Law firm challenges Sweep Team’s role

October 8, 2013- Post Courier 

THE Waigani National Court will decide on Thursday whether to hear several applications by Paul Paraka Lawyers to stop the Task Force Sweep team from carrying out investigations into the law firm.

Lawyer assisting the law firm, Ian Molloy, yesterday made submissions in court questioning the conduct of the Sweep Team and the manner in which it had operated since it was established.

Mr Molloy submitted that the conduct of the Sweep Team could be unlawful and contrary to its purposes, as it has been interfering with the work of police and other statutory bodies.

He submitted that the Sweep Team was not set up through the formal legislation process but through a decision by the National Executive Council.

Mr Molloy submitted Sweep Team chairman Sam Koim had been leading and giving directions to police officers and interfering with the work of police.

“We say the actions of Mr Koim as someone giving directions from outside the police force is unlawful as his office is not established through due legislative processes,” Mr Molloy said in court.

“We are not challenging the decision of the National Executive Council to set up the Task Force Sweep but we are questioning the manner the organisation has been operating.”

He told the court the conduct of the Sweep team was questionable and the court should allow the case to proceed to substantive hearing.

Lawyer for the Sweep Team, Moses Murray argued that the application by the law firm should be dismissed for abuse of process as the mode of proceeding taken was not correct.

Mr Murray submitted that the matter should have been brought to court by way of judicial review and not as originating summons.

He said the National Executive Council appointed Sweep team to fight corruption in the country, and explained that the team is a multi-organisation, comprising professionals from various organisations who are engaged to carry out investigations in the fight against corruption in the country.

“How could they (law firm) say that they agree with the executive council’s decision and then question the work of Mr Koim and his team? Mr Koim is working as per the directives of the executive council and you cannot differentiate the executive council and Mr Koim,” Mr Murray submitted.

“Lawyers are running to court to file a case which is obviously not relevant. They are not using the proper mode of proceedings.” Mr Murray cited various case authorities in his submission and argued that the motion by the law firm was an abuse of the court process and should be dismissed in its entirety.

After hearing the applications, presiding judge Justice Ere Kariko told the parties he would have to properly go through the affidavits and make a ruling on Thursday.

Lawyer arrested for conspiracy with Paul Paraka

September 5, 2013- Post Courier

PORT Moresby-based lawyer Harvey Nii was yesterday arrested and charged by the Investigation Task Force Sweep for allegedly collecting funds on behalf of another law firm.

Nii, the principal of Harvey Nii Lawyers, was taken to the Konedobu fraud squad office yesterday morning and questioned before he was formally arrested and charged for K6 million he allegedly received from the Finance Department on behalf of Paraka Lawyers. 

According to a statement by Sam Koim, the chair of the Investigation Task Force Sweep, this is the first arrest after months of investigations into illegal payments made to law firms by the Department of Finance. 

Police last night confirmed when contacted by the Post-Courier that Nii was arrested and charged and is in custody at the Boroko police station, waiting for his lawyers to make an urgent application for bail in the National Court.

“Our investigations do not cover the tenure of Paul Paraka Lawyers’ brief out period, as those were covered by an Internal Departmental Inquiry and the Finance Commission of Inquiry which is a subject of numerous court proceedings. The investigations however, focused on subsequent payments after two separate Supreme Court Orders were issued, staying any payment to Paul Paraka Lawyers,” said Mr Koim.

According to the Investigation Task Force Sweep chair, Nii is charged for K6 million he allegedly received from the Finance Department on behalf of Paraka Lawyers on February 17, 2012. Reports show that of the K6 million, he allegedly retained K100, 000 and paid the balance into Paul Paraka Lawyers account and PKP Nominees, a company allegedly owned and operated by Paul Paraka.

Consequently the lawyer was arrested and charged for allegedly stealing K6 million under Section 372 (1) of Criminal Code Act, allegedly conspiring with Paul Paraka of Paul Paraka Lawyers to defraud the Independent state of Papua New Guinea of K6 million under section 407 (1) (b) of Criminal Code Act and Money Laundering under Section 34 (2) (a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2005. The 47-year-old accused is from Kupibaut Village, Baiyer River in the Western Highlands Province.

Other law firms also colluded to collect legal fees from the State without following proper procedures and are under investigation, added Mr Koim. A number of senior MPs, top bureaucrats, public servants, judicial officers, lawyers, media officers and financial institutions which facilitated and benefited from these payments over the last seven years are also under the radar.

Task Force Sweep to check law firms’ accounts

August 10, 2013- Post Courier 

By JACOB POK 

THE National Court yesterday refused attempts by Paul Paraka Lawyers to stop Task Force Sweep from executing a search warrant to look at the law firm’s bank accounts.

Principal of the law firm, Paul Paraka, appeared before the Deputy Chief Justice Gibbs Salika with a number of lawyers representing others firms whose accounts would also come under scrutiny. Their attempts to set aside the search warrants, which were issued by the DCJ last week, was refused by the court.

Lawyer Nicholas Miviri from the Royal PNG Constabulary Legal Services appeared before the bench with Sam Koim, the chair of the Task Force Sweep.

The court ruling now enables police to execute a search warrant on the bank accounts of law firms allegedly implicated in receiving illegal payments from the Finance Department.

Mr Paraka asked the National Court to set aside the search warrants and for himself to join as a party to the proceedings initiated by the Task Force Sweep when it obtained the warrants. The court should address constitutional issues, he maintained and that the search warrants obtained by police was an abuse of process as there were pending applications in the District Court relating to the matter.

He referred to previous District Court orders which he took out that directed police to give him advance notice before an application was made for a new search warrant. 
The National Court was also asked to give him, as an aggrieved party, access to information relating to the search warrants which he could use to file affidavits in his defense.

Aggrieved parties affected by the search warrant have a right to appeal against such an order and the court should make appropriate orders, he added. 
However, Mr Miviri opposed Mr Paraka’s application and argued that it was unnecessary and is a “fishing expedition” as the police has the constitutional mandate to investigate. The aggrieve party’s substantive rights were also still protected. 
He further submitted that there was full disclosure of all materials pertinent to the case before the court issued the warrants and the application to stop the warrants was mischievous and misconceived.

Mr Paraka then produced a National Court appeal document before the proceeding arguing that there was already an appeal before the District Court and that the police should not have gone straight to the National Court. 
But Mr Miviri, in response, said they were not aware of such an appeal and it was the first time they heard of it. The national importance of the case was also highlighted during his submission with the police lawyer advising that Prime Minister Peter O’Neill was the complainant in the matter as he had directed on May 13, 2013 for alleged illegal payments to law firms to be investigated. It is understood Task Force Sweep is carrying out those investigations and the search warrants were obtained to ascertain whether criminal offences were committed.

Justice Salika adjourned the matter to August 14, 2013 for the decision but not before Mr Paraka asked if there could be a stay order on the execution of the search warrants until the matter returned to court.
But Michael Henao, the counsel representing the Bank of South Pacific (BSP), rose to advise the court that the search warrants were executed and the police now had custody of certain documents.

Justice Salika, in his ruling on Mr Paraka’s application to get a stay on the execution of the search warrants, emphasised that the court would not stop the police from carrying out its constitutional mandate to investigate allegations based on legitimate complaints and consequently refused to grant the stay order sought.