Court grants miner order

The National Main Stories

A COURT has ordered the Government not to take any further action on its decision not to extend the Porgera mine special mining lease pending a judicial review of that decision.
The stay order was sought by the mine operator Barrick Niugini Ltd, which is seeking a judicial review of the government decision not to renew the special mining lease which had expired in August last year.
Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi granted the stay order last Friday.
BNL is arguing that it has the right to a renewal of the special mining lease.
BNL’s lawyer Derek Wood of Ashurst Lawyers told the court that the company sought the stay so that it could remain on site to protect and secure assets, maintain the land to ensure the environment was in safe and stable condition, including security. Solicitor-General Tauvasa Tanuvasa opposed the stay order saying the decision by the National Executive Council had already been gazetted by the Head of State and registered by the Registrar of Tenements.
“The relief sought by BNL is unnecessary because the safety, care and maintenance of the mine site is already taken care of in Clause 19 of the mining development contract,” Tanuvasa said.
“Clause 19 allows the Porgera Joint Venture access to the mine site for a one-year period following the (mining lease) expiry date. The State has not done anything to deprive the miner of such rights.”
But Justice Kandakasi granted the stay after considering the status quo of the substantive review to avoid interference through further applications from parties involved in the matter.
The review is schedule for July 28.

15 comments

  • Justice department through this decision is crossing over the line. NEC has already made the decision and it is one of the arms of the government.
    Something fishy is going on!!!

    • Wrong…. Tired Pinis, credit to Deputy Chief Justice…. for doing his job ….upholding/doing due diligence in applying the law of the day… God bless his heart

    • Yes. NEC is also a law making arm of the Government. The court order is unnecessary!

  • The government gave BNL the opportunity to continue to operate the mine to allow for smoother transition of the management. Employees were not supposed to be laid off! BNL decided otherwise and like those cruel dirty tactic playing Cheap foreign companies, they BNL laid off the workers who have sacrificed more than 30 years of services to make billions for PJV and its business partners. Is that the way to treat your loyal and dedicated employees? NO APPRECIATION AT ALL! They thought that by doing that; Those laid off employees, vaious contractors and LO groups will rise up against the government for decision to create chaos.
    This company – BNL, violated the law in full, they laid off the employees just to create issues for the country knowing full well we have the covid 19 pandamic, economic and social issues hence another problem like this compounded with negative reporting and views from various business houses, institutions and paid think tanks would put extra pressure on the government to reconsider their decisions.

    I cannot comprehend why in the hell did the court grant them stay order? They were requested all along to operate the mine into the full grace period yet they chose to close down. Because of this cruel, selfish and unethical decision, they have in-fact made families and businesses suffer and now when they are asked to leave the country they want to stay back? When Ok Tedi Mining limited took over they just changed the logo’s and the management and board members. All the employees were paid off then formally asked to re- sign a new contract while being on the job.

    BNL company did the opposite and now wanted to place the blame on the government? Why are the court systems not able to see these and penalize them (PJV BNL) heavily for not going by the due process per stipulated in the mine act for a proper hand over take over to take place?

    • wrong mindset Clouldlands…any mining person will know, once a lease expires the operator has no legal right to operate…. hence with the PNG Gov of the day making a public/social media announcement ( without prior consultation with the operator) to not renew the lease, gave the operator no choose but to ensure legal compliance, wind down its operation safely.

      The court granted stay order because of who the person is: Shows his integrity – to uphold due process – it is actually please to see, at least PNG Judicial system is credible.

      Ok Tedi case is actually different : The operator actually had to do a ‘runner’ to save it own face…. and ‘dump’ it. …if do not know PNG is actually 1 of 3 other places on earth to dump ‘shit’ into our the riverine… we are a laughing stock in the industry/environment mgt on the global scale…

    • I can see what you are saying. Multinationals play heavy handed tactics on sovereign governments. BNL is trying to intimidate the Government. I bet you cheques and cash are flying here and there!

      The case is clear. The state is in the right within the law.

    • Supreme Court is there for appeal if Kandakasi got it wrong. But you know why State won’t appeal? Because Kandakasi is 100% spot on legally and you are just a bush kanaka spewing hot air with 100% stupidity!

  • As a lay man in law, my conscience is very clear that the State is within the law. My plain reading of the clauses in the Mining Act 1992 and the Mining Development Contract regarding the state’s refusal to extend the Special Mining Lease tells me the State is clear of any errors in the law. I am baffle at this court order. Any further delay by way of technicality of the law could be fishy.

  • Though I’m not a lawyer, I still have doubts with decisions by DCJ Kandakasi in recent and past court proceedings.

  • Judge Kandakasi definitely has clusters of cloud hanging over his shoulders. This stay order is unnecessary

  • This is fishy. BNL is at err. The decision of the national government is absolute and stays. The grant order looks suspicious from my simple perspective as a neutral citizen.
    What has PJV done for the landowners in its years of operation?

  • This is fishy. Is the NEC decision not supreme?
    What has PJV done for the landowners in its years of operation?

Comments are closed.