

Section 27 of the Constitution makes that quite clear. Three provisions of that section are incorporated in the five counts. They are that the leader:

N2>1.       demeaned his position;

N2>2.       allowed his public and personal integrity to be called into question;

N2>3.       endangered respect for and confidence in the integrity of Government in Papua New Guinea.

None of those provisions is made an offence, criminal or quasi criminal, under any written law of Papua New Guinea.

In addition, subs.(3) of s.27 of the Constitution imposes upon a leader other duties. The sub-section reads as follows:

N2>“(3)    It is the further duty of a person to whom this Division applies:

(a)      to ensure, as far as is within his lawful power, that his spouse and children and any other person for whom he is responsible (whether morally, legally or by usage), including nominees, trustees and agents, do not conduct themselves in a way that might be expected to give rise to doubt in the public mind as to his complying with his duties under this section; and

(b)      if necessary, to publicly disassociate himself from any activity or enterprise of any of his associates, or of a person referred to in para.(a), that might be expected to give rise to such a doubt.”

We shall refer to further evidence, but we wish to say now that we are satisfied that on each occasion when Mr Pondros received the cheque, he received it with implied directions to appropriate or apply the funds for the purpose of assisting the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main centre. We are also satisfied that the money was appropriated by Mr. Pondros to his own benefit and to the benefit of his associates.

We are also satisfied that the money was applied to a purpose unrelated to the purpose for which it was given.

From the above, it follows that we are satisfied that the allegations made in the fourth and fifth counts have been proved.

We wish to make it quite clear that we reached these decisions after discussing the evidence and the issues on Thursday, 26th May 1982, that is, before the Prime Minister’s affidavit was received in evidence.

As far as the grant of K10,000 from the Prime Minister’s discretionary fund was concerned, we based our decision on moral evidence given to the Tribunal by Mr Pondros which is to the effect that he applied for the money by a letter to which as he said he attached a copy of the “Constitution” of Admiralty Transport Corporation and a copy of a feasibility study, Exhibit “E”, prepared by Mr Karl Dewit, a Principal Technical Adviser, dated 14th August 1979. According to Mr Pondros, he asked, in the letter, for financial assistance for the purpose of buying a barge to which the feasibility study referred. We were of the view that the purchase of the barge was not the aim or objective, but a way or means of achieving the aim or objective which was said to assist “the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main town centre”.

We are of the view that both counsel committed one of the cardinal sins a counsel can commit, namely when presenting evidence and making submissions they forgot the nature of the allegations contained in the first two counts.

Before we discuss further evidence, we wish to say that we expressly do not find that public policy and public good do not require dismissal of Mr Pondros, on the contrary, we find that public policy and public good do require his dismissal from office. He is, in our view, a person who is unfit to hold office.

We refer now to evidence relating to the fourth count. That is the count alleging the transfer of funds from Admiralty Transport Corporation to Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd.

Mr. Pondros, in his evidence, said that the reason for the transfer of funds was to enable him to obtain further loans from the bank. He also said that the matter was discussed at one of the meetings of the “Board of Directors” who agreed with him and authorised him to do that. This was confirmed by Mr. Bob Tawe in his evidence. Mr Pondros said that the bank would not grant any loans to Admiralty Transport Corporation because that group was unregistered. That, of course, was not true, because on 12th March 1981, Mr Pondros obtained a loan of K10,000 by granting a Bill of Sale, Exhibit “CCC”, to which we referred earlier. The Tribunal was anxious to find out what Mr Pondros said about the transfer of funds at the meeting. Mr. Tawe is an intelligent and an astute man. He was a partisan witness and was prepared to take blame for not attending properly to the registration of the group, for the unsatisfactory way the “constitution” of the group was dealt with and for his neglect to look after the activities of the band.

