BRYAN KRAMER MP
| Kramer Report
PORT MORESBY - Last Tuesday, Papua New Guinea’s ombudsman commission issued a press statement that it had referred former deputy prime minister and national planning minister Sam Basil to the public prosecutor for alleged misconduct in office.
The leadership watchdog said it had conducted an investigation from a complaint lodged in 2016 and, based on the findings of the investigation, gave Basil the opportunity to respond.
“The leader requested and was granted extensions of time and, after a total of 51 days, failed to respond to the allegations,” the statement said.
“The commission has deliberated on the allegations and determined there is a prima facie case that Hon Sam Basil has been guilty of misconduct in office.”
Ten days earlier, at an opposition press conference in Vanimo, Basil claimed prime minister James Marape had conspired with the commission to have him investigated.
“I had members of the ombudsman sent by the prime minister to Bulolo District intimidating my staff,” Basil said.
He went to say that one of the main reasons he left government last month was because he believed the prime minister and other highlands members of parliament had compromised the ombudsman commission.
“That is the very reason I left because I was being written a letter by the ombudsman commission and the prime minister [who] told me that don’t worry I will talk to them. That really pissed me off. Why should a prime minister have access to the ombudsman commission? This is wrong, that is one of the reasons why I left,” Basil said.
Basil's claims against the prime minister and the country’s leadership watchdog are serious allegations and, if true, would amount to a criminal offence of abuse of office.
However, he offered no evidence to sustain his allegations. If Basil is unable to produce evidence then his own conduct would amount to a criminal offence under the Section 362 of the criminal code (unlawful publication of defamatory matter).
It would also amount to misconduct in office for scandalising the ombudsman commission in the conduct of its duties.
The ombudsman did not disclose the details of the alleged misconduct by Basil. It has adopted the practice of leaving it to the public prosecutor to first satisfy itself there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the case.
The public prosecutor will then determine if it has found sufficient evidence to prosecute the allegations and will formally write to the chief justice to appoint a leadership tribunal.
This comprises a three member panel, normally made up of a national court judge and two senior magistrates.
The ombudsman said Basil was afforded 51 days to respond and, when he didn’t, the commission made the decision to refer him.
The ombudsman acts as a leadership watchdog, set up to investigate allegations of misconduct of office by leaders occupying public office.
Just like the police, it investigates any complaint in respect of a possible crime being committed.
The primary difference between the police and the commission is that the police will arrest and charge a person if they believe they have reasonable grounds the person has committed a criminal offence.
The ombudsman can only investigate people who occupy public office - members of parliament, judges, constitutional officer holders and department secretaries.
After carrying out its investigation, if it believes the leader has committed misconduct in office, it will contact the leader to afford the opportunity to respond to the allegations in person or in writing.
It will afford the leader up to 21 days to respond to the allegations. In some cases, additional time may be needed and an extension of time may be requested, usually seven to 14 days.
If the leader fails or refuses to respond to the allegations the ombudsman will make the decision for a referral to the public prosecutor.
The police may arrest or invite the person to the police station to be interviewed, after which a formal charge may follow leading to prosecution before a court.
If found guilty, the leader may face three possible penalties, the most serious being dismissal from office.
Alternatively the leader may be suspended for a period no more than three months or ordered to pay a fine.
In the case of Basil, the ombudman stated that, after the 51 days had elapsed with no response, the decision was made to refer him to the public prosecutor.
Ombudsman investigations can take anywhere from one to three months to conduct before the leader is afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations.
It is noteworthy that the ombudsman commission stated the complaint against Basil was registered in 2016, indicating it had nothing to do with current political events.
In 2016, Basil was a member of the opposition. I recall in that year Basil said then prime minister, and his now good friend and political mentor, Peter O’Neill sent a police investigation team to Bulolo District to investigate how Basil spent his district development funds.
But to the issue sof Basil claiming the ombudsman had been compromised and that he was being targeted.
Since being appointed police minister, I have been subjected to four investigations by the ombudsman that I know of.
The first was regarding my comments on the floor of parliament against the ombudsman in relation to the direction to the police commissioner not taking disciplinary action against a number of officers.
The second alleged I had interfered with police operations in relation to my efforts to reform the police force.
The third concerned a decision of the Madang District Development Authority (MDDA) to engage qualified technical staff who were paid only K3,000 a fortnight to assist with design and implementation of district development plans and programs.
The fourth related to an MDDA decision to partner with Digicel Foundation to purchase two ambulances in an initiative where the Madang District saved K201,000.
In my view, all these complaints are baseless and without merit and I'm not bothered by them.
If I was Basil, I would only be concerned if the allegations against me were true, which would give me a reason to make a play to become prime minister in an effort to escape the charges.
Unfortunately for Basil, his efforts to deflect the public’s interest in the charges against him may have resulted in further serious offences that could see him face fresh misconduct and criminal charges.