Zachary Gelu should never be employed in a senior position - COI
PNG EXPOSED
Former Solicitor General, Zachary Gelu, should never be employed again in a senior position in the public service. This is the stark recommendation from the Commission of Inquiry into the Department of Finance after it found Gelu implicated in many of the scams in which a total of K780 million was stolen from the people of PNG between 2000 and 2006.
The particular scam that prompted the Commission’s recommendation involved the former Administrator of the Southern Highlands, Tau Liu. In 1999 Liu claimed over K220,000 in damages from the State for alleged wrongful dismissal although in fact he had in fact only been suspended from duty, not terminated. In February 2003, then Solicitor General, Zachary Gelu, agreed to the claim and signed a deed of release in the sum of K305,410.61 (which included more that K70,000 in interest payments).
The claim was approved by Gelu even though the State had initially filed a defense end had several good grounds to ask the court to dismiss the claim. This included the fact that Liu had not been terminated, that he had failed to answer the disciplinary charges against him and had failed to give proper notice of his claim. Even if the State had been liable then Liu would only have been entitled to damages equivalent to three months pay – a fraction of the sum he actually received.
The Department of Finance paid out over K773,000 to Mr Liu in settlement of this claim and a second claim in respect of his employment as Administrator for Western Province. That claim was also approved by Gelu.
The Commission concluded:
The amount paid by the State in settlement of the Plaintiffs claim is exorbitant, unreasonable and may have been calculated with a view to defraud the State of a large sum of money In light of such conduct Mr. Gelu should never be allowed to hold a high position as that of SG ever again.
His conduct clearly showed that he was not there to protect the interest of the State but perhaps for his own gain.
This-is clearly negligence on the part of Mr. Gelu.
The Commissions report on the Liu scam is also scathing of the conduct of then Attorney General Michael Gene for his failure to protect the interests of the State in the advice that he gave in the matter.
The particular scam that prompted the Commission’s recommendation involved the former Administrator of the Southern Highlands, Tau Liu. In 1999 Liu claimed over K220,000 in damages from the State for alleged wrongful dismissal although in fact he had in fact only been suspended from duty, not terminated. In February 2003, then Solicitor General, Zachary Gelu, agreed to the claim and signed a deed of release in the sum of K305,410.61 (which included more that K70,000 in interest payments).
The claim was approved by Gelu even though the State had initially filed a defense end had several good grounds to ask the court to dismiss the claim. This included the fact that Liu had not been terminated, that he had failed to answer the disciplinary charges against him and had failed to give proper notice of his claim. Even if the State had been liable then Liu would only have been entitled to damages equivalent to three months pay – a fraction of the sum he actually received.
The Department of Finance paid out over K773,000 to Mr Liu in settlement of this claim and a second claim in respect of his employment as Administrator for Western Province. That claim was also approved by Gelu.
The Commission concluded:
The amount paid by the State in settlement of the Plaintiffs claim is exorbitant, unreasonable and may have been calculated with a view to defraud the State of a large sum of money In light of such conduct Mr. Gelu should never be allowed to hold a high position as that of SG ever again.
His conduct clearly showed that he was not there to protect the interest of the State but perhaps for his own gain.
This-is clearly negligence on the part of Mr. Gelu.
The Commissions report on the Liu scam is also scathing of the conduct of then Attorney General Michael Gene for his failure to protect the interests of the State in the advice that he gave in the matter.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please free to leave comments.