|
Digicel to know fate
soon
By JULIA DAIA BORE
DIGICEL (PNG) Ltd will know in two weeks
time whether it can operate a new mobile phone service in the country.
A National Court in Waigani will hand down its decision after hearing
final submissions from its counsel and two other parties yesterday.
Justice Ambeng Kandakasi also ordered the counsel to submit their
written submissions.
Telikom PNG is challenging the decision of the Independent Consumer and
Competition Council (ICCC) to end its monopoly in the telecommunications
industry.
In doing so, ICCC also granted a licence to Digicel to provide mobile
phone services in the country.
Both ICCC and Digicel have applied to dismiss Telikom’s application.
Their arguments were similar – that Telikom had taken the matter to the
International Appeals Committee which ruled in favour of the ICCC
decision in 2002 to grant a licence to Digicel, pending other
proceedings before the National Court.
ICCC counsel Erick Anderson said the only basis for this proceeding was
whether there was consent to the variation to the contract between
Telikom and ICCC to enable the authority to grant the licence to Digicel.
“Telikom chose to put the issue to a statutory body: the Appeal Penal,
with a time-frame for their immediate decision, which was handed down;
and now it (Telikom) is stuck with it.
“They chose to go that way; that was the decision and that was it.”
He said Telikom must be prepared to accept that decision rather than
bring the whole matter up in the courts again to argue the same issues
that they had raised before taking it to the Appeals Penal.
He said the Appeals Penal had ruled on it and Telikom should accept it
rather than bring the same arguments to the National Court again.
Digicel’s barrister John Griffin QC questioned why Telikom had continued
to leave out his client from the original court proceedings until its
inclusion only last month.
He said the ICCC was a public body which had the powers to issue
licences for companies to operate and this was what it did.
The proceeding, he said, was an abuse of that process.
He said the court should not have to deal with an issue that had already
been dealt with when it was brought before an International Appeals
Penal that ruled to uphold the ICCC decision last month.
“No one should be harassed twice in the same court,” he said.
He argued that the whole process was only delaying Digicel from starting
its services to the people, under the licence granted by ICCC.
Telikom’s counsel, Ian Molloy QC, maintained that the Appeals Penal did
not determine its decision on the merits.
He said Telikom PNG did not agree to the variations to the contract for
Digicel because his client’s three conditions had not been adhered to.
“This is a contract issue,” he said.
 
|
