Court to rule on Puma case

The National Main Stories

THE National Court is set to rule today whether to stop Puma Energy Ltd (Puma) from communicating directly with Bank of Papua New Guinea (BPNG) on foreign currency transactions.
BPNG’s lawyer Donald Kints said the Central Bank’s notice of motion sought to stop Puma from shutting down the supply of refined petroleum products in the country.
The application also seeks to stop Puma from limiting its supply on the basis that it (BPNG) had failed to make available foreign currency through the Authorized Foreign Exchange Dealers (AFEDs) in Papua New Guinea, pending the final determination of these proceedings or until further orders of the court.
BPNG’s notice of motion also seeks to restrain Puma from:

  • LIAISING directly or indirectly with BPNG on its need for foreign currency but instead to liaise with AFEDs in the country;
  • ISSUING threats via any mode of communication or publication to BPNG or to the public with reference to the bank to force BPNG to make available foreign currency through the AFEDs to serve the purposes of Puma and its affiliates; and,
  • ISSUING threats via any mode of communication or publication to BPNG or to the public with reference to BPNG which will impede or is targeted to restrict or prevent BPNG from performing its duties and carrying out its functions under the Central Banking Act 2000 and its regulations and any other relevant laws.

Acting Judge Gertrude Tamade in the National Court in Waigani yesterday asked Kints where in the Central Banking Act did it talk about compelling businesses to sell.
“The supply of petroleum products depends on foreign currency which BPNG regulates and one of the relief sought was to restrict Puma from limiting or halting supply until further determination of the substantive proceeding,”Justice Tamade said. “If an entity does not have the ability to supply, you cannot stop them. You cannot tell the business how to do its business.”
Kints also said Puma did not provide reports on cash inflow and outflow.
Puma’s