The Tribunal therefore, spent some time asking Mr. Tawe questions about who informed the “Board of Directors” that it was necessary to transfer the funds and the assets of Admiralty Transport Corporation to Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd because it was not possible to obtain further bank loans. Finally, Mr. Tawe said that that reason for the transfer was given at the meeting by Mr Pondros. It is therefore, obvious that Mr Pondros obtained the permission to transfer the funds and the assets to Pokayou Corporation Pty Ltd by deliberately and fraudulently misrepresenting the facts to the “Board of Directors”. This means that even if we assume that the “Board of Directors” had any authority to decide that the funds and the assets of the group be transferred to Mr Pondros’ and his wife’s private company, that decision was made because of fraudulent misrepresentation of facts made by Mr Pondros and therefore the decision was not valid.

We have already said that the Government funds were given to the group with implied direction for what purpose the funds were to be used. We found that the funds were used for other purposes, namely for Mr Pondros’ own and his associates’ benefit. The members of the group were Mr Pondros’ associates. They were not entitled to derive any personal financial benefit from those funds. We are of the view that the old maxim “nemo dat qui non bahet” - no one gives who possesses not - applies to this case. The group, or its “Board of Directors” could not deal with the Government funds for a purpose or purposes other than for what the funds were given.

We turn now to the evidence relating to the formation of Admiralty Transport Corporation and to the aims and objectives of the group.

The main document relating to the formation of “Admiralty Transport Corporation” is Exhibit “E”. It consists of seven typed pages and it begins as follows:

“Manus Transport Corporation

P O Box

LORENGAU

Constitution of Manus Transport Corporation”

This is followed by an Index containing headings and sub-headings.

The second page of the document commences with:

“Area of A.T.C.3(i) Boundries of Manus Province or as specified by the National and Provincial Constitution.

Office of A.T.C.4 Office of A.T.C. shall be nominated by the present board.

Membership 5 The membership shall comprise of 10 member for a start.

This is followed by ten consecutive arabic numerals starting from figure 1 which are typed one underneath each other leaving empty space next to each numerals. No names of the members appear anywhere in that document.

The third page of the document commences as follows:

“Constitution (First Draft)

Admiralty Transport Corporation - Manus Province PNG

PART ONE

OFFICIAL NAME

(i)       The Corporation of the people of Manus - i.e. represented by the member of every corner of Manus shall be known as the Admiralty Transport Corporation

(ii)      The address shall be:

The Manager

Admiralty Transport Corporation

P O Box

LORENGAU MANUS PROVINCE”

At the same page it is said:

“Admiralty Transport Corporation afterwards referred to herein as A.T.C. ...”

This explains, we think, the initials “A.T.C.” used on the second page of the document. The number of the Post Office Box is not stated on page two nor at page three nor, anywhere else in the document.

At the bottom of the last page of the document five signatures appear. Above the signatures “Date of Approval” is left blank.

On page three of the document the following appears:

N2>“(iv)    The Liability of members is limited to membership fee.

N2>(v)      Any business engagement shall be subjected to National and Provincial Law.”

Further evidence relating to the formation of the Corporation comes in the form of statements of six members of the group. The statements, Exhibit “ZZ” were tendered on the Tribunal’s request.

Mr Joachim Kupe, who died in 1983, said this, inter alia: “I am a member of the Admiralty Transport Corporation. The group is made up of people from various parts of the Manus Province”. “The group was formulated in 1979 ...” “When the group was formulated, the group for a start nominated Mr. Pondros to be the Chairman, but later he was replaced as a Chairman ... other office bearers remains the same”.

Mr. Bob Tawe, who is the Secretary of the group said, inter alia;

“I was ... and a member of the Admiralty Transport Corporation. We started the Transport Corporation about the year 1979 and I was nominated to be the Secretary of group. Mr. Michael Pondros was the Chairman ... I resigned from my job in September 1979 and went home ... Since I resigned I went home there I have not been signing the cheques or pass book withdrawals. I do come for meetings when weather permits, but most of the times I stay home”.

Mr. Bernard Borok said this, inter alia:

“I am also a member of the Admiralty Transport Corporation. I remember the group was formulated on or about the year 1979. The group was formed by individual from the different areas of the province who had the same interest.”

