THE SENGI REPORT ON PIP FUNDS CORRUPTION AT UNITECH
A recent article on PNGBlogs made false and malicious allegations against Unitech lawyer Mr Simon Sengi. His high moral character and commitment for fairness was unfairly challenged in the articles and in the vicious attacks made by anonymous commenters. These negative words cannot go unanswered. Unitech is very fortunate to have the full time services of Mr Sengi. To reply to the various empty comments of his detractors:
1. Mr Sengi is well aware of the PNG constitution and its protection of free speech but this does not include any free speech that angers or agitates staff or students.
2. Mr Sengi's ongoing actions against Unitech staff member Mr Ken Polin are to keep peace and order at the university.
3. The vehicle purchased for Mr Sengi is to allow him to carry out his official duties as he had no vehicle before the purchase.
4. Whether or not Mr Sengi takes alcohol is his private business.
Anyone who doubts the commitment of Mr Sengi to Unitech would do well to download and read the attached "REPORT OF THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT PROGRAMME (PIP) FUNDS BUDGET 2011 EXPENDITURE INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE".
Known as the Sengi Report, this is the document that broke open the doors on the corruption at Unitech. The Sengi Report was the basis of much of what was included in the later Sevua Report. The Sengi Report lays out the most accurate picture ever produced of mismanagement at Unitech. The investigation succeeded only through the hard work of Mr Sengi and his fellow committee members, which included Acting Vice Chancellor John Pumwa.
As you can read with your own eyeballs, Sengi Report gives extensive information into the corrupt use of governmental PIP funds at Unitech for 2011. The investigation focused on the whereabouts of a small part of the K26 million in PIP funding being held by the university in 2011.
Few Highlights of the Sengi Report:
1. For the following five (5) projects there was no evidence found of any substantive proposal which would have defined the scope of following projects. Those projects were not vetted by competent committee and there was no evidence of a tendering process nor were any acquittals produced:
A. NATSL Rehabilitation (K1,800,000): This is the National Analysis Testing Services Lab. The then Vice Chancellor approved it, by- passing due process which would have otherwise required one.
B. Project carried out by Frank Ogisi through Valuation Consultancy: The then Vice Chancellor approved it, by-passing due process which would have otherwise required one. With Mr Ogisi's case the previous Vice Chancellor was told that Mr Ogisi's company account was closed, but he insisted that the payment be made to Mr Ogisi in his name, so that was done.
C. Project carried out by Unitech Planner Mr Kakini's company - Extreme Good Solutions:. The then Vice Chancellor approved it, by-passing due process which would have otherwise required one.
D. Purchase of equipment by Professor Narayan Gehlot: (K675,000) The then Vice Chancellor approved it, by-passing due process which would have otherwise required one. There was no evidence of prior approval on the purchase. The equipment were bought because the then Vice Chancellor gave verbal approval and no evidence of written approval exists.
E. Dhanhus Info Tech Project and Datec Wireless Network; The Chancellor approved it, by-passing due process which would have otherwise required one. The Chancellor approved this project. Total K760,000.
2. Professor Narayan Gehlot, Bursar Jimmy Inbok, and Project Office Manager Brian Kakini did breach Standard Terms and Conditions of Employment and were criminally negligent in the discharge of their duties.
3. In the cases of Professor Narayan Ghelot and Mr. Brian Kakini, there is evidence that they knowingly and intentionally, in collusion and collaboration with others, orchestrated moves to avoid and by-pass proper and due processes for personal advantage and gain.
4. That PIP funds have been diverted to projects outside of the PIP funding guidelines and without following proper and legal processes and often by people without authority to do so, in the absence of and contrary to relevant expert and technical advice.
5. That expenditure of PIP funds for purposes other than that for which such funds were initially submitted for and secured amounts to misappropriation.
6. The Chancellor Philip Stagg was responsible for the award of the Dhanush Info Tech contract. His involvement in leading a delegation to India to negotiate and award the relevant contract is considered not proper by the Committee.
7. The Committee had information to show that the Vice Chancellor Misty Baloiloi was involved in the improper awarding of contracts amounting to abuse of proper processes. Evidence exist from contracts to Extreme Geo-Solution Ltd, Frank Ogisi, NATSL and the Professor Ghelot case. In all these instances, the then Vice Chancellor ignored proper and due processes and was in gross violation of these processes in making those awards.
8. The Committee also received information on substantial abuse of established processes in the award of other major contracts amounting to substantial amounts of money. There is reason to believe that there was deliberate gross abuse of proper and legal procedures of tendering, screening and awarding of contracts.
9. Furthermore K765,600.00 as paid to an Architectural Consulting firm for the design of two (2) 100 bed dormitories, but they did not comply, so were fired yet payments were still made. None of these revelations would be known today if it were not for the Sengi Report. Acting VC John Pumwa was a principal member of the investigation and his role in fighting for Unitech must be recognized.
For further information see the attached file with the Sengi Report.
THE SENGI REPORT
