POST ANALYSIS - RONNIE KNIGHT FOUND GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT IN OFFICE.
By BRYAN KRAMER
Leadership Tribunal on Friday (20/3/15) handed down its ruling finding Member for Manus Open Ronnie Knight guilty of four out of the five allegations of misconduct in office against him. The first allegation was dropped for being similar as the third allegation that was sustained or upheld.
Mr. Knight was referred to the Leadership Tribunal by Public Prosecutor acting on the referral and findings by the Ombudsman Commission (OC).
The allegations were in relation to the purchase of a Vessel MV Manus Trader Star at a inflated price of K2.5m.
Knight was found guilty of misconduct in office centred around the following issues during January 2013 and August 2013:
1) misappropriating K650,000 belonging to the Manus District Services Improvement (DSIP) Fund to purchase an outdated and unsuitable vessel that was 44 years old which was earlier negotiated by Mr. Knight and priced at K1.85m. Tribunal found that that Mr. Knight withheld vital information pressuring the Manus Provincial Supply and Tenders Board to make a decision to purchase the vessel at K2.5m inflated by K650,000. Despite receiving advice from the National Maritime & Safety Authority and PNG Weather Bureau on the sea worthiness of the vessel which was inappropriate for operations in Manus waters.
2) misappropriating K180,670 belonging to the Manus DSIP Fund applying the funds to engage Pokarop and Morton Consultants to carry out maintenance on the Vessel. Tampered with the meeting minutes inserting a paragraph that indicates that Pokarup and Morton made a deposit of K100,000 with MV Trader Star owners hence requiring a refund. Mr Knight pressured the JDP&BPC to approve the additional funds to carry out maintenance on the vehicle that should be been carried out by the Vendor (original owners).
3) payment of K149,438 to Pokarop DC Force limited for Mr. Knights use of a hired vehicle and failing to declare he had an indirect interest in the transaction that he had an outstanding hire car bill of K149,438 was to be paid to DA Force Ltd for his use of hire vehicle.
4) having an indirect beneficial interest in the transaction and failing to declare it or exclude himself from the deliberation and decision to approve it.
The total effect of which placed himself in a position where he had a conflict of interest, demeaning his office and allowing his official and personal integrity to be called into question. And further entering into transactions and engaging in an activity that might be expected to give rise to doubt in public mind whether he was carrying out the duty imposed on him by Section 27 of Constitution. (leadership code). Further for breaching Section 13 (misappropriation of public funds) and Section 15 (disclose of interest before debating or voting) of Organic Law on Duties and Responsibilities of Leaders.
Leadership Tribunal's findings of guilt does not mean Mr. Knight is automatically dismissed from office nor does it mean he will serve a prison term. He remains suspended until the Tribunal hands down the penalty for the offenses.
Parties will return before the Tribunal on 1st April 2015 to make submissions (arguments) in respect of the appropriate penalty. Public Prosecutor is likely to submit that due to the seriousness of the offences Mr. Knight should be dismissed from office. While his lawyers may seek a lessor penalty of suspension or fine instead.
Grand Chief Somare was found guilty by the Leadership Tribunal in 2010 on 5 counts of misconduct in office for failing to file his annual financial statements declaring his income, interests, assets and liabilities over a span of more than 10 years. Tribunal in that case decided by majority vote (2-1) that the charges were only administrative breaches and not serious enough to warrant (justify) dismissal from office. Somare was instead suspended for two weeks without pay.
In contrast to Knight's case the Tribunal found him guilty on two counts of misappropriation and having a conflict of interest in the use of public funds all of which are serious and also criminal in nature.
The maximum sentence the Tribunal can hand down is only dismissal from office. If dismissed from office a person will be automatically disqualified from holding public office for three years from the date of his dismissal. If dismissed Knight would be disqualified from contesting the 2017 elections.
Knight was found guilty under the leadership code not the criminal code. Hence Tribunal has no powers to convict a person of a criminal offence or sentence them to jail. Leadership Tribunal prosecutions don't have the same scope or focus as a Criminal prosecutions. It is only concerned if a person subject to the leadership code is guilty of misconduct in office that is both unethical or immoral and if such actions demean or spoil the high office he holds. In other words the purpose of the leadership code is to protect the peoples office from abuse by the person(s) who hold it. If he is found guilty of abusing that office then its only proper they be dismissed from it. So Knight will not be serving any time in prison following the Tribunal's findings.
A Leadership Tribunal is a quasi-judicial authority made up of three members, senior National Court Judge and two District Magistrates. It is not a court of law and its authority lies below the National Court.
The Decisions of the Tribunal are not subject to appeal. So an appeal is not available to Knight. However he may seek a judicial review to challenge the decision in the National Court. Constitution Section 155(2) provides inherent powers to both the National and Supreme Courts to review any judicial decision of a lower Court or Tribunal.