Mr. Noah Kava, who is the Treasurer of the group said this, inter alia:

“Around about 1978 or 1979 a group of us who had the same interest from the all the regions of Manus Province got together and decided to form a business group and name it Admiralty Transport Corporation.”

Mr. David Soongurion said this, inter alia:

“I am also a member of the Admiralty Transport Corporation. I was the last of the members to join in 1979.”

Mr. Mathew Tuam Mundriu, who was then the Vice Chairman and is now the Chairman of the Corporation said this, inter alia:

“I am one of the members of Admiralty Transport Corporation and I am the Chairman of this Group. When this Group was first formed, Mr. Michael Pondros was the Chairman and I am the Deputy Chairman. This Group has 10 members, we are not from the same village or clan or family, we are from all parts of Manus Region.”

The aims and objectives of the Corporation are set out on p.2 of the draft constitution as follows:

N2>“(i)     ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT CORPORATION afterwards referred to herein as A.T.C. exists to develop the people of Manus to strengthen their confidence their capabilities out to stimulate desire to improve a livelihood as a community.

N2>(ii)      To raise money by means of membership fee and to invest the money so raised by by the member in purchase of equipment, material and any other asset subject to the National and Provincial Constitution and Law.

N2>(iii)     To raise money to assist the operation of A.T.C.

N2>(iv)     The liability of members is limited to membership fee.

N2>(v)      Any business engagement shall be subjected to National and Provincial Law.”

As one would expect the aims and objectives of the Corporation contained in the “Constitution” are expressed in general terms. There is nothing in the “Constitution” which connects the aims with the allegations contained in the Reference by the Public Prosecutor. We must therefore consider other evidence.

Exhibit “ZZ” to which we have already referred gives more details of the aims.

Mr Kupe said, inter alia:

“The aim of the group was to set up a means of transport to provide services for rural areas. Therefore the group contributed some money and requested some money from the National Government which request was approved and a K50,000 grant was allocated to the group with the means of transport, the group decided to buy a barge and therefore a feasibility study was carried out by the Marine Transport Division of the Commerce Department.”

Mr Kupe then described circumstances and stated the reasons why the decision to buy the barge was revoked at some subsequent meeting of the group.

Mr Tawe who said that in September 1979 he resigned from his job and went home, said this on this point:

“In 1980, I can recall that we received a V.E.D.F. grant of K50,000.00 and this was brought to the notice of all the members. The money was deposited into the group’s account. The grant was for the purpose of purchasing a barge but the Provincial Government was going to buy one, so we did not buy the one we intended.”

Mr Borok said this, inter alia:

“The priorities were to establish sea and land transport to supply services to rural villages in the form of picking their produce to nearby markets and to carry passengers. The group’s priority was to purchase a barge, this however, did not eventuated because of lack of finance...”.

Mr Kave said this about the aims of the Corporation:

“We decided to name it Admiralty Transport Corporation because we had the aim of starting a Transport System where everyone in the Province could benefit from its service. The transport system that we were giving first priority to sea transport. Therefore we decided to buy a barge. In order to buy this barge, we as financial members had to contribute some money towards the buying of the barge. The initial contribution was K5,000.00 or over.”

Mr Soonburion said this on this point:

“When I joined I was informed that the group was going to purchase a barge. As a result I know that a feasibility study was being conducted by a consultant to find the viability of the project. While the feasibility study was still going on, I went to Port Moresby to Admin. College from January 1980 to November 1980 so I did not know the result of the study.”

Mr Mathew Tuam said this about the aims of the group:

“Our aim to form this Group is to set up some projects in Manus. Our main aim is to set up a Sea Transport (barge), supermarket, hotel and land transport. To start these projects each member contributed some money and the total amount reached was K5,500 - to start a sea transport. This is to buy a barge.”

