RESPONSES TO PAUL PARAKA’S MEDIA STATEMENT

By STEVEN ANDRE

First and foremost, it is absolutely disgusting to realise that the media is totally tight-lipped on any issues about certain white colour criminals like Paul Paraka Lawyers. The purported orders are very clear. The Print media have access to well versed lawyers in the country yet “choose” not to publicise, even paid advertorials of materials that adversely implicates PPL. It leaves me to believe that they, instead of becoming public watch-dogs, they are bought to be PPL’s watch-dog. I want Blaise Nagoi of Post Courier and Frank Sengke Kolma of the National to refute these allegations

Point 1,2,3,4&5 are aimed at misleading the naive public to condone a lully prigger’s worst crimes against the State and its people. Maybe he is under a delusion of consequentialism where the end justifies the means. Such an ideology does not exist in a constitutional democracy like ours where the rule of law is supreme. He should find himself in a banana republic. I do not see him as someone driven with ideals but more egoistic white colour criminal marauding on our weak systems for personal gain.

You say “Clients normally settle their legal bills on installment basis over a period of time.” At Fact 4 But at Fact 14 you say you are doing pro-bona work. How can you get paid and at the same time provide pro-bona or even paid by the State at some later favourable time? Is it not double dipping or that term no longer exists in your vocabulary?

With your assertion of training of fresh lawyers, how many of them are well trained and successfully defending criminal cases. How many acquittals? Most of them I know, have somehow assimilated to your way of operation. "birds of like feather flock together", some becoming conduits of the principal's schemes.

I also hear your lawyers touting for clients at Police Stations and prison camps. Is that against the Lawyers Professional Conduct rules? Do you still have some regard for these small but important principles that hold your profession in high respect in this country?

You say at some time in the future, you would approach the Government to pay for all the pro-bona work on an ex-gratia basis. If that is so, how do you then define it, still pro-bona?

You have listed all the Court references that relates to you, but conveniently did not list SCM No 3 of 2007 which the Opposition claimed has a current order preventing any payment. Is there are proceeding under that title or have you got rid of it at the National Court Registry (something not uncommon). If there is no order preventing so, why using different law firms? Why stopping press, Court, even Parliament from ever discussing the issues if you do not have anything to hide?

It appears your firm has been doing most of the pro-bona work since your retainer contract was terminated and further stated that the amount of K71.8million was final and last payment which occurred just within the last one year. How about the years after your contract with the State were terminated? Your firm got ever expanded, doing mostly pro-bona work. In the words of Judge Manuhu “you were on diet yet putting on weight”. I don’t understand the chemistry (economics).

It occurs to me that you were intentionally embarking on pro-bona work to one day convert your time sheets into bills, obviously when the Government of the day favoured you. The time must have almost come, but thanks to the Opposition Leader. If that is so, that is dishonesty and against the Constitution where it requires all expenditures (either current or future commitments) and revenue must be as approved by Parliament. Your flagrant ignorance of the law itself is really demeaning.

I am a law drop out and I am proud where I am, but Mr Paraka, your Masters degree in law from University of California does more damage to the country than good.