A couple was cleared by the Waigani National Court over allegations that they misappropriated over K400,000 state monies for advance payment for flood relief supplies from the Central to Gulf Province.
The court found Mami Kaniku and Helen Ove not guilty of misappropriation charges after the state failed to prove the element of them dishonestly applying K493,240, to their use, beyond reasonable doubt.
The husband and wife were the only shareholders and directors of a company: West Coast Shipping Ltd. West Coast Shipping was engaged to provide transportation services with a “seaworthy vessel fully certified” to “deliver much needed relief cargo to the areas identified by the Gulf Provincial Disaster Coordinator”. The coordinator was Jerry Hape.
On Sept 5, 2014, West Coast Shipping Ltd and the National Department of Provincial Affairs and Local-Level Government (through the Gulf Disaster Committee) entered into a written contract with the company.
The company was engaged to ship flood relief food supplies to Gulf after heavy rain caused flooding to various parts of the province in June 2014.
The supplies were delivered at the contract of K300,382.50 and a second contract at K493,240 was paid in advance to them however, West Coast Shipping Ltd failed to ship the supplies. Most of the food perished and only a small portion found its way to the required destination.
In March 2015, the container of food containing flour, rice, noodles, tea, tinned fish, etc, were found in Tubusereia, which was supposed to be shipped to Kerema. That was never done and most of the food decomposed while waiting for a ship to come from Western Province to transport it to Gulf. What was still in good condition was transported via road.
Justice David Cannings, in his decision, said evidence showed that a large amount of government money was wasted due to a decision-making process that lacked due diligence, which was undertaken by incompetent government officials.
These officials allowed the company, belonging to Kaniku and Ove, to be paid in advance for a service it was in no position to provide.
“It was apparent that the accused had made a genuine, if hopelessly inadequate, attempt to get their company in a position to be able to provide the service it had been contracted to provide.
“There was insufficient evidence of intent to defraud the state or to collude with government officials to enter into a scam or bogus scheme,” Justice Cannings said.