Other evidence relating to the aims of the Corporation is as follows:

N2>1.       Exhibit “D” which is a letter by Mr Pondros in his capacity as the Chairman of the Corporation to Mr Col Hankin, National V.E.D.F. Secretariat, Department of Commerce, Waigani, dated 31 August 1979. The initials “V.E.D.F.” stand for “Village Economic Development Fund”. In the letter the Corporation seeks financial assistance “in the basic amount of Fifty Thousand Kina for the cost of the whole requirement.”

The relevant part of the letter reads:

“In fact, this money will meet the conditions and establishment of the office building, shipping, wharf, electricity and water installation throughout the wharf, water supply centre. The implication of the (A.T.C.) is to assist the people of Manus as to transporting their crops from isolated areas to the main town centre.”

Attached to this letter was a “copy of the A.T.C. Constitution” and a “copy of a feasibility study” prepared by Mr Karl Dewit, Principal Technical Adviser, dated 14 August 1979. We shall refer to that feasibility study later.

N2>2.       Exhibit No.1, which is a letter to the Chairman, Urban Areas Activities Scheme, Ministry of Labour, Employment and Tourism, dated 3rd September 1979. The letter is written on a letterhead of Admiralty Transport Corporation and is signed by M. Pondros, M.P., Deputy Speaker. The letter reads, in parts, as follows:

“The utmost purpose of the corporation, as stated in the application is to develop the province of Manus. As Manus Province is made up of many outlying islands, the corporation’s utmost aim is to provide these islands with excess to sea transport.

The corporation is seeking financial support for K20,000 from this scheme. If money is given the corporation will use it to establish its administrative headquarter at Lorengau. This includes construction of office complex, employment of man-power, etc. The corporation has not yet committed itself into any activities, but will do so, as soon as the finance is made available.

The barge, which the corporation is considering to purchase at the estimated amount of K147,000 is also attached to the application, together with the constitution.

As mentioned in the application, the corporation will provide training and job opportunities for many dropouts now roaming the streets of Lorengau.”

The reference to the barge which “is also attached to the application” must obviously be a reference to the feasibility study down by Mr Karl Dewit dated 14 August 1979.

N2>3.       Exhibit No. 3 which is an application for financial assistance made by Mr Pondros on behalf of Admiralty Transport Corporation to the Premier, Manus Provincial Government, Lorengau. The application is dated 1st October 1979. The relevant parts of the application are as follows:

“The utmost purpose of the Corporation as stated in the application is to develop the Province of Manus. As Manus is made up of many outlying islands, the Corporation’s utmost aim is to provide these islands with access to sea transport. However, the Corporation is now taking part in the coastal activities throughout all other Provinces such as Wewak, Madang, Lae, West New Britain, East New Britain and Kavieng, taking 2 days.

The Corporation is seeking financial support of about K40,000 to K50,000 from the Manus Provincial Government Unconditional Grant. The Corporation has already ordered a barge from the German Government under the European Economic Aid. The Prime Minister has shown interest in the Corporation and allocated the sum of K10,000 to the Corporation on the basis of training and employment problems in the country.

The Corporation is considering purchasing the barge at an estimated amount of K147,000 and hopes to prepare for a loan of 200,000 for all the administrative costs of office building, installation of electricity, water supply and employment of manpower, etc.”.

N2>4.       Exhibit “L” which is a letter to Mr B. Holloway, Minister for Finance, dated 10th March 1980. It is signed by Mr Michael Pondros, M.P., Chairman of the Corporation. The relevant parts of that letter reads:

“I am a chairman of the Admiralty Transport Corporation that wants to obtain financial assistance in a major project in the Province. My Corporation wants to obtain a barge that costs over K150,000. The Corporation has in hand a total of K50,000 which is below the required amount needed for the purchase.

All prior arrangements including the feasibility of the project and quotes have already been obtained.

Your assistance in this regard is therefore required to make this project possible. As this project is most important for the needs of my people I would request your genuine consideration of the request.

Our reason for this request for aid is that shipping services around Manus Province is very unreliable and cannot add up to the expectation of my people.”

The reference to the total of K50,000 which the Corporation had “in hand” is incorrect. On the 10th March 1980, Admiralty Transport Corporation had K60,819.00 in its bank account.

No reference is made in any of the four documents which we quoted to a formation of a band, or to establishing a bus service in Port Moresby.

No reference is made in any of the documents that money, if given, would be used as a starting capital for a commercial venture to be undertaken for financial benefit of the members of Admiralty Transport Corporation. All documents state that the primary purpose for which money would be used, if given, is to improve sea transport facilities in Manus. The last two documents were written after Government funds were given to the group. The effect of the documents is that money would be used for the purpose of assisting the people of Manus Province to improve the sea transport facilities. In other words, “for the purpose of assisting the people in the isolated areas of Manus to bring their crops to the main town centre” as stated in the first two counts of the Public Prosecutor’s Reference to this Tribunal.

These four documents, and particularly the last two, show beyond any doubt that Mr Pondros understood the purpose for which Government grants or funds were given to the group. There is no uncertainty or ambiguity of his intention to apply the funds for the purpose he specified. There is no uncertainty or ambiguity that he knew the purpose for which he received the funds. He used the funds for his own and his associates’ personal enrichment. This Tribunal is of the view that when funds are applied for a specific purpose which is stated in the application and the funds are granted, there is an implied direction that the funds will be used for the purpose stated in the application. This is particularly so in the case where the applicant is a leader. A leader who takes an office undertakes voluntarily to obey and to observe scrupulously the standards of the Leadership Code. These standards are above the standards expected to be observed by an ordinary citizen or resident of Papua New Guinea.

There remains one document which was canvassed during the hearings and which, according to Mr Pondros, was attached to every letter and application for financial assistance. We feel that we should refer to that document. It is:

“a feasibility study prepared by Mr Karl Dewit dated 14 August 1979, which was tendered as part of Exhibit “E”. Exhibit “E”, is the Constitution of the Corporation. From the first page of that feasibility study it appears that the study was prepared for, or on behalf of Manus Development Corporation and not for, or on behalf of the Admiralty Transport Corporation or of Manus Transport Corporation. We shall refer later to the problem relating to different names used by the group of which Mr Pondros was the first Chairman.”

The feasibility study relates to a purchase of a new barge of 18m length. Other dimensions and technical data of the barge are set out in the study. There is no need to refer to them in detail. The carrying capacity of the barge is said to be 45 tons general cargo and 25 passengers. The ports of call are stated to be, Lorengau, Kavieng, Rabaul, Kimbe, Lae, Madang, Western Island, Hermit Island and Mai Island.

Kimbe, Rabaul, Law and Kavieng are geographically too far away from Manus to “assist the people of Manus as to transporting their crops from isolated areas to the main centre”, as Mr Pondros stated in his letter of 31 August 1979 to the National Village Economic Development Fund Secretariat. Looking at the estimate of income expected to be derived from the proposed voyages of the barge, it appears that only 36.54% of income would be derived from the barge playing between the places within the Manus Province and 63.46% from voyages between other places. However, the Tribunal acknowledges that possession of a barge trading general cargo and passengers between Kavieng, Rabaul, Kimbe and Lae, as envisages in the feasibility study, would assist to “develop the people of Manus to strengthen their confidence in their capabilities out to stimulate desire to improve a livelihood as a community” which was stated in the “Constitution” to be the general aim for the existence of the Corporation.

Mr Karl Dewit in the feasibility study gives estimates of costs of running the barge, overhead-costs as well as of income and expenditures.

The purchase cost of the barge is said to be K140,000 and the working capital, K7,000. Mr Dewit estimated that the annual gross profit from operating the barge would amount to K3,163.

We pause here to point out that two arithmetical errors crept in Mr Dewit’s calculation and that the amount of the annual gross profit should read K3,043.

The finance required is stated as follows:

idt width=84 valign=top style='width:63.0pt;padding:0mm 5.4pt 0mm 5.4pt'>

K147,000.00”

“Finance:	V.E.D.F.	K58,800.00
Loan	K58,800.00
	S/Contr.	K26,400.00

There are also some figures written in ink or biro next to each amount. Only one set of figures is legible on the photocopy tendered to us. It is “18%” which is next to the amount of K26,400-00.

There is an error, possibly a typographical error, in this calculation which was overlooked by Mr Dewit. If one accepts that the purchase cost of a new barge and working capital amount to K147,000.00 the only explanation for the error is that the amount of “S/Contr” should read “K29,400-00” and not K26,400-00”. That part of the feasibility study should, therefore, read:

Loan

K58,800-00

“Finance:	V.E.D.F.	K58,800-00	40%
	40%
<	S/Contr.	K29,400-00	20%
d>	K147,000span>	100%

Mr Dewit concluded the feasibility study as follows:

“If the Committee feels that there is a good chance of obtaining finance then a more detailed study should be undertaken.”

We spent some time discussing this feasibility study because it is in our view on document received in evidence. Further evidence establishes that this document together with the copy of the “Constitution” was attached to all letters of request and all applications for financial assistance made by Mr Pondros on behalf of the Admiralty Transport Corporation. No other documents were attached to such letters or applications.

This feasibility study relates to the purchase of a new sea-going barge and, from certain supplied data and a great deal of assumption, it projects the possible or probable result of commercial operation of that barge. It quite properly finishes with a caution that a more detailed study should be undertaken if there are good chances of obtaining finance.

We said earlier why on 26th May we reached our decision concerning the cheque for K10,000 given to Mr Pondros by the Prime Minister. After we received the Prime Minister’s affidavit and after we heard him being cross-examined by Mr Cholai, we had to change our reasons for that decision. We wish to say that the cross-examination did not add to or detract from the affidavit. We are satisfied that Mr Pondros’ request for funds was made verbally by him to the Prime Minister. We are satisfied that Mr Pondros, at that time, assured the Prime Minister that whatever money was allocated it would be used by the Admiralty Transport Corporation “in its endeavours to improve the transportation requirements in the Manus Province”.

As we said earlier, this amounts to an implied direction that the money would be used for the purpose specified. In our reasons, we deliberately used the phrase “implied direction” because we are of the view that any departure from such a direction would constitute a criminal offence under the 1981 amendment to the Criminal Code. One must not, however, forget that we are not dealing with a criminal offence. We are dealing with breaches of the Leadership Code by Mr Pondros. We are of the view that if a leader makes a statement that he will apply Government funds to a specific purpose, whether verbally or in writing, he undertakes that the funds will be used for no other purpose. This statement is a solemn promise. If he breaks that promise and uses the money for some unrelated purpose he is, in our view, guilty of misconduct in office. Otherwise the Leadership Code would become completely ineffective and inoperative. This is particularly so where as a result of the breach of his promise the leader and his associates obtain financial benefits. In this connection, we would make the following remarks:

“The greatest, or highest, punishment which the Tribunal can impose on a leader found guilty of misconduct in office is to recommend that he be dismissed from office. The Tribunal cannot order that the leader makes restitution of the money he dishonestly obtained. We would suggest that consideration be given to amending the Constitution and the Organic Law so that, in cases where money or other property was obtained by a leader, the Ombudsman Commission would be empowered to freeze the assets of the leader and his associates, and that the Tribunal be empowered to order that restitution be made to the Government of the money or other property dishonestly or improperly acquired by the leader and his associates. We know that s.28(5) of the Constitution provides that proceedings before the Tribunal are no bar to any other proceedings provided for by law. But we also know from daily practical experience that proceedings for recovery of money dishonestly received are protracted, complicated and, generally speaking, quite unsatisfactory. By the time such proceedings are instituted the leader has had more than ample opportunity to dispose of the property in such a way that nothing can be recovered.”

We are afraid we digressed from the feasibility study. We return to that topic now. As we said earlier, the feasibility study and the “draft constitution” of Admiralty Transport Corporation were attached by Mr Pondros to every letter or application for financial assistance. This was also done in respect of the letter to the National Village Economic Development Fund Secretariat, Exhibit “D”, to which we have already referred. Mr Pondros received from the Government funds a cheque for K50,000 as a result of his letter and the annexed two documents. The evidence is that originally only K40,000 was granted and that that amount was later increased to K50,000-00. We do not wish it to be understood that we intend to critizise in any way, or even remotely lay any guidelines as to how Government funds should be granted and what criteria should be applied or considered by any Governmental instrumentality empowered to allocate funds. This is clearly not our province. But nevertheless, we feel obliged to make this comment. The feasibility study and particularly the “draft constitution” are so patently and manisfestly incomplete that anyone who took the trouble of reading them would, or should, return them to Mr Pondros with a request that the “draft constitution” be completed and returned in a proper form with proof that the Corporation had been registered. As far as the feasibility study is concerned, it should have been obvious that it was not a study relating to Admiralty Transport Corporation, to an entirely different organisation, namely Manus Development Corporation. That is apparent not only from the heading of the study but from the figures at the bottom of the first page of the study which set out, with an arithmetical error, the finances of the Manus Development Corporation which are quite different from the figures which would be applicable to Admiralty Transport Corporation. Admiralty Transport Corporation did not have K26,400 of shares contribution and did not have a loan of K58,800, and did not apply to the Secretariat for V.E.D.F. for K58,000. The letter asks for a “basic amount of fifthy thousand kina”! Similarly the two arithmetical errors appearing at the top of p.3 of the study should have been discovered. The study should also have returned to Mr Pondros with a request that a new feasibility study be submitted.

We also feel obliged to make comments about the banking procedure or rather, about non-observance by the banks of what we believe to be the normal procedure usually adhered to by banks in Papua New Guinea. When a customer wishes to open an account in the name of a company, or corporation, or in a name other than his own, the normal practice is to require him to prove that the company or other organisation has been duly registered under the relevant legislation. From the evidence, it appears that as far as Admiralty Transport Corporation was concerned the bank officers of the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation did allow the account to be opened at its Kavieng Branch without requiring that a copy of the Certificate of Incorporation be shown for their perusal. Apparently only a copy of the “draft constitution” was shown. Any bank officer seeing that copy should realise that the document was not complete. It was not dated and the space provided for the names of the members was left blank. The account with the A.N.Z. Bank in the name of Admiralty Transport Corporation was apparently opened by Mr Pondros without producing any Certificate of Incorporation or any proof that he carried on business under that name.

Furthermore, the Papua New Guinea Banking Corporation credited into the Admiralty Transport Corporation account a cheque for K10,000 payable to “Manus Provincial Government C/- M Pondros Manus”. An account which had only recently been opened without verification of the usual documents. In addition, that bank accepted and honoured several cheques signed by less than three of the five persons who were authorised to operate that account.

These omissions by the bank’s officers to observe normal banking practice made it easy for Mr Pondros to carry on his bus service in Port Moresby and to spend enormous amounts of money on musical instruments and other equipment for his adopted son’s band. We request Mr Noka to draw those facts to the attention of the proper authorities with a view to making enquiries as to why, in this case, the normal banking procedure had not be observed.

There are two further matters arising out of evidence which we must mention.

The first matter is the plurality of names which emerges from the evidence. The “draft constitution” is entitled Manus Transport Corporation, then there is Admiralty Transport Corporation, Admiralty Transport Corporation, Admiralty Transport Association, Exhibit No. 8 is minutes of a special general meeting of Admiralty Development Corporation held sometime “about March 1980”. At that meeting it was agreed to sell 25% of shares of that company to the Manus Provincial Government. On 20th May 1981, a letter was written by the Secretary of the Admiralty Development Corporation to the Premier of Manus Provincial Government offering to sell 25% of the Corporation shares at K1.00 per share. The feasibility study was made, as we said earlier, for Manus Development Corporation. That company was incorporated in March 1977 under the name of Manus Development Corporation Pty Limited. On 26th March 1980 Mr Mathew Tuam, described as the Deputy Premier, was appointed as one of the directors of that company. He is the same Mathew Tuam who was the then Vice-Chairman of Admiralty Transport Corporation, one of the five signatories of the bank account at Kavieng and is now the Chairman of the Corporation.