In this case Knight would have to first apply for leave (permission) to National Court to invoke its powers under Section 155(2) of Constitution to review the Tribunal's ruling against him. National Court would first review the grounds of his application to determine whether it has any merits (strong case) to justify allowing him leave to file a Judicial Review. It is a strict process and unless your can demonstrate there is a clear error of fact or misapplication of the law by the Tribunal the Higher Courts will typically refuse you leave and dismiss your application. It's important to note that unlike the District and National Courts where a single person makes a decision a Leadership Tribunal is made up of three members so the chances of errors are slim especially in unanimous decisions (where all three members are in agreement with the ruling).
Although Knight is not subject to imprisonment the findings against him are criminal and therefore he is still subject to criminal prosecution by National Fraud & Anti-Corruption Directorate. A person who is found guilty of misconduct in office where the offences are criminal in nature (misappropriation) are still liable to be charged and prosecuted in the Criminal Court. Under the usual criminal prosecution process police first carry-out their own investigations and based on probable cause arrest and charge the accused. The evidence is then reviewed by the District Court to determine whether it is sufficient to commit the case to be tried in National (Criminal) Court. The prosecution and defence (his lawyer) will call witnesses and present their evidence for the Court to consider. In Mr Knight's case his guilt has been confirmed by a Leadership Tribunal or Judicial Authority after considering all the evidence. It's findings are beyond probable cause therefore Police may now act on those findings and move to charge Mr. Knight under the criminal code to be tried before a Criminal Court. It's also important to note that when handing down it's judgement Tribunal made the following comments.
"The evidence of this reference clearly establishes a case of misappropriation by conspiracy and fraud." Perpetrators involved in handling of these monies on this reference should be subject to criminal investigation and if possible should face criminal prosecution."
When I first heard of Mr. Knight's referral and after reviewing the allegations against him I had no doubt he would be found guilty of the charges. Its my view his appeal (judicial review) will also fail.
This is sad because publicly Mr. Knight was perceived as a good person and a promising Member of Parliament. I suspect he has been mislead to be involved in a deal that was wrong in so many ways.
Nonetheless what is evident is that the Judiciary, OC and National Fraud & Anti-Corruption Directorate continue to shift gears in a relentless effort to reel in those who are corrupt and abusing the peoples trust and office. It should be noted that if you did the crime expect to do the time.
Leadership Tribunal on Friday (20/3/15) handed down its ruling finding Member for Manus Open Ronnie Knight guilty of four out of the five allegations of misconduct in office against him. The first allegation was dropped for being similar as the third allegation that was sustained or upheld.
Mr. Knight was referred to the Leadership Tribunal by Public Prosecutor acting on the referral and findings by the Ombudsman Commission (OC).
The allegations were in relation to the purchase of a Vessel MV Manus Trader Star at a inflated price of K2.5m.
Knight was found guilty of misconduct in office centred around the following issues during January 2013 and August 2013:
1) misappropriating K650,000 belonging to the Manus District Services Improvement (DSIP) Fund to purchase an outdated and unsuitable vessel that was 44 years old which was earlier negotiated by Mr. Knight and priced at K1.85m. Tribunal found that that Mr. Knight withheld vital information pressuring the Manus Provincial Supply and Tenders Board to make a decision to purchase the vessel at K2.5m inflated by K650,000. Despite receiving advice from the National Maritime & Safety Authority and PNG Weather Bureau on the sea worthiness of the vessel which was inappropriate for operations in Manus waters.
2) misappropriating K180,670 belonging to the Manus DSIP Fund applying the funds to engage Pokarop and Morton Consultants to carry out maintenance on the Vessel. Tampered with the meeting minutes inserting a paragraph that indicates that Pokarup and Morton made a deposit of K100,000 with MV Trader Star owners hence requiring a refund. Mr Knight pressured the JDP&BPC to approve the additional funds to carry out maintenance on the vehicle that should be been carried out by the Vendor (original owners).
3) payment of K149,438 to Pokarop DC Force limited for Mr. Knights use of a hired vehicle and failing to declare he had an indirect interest in the transaction that he had an outstanding hire car bill of K149,438 was to be paid to DA Force Ltd for his use of hire vehicle.
4) having an indirect beneficial interest in the transaction and failing to declare it or exclude himself from the deliberation and decision to approve it.
The total effect of which placed himself in a position where he had a conflict of interest, demeaning his office and allowing his official and personal integrity to be called into question. And further entering into transactions and engaging in an activity that might be expected to give rise to doubt in public mind whether he was carrying out the duty imposed on him by Section 27 of Constitution. (leadership code). Further for breaching Section 13 (misappropriation of public funds) and Section 15 (disclose of interest before debating or voting) of Organic Law on Duties and Responsibilities of Leaders.
