THE Justice Foundation for Porgera Ltd special reference in the Supreme Court seeking clarification on land ownership of the Porgera gold mine in Enga, Papua New Guinea had been dismissed due to incompetency.
Justice Foundation for Porgera Ltd had filed an application challenging the constitutionality of section 212B(1) of the Constitution and section 5 of the Mining Act 1992 which gave exclusive ownership of minerals on customary land to the State.
Justice David Cannings on behalf a three-man bench said: “The application is non-compliant with the signing requirements of the rules.
“Strict compliance with the rules is necessary.”
The court had allowed Attorney-General, Barrick (Niugini) Ltd, Lihir Gold Ltd and Ok Tedi Mining Ltd to be parties in this proceeding.
Ok Tedi Mining Ltd had filed a an objection to competency of the application on March 28, on the ground that it did not comply with the signing requirements for a section 18(1) Constitution application. It was supported by the Attorney-General through Solicitor-General Tauvasa Tanuvasa and Barrick (Niugini) Ltd through lawyer Mal Varitimos.
Ok Tedi’s lawyer Ian Molloy argued that because the applicant was a company (Justice Foundation for Porgera Ltd), the application had to be executed under its common seal.
“Only when the company seal is affixed to the signature of the person claiming to sign on behalf of the company, can it be said that the application has been signed by the company,” he said.
Loani Henao, lawyer for Justice Foundation for Porgera Ltd, argued that the application had been properly signed for and on behalf of the applicant by the chairman of the board of directors of the company.
Henao stressed that there was nothing in the Supreme Court rules that imposed the extra requirements opposed by Ok Tedi Mining Ltd and that the court should refrain from introducing into the rules new requirements.
The National / Pacific Mining Watch