Mr Pondros and Mr Bob Tawe said that the names were used either in error or that there were typing mistakes. We do not accept these explanations. We are of the view that those various names were used deliberately to create confusion, which would enable excuses to be made in case some illegal or improper activities were discovered.

The second matter relates to the timing of the activities of Mr Pondros and his associates.

It was said that Admiralty Transport Corporation was first organised “sometime about 1978 or 1979”. The first document relating to that group is Exhibit “D”, a letter to Village Economic Development Fund Secretariat dated 31st August 1979. The Prime Minister’s cheque for K10,000 was given to Mr Pondros on 7th September 1979. The cheque for K50,000 was given to him on 3rd March 1980. On an unknown date the group applied to the Papua New Guinea Development Bank for a loan of K200,000. A letter, Exhibit “J”, dated 20th February 1980, was written on behalf of Admiralty Transport Corporation by A.L. Lani, an Acting District Business Development Officer, National Capital District, in support of that application. The Development Bank refused the application by a letter dated 25th June 1980. Mr Pondros said, in the witness box, that until he received the letter he did not know whether the loan would be rejected or granted. Mr Pondros also testified that he required three to six months to organise the bus service in Port Moresby, that is to work out the timetable, choose the routes, hire drivers and obtain the necessary licences and permissions. His explanation for starting the bus service in Port Moresby was that the group had to do something with the K60,000 received from the Government and the bus service was the only way which would enable the group to make income with the final aim of purchasing the barge, which we may add, he had already ordered from the German Government. One would therefore expect that the bus service would start its operation three or six months after 25th June 1980, that is, in September 1980 at the earliest. But the documents prove, beyond any doubt, that the first two buses were purchased from Toba Motors on 25th March 1980, that is, three months before Mr Pondros was notified that his application for the K200,000 was rejected by the Development Bank. When one adds the three months required to organise the bus service, one arrives at an irrefuttable conclusion that Mr Pondros commenced organising his bus service in Port Moresby in January 1980. That is, three months prior to receiving K50,000 from the Village Economic Development Fund Secretariat He purchased the first two buses about two weeks after he receive that cheque for K50,000. There is only one reasonable explanation for this action. Mr Pondros at no stage intended to use the Government funds for the purpose he stated they would be used.

The Tribunal has no hesitation in saying that Mr Pondros tricked the Government into giving him and the group K60,000. The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Pondros is a shameless liar and a thoroughly dishonest man. Had this matter been properly and thoroughly investigated and considered, Mr Pondros should have been charged with a criminal offence., He is an intelligent man and a clever businessman.

In February 1982 his own and his family’s assets amounted to over K130,000. That is additional to the land and improvements he had in Manus and household effects amounting to K5,000. In February 1983 these assets disappeared, with the exception of the land and household effects

For the reasons which we stated, we are satisfied that the first, fourth and fifth counts have been made out and that Mr Pondros is guilty of misconduct in office.

Accordingly, the Tribunal will respectfully recommend to His Excellency the Governor-General that the Honourable Michael Pondros be dismissed from the office of Member of Parliament and, more particularly, from the Office of Manus Provincial Member of Parliament which he occupies.

Dated at Waigani this 21st day of June 1983.

Jerzy Jakob Gajewicz Chairman of the Tribunal

Kwalimu Lofena Member of the Tribunal

Jacob Toroken Member of the Tribunal

Solicitor for the Prosecution: L. Gavara Nanu, Public Prosecutor

Counsel: V. Noka

Solicitor for the Michael Pondros: Peter D. Donigi & Co.

Counsel: M. Cholai