Leadership Tribunal's findings of guilt does not mean Mr. Knight is automatically dismissed from office nor does it mean he will serve a prison term. He remains suspended until the Tribunal hands down the penalty for the offenses.
Parties will return before the Tribunal on 1st April 2015 to make submissions (arguments) in respect of the appropriate penalty. Public Prosecutor is likely to submit that due to the seriousness of the offences Mr. Knight should be dismissed from office. While his lawyers may seek a lessor penalty of suspension or fine instead.
Grand Chief Somare was found guilty by the Leadership Tribunal in 2010 on 5 counts of misconduct in office for failing to file his annual financial statements declaring his income, interests, assets and liabilities over a span of more than 10 years. Tribunal in that case decided by majority vote (2-1) that the charges were only administrative breaches and not serious enough to warrant (justify) dismissal from office. Somare was instead suspended for two weeks without pay.
In contrast to Knight's case the Tribunal found him guilty on two counts of misappropriation and having a conflict of interest in the use of public funds all of which are serious and also criminal in nature.
The maximum sentence the Tribunal can hand down is only dismissal from office. If dismissed from office a person will be automatically disqualified from holding public office for three years from the date of his dismissal. If dismissed Knight would be disqualified from contesting the 2017 elections.
Knight was found guilty under the leadership code not the criminal code. Hence Tribunal has no powers to convict a person of a criminal offence or sentence them to jail. Leadership Tribunal prosecutions don't have the same scope or focus as a Criminal prosecutions. It is only concerned if a person subject to the leadership code is guilty of misconduct in office that is both unethical or immoral and if such actions demean or spoil the high office he holds. In other words the purpose of the leadership code is to protect the peoples office from abuse by the person(s) who hold it. If he is found guilty of abusing that office then its only proper they be dismissed from it. So Knight will not be serving any time in prison following the Tribunal's findings.
A Leadership Tribunal is a quasi-judicial authority made up of three members, senior National Court Judge and two District Magistrates. It is not a court of law and its authority lies below the National Court.
The Decisions of the Tribunal are not subject to appeal. So an appeal is not available to Knight. However he may seek a judicial review to challenge the decision in the National Court. Constitution Section 155(2) provides inherent powers to both the National and Supreme Courts to review any judicial decision of a lower Court or Tribunal.
In this case Knight would have to first apply for leave (permission) to National Court to invoke its powers under Section 155(2) of Constitution to review the Tribunal's ruling against him. National Court would first review the grounds of his application to determine whether it has any merits (strong case) to justify allowing him leave to file a Judicial Review. It is a strict process and unless your can demonstrate there is a clear error of fact or misapplication of the law by the Tribunal the Higher Courts will typically refuse you leave and dismiss your application. It's important to note that unlike the District and National Courts where a single person makes a decision a Leadership Tribunal is made up of three members so the chances of errors are slim especially in unanimous decisions (where all three members are in agreement with the ruling).
Although Knight is not subject to imprisonment the findings against him are criminal and therefore he is still subject to criminal prosecution by National Fraud & Anti-Corruption Directorate. A person who is found guilty of misconduct in office where the offences are criminal in nature (misappropriation) are still liable to be charged and prosecuted in the Criminal Court. Under the usual criminal prosecution process police first carry-out their own investigations and based on probable cause arrest and charge the accused. The evidence is then reviewed by the District Court to determine whether it is sufficient to commit the case to be tried in National (Criminal) Court. The prosecution and defence (his lawyer) will call witnesses and present their evidence for the Court to consider. In Mr Knight's case his guilt has been confirmed by a Leadership Tribunal or Judicial Authority after considering all the evidence. It's findings are beyond probable cause therefore Police may now act on those findings and move to charge Mr. Knight under the criminal code to be tried before a Criminal Court. It's also important to note that when handing down it's judgement Tribunal made the following comments.
"The evidence of this reference clearly establishes a case of misappropriation by conspiracy and fraud." Perpetrators involved in handling of these monies on this reference should be subject to criminal investigation and if possible should face criminal prosecution."
When I first heard of Mr. Knight's referral and after reviewing the allegations against him I had no doubt he would be found guilty of the charges. Its my view his appeal (judicial review) will also fail.
This is sad because publicly Mr. Knight was perceived as a good person and a promising Member of Parliament. I suspect he has been mislead to be involved in a deal that was wrong in so many ways.
Nonetheless what is evident is that the Judiciary, OC and National Fraud & Anti-Corruption Directorate continue to shift gears in a relentless effort to reel in those who are corrupt and abusing the peoples trust and office. It should be noted that if you did the crime expect to do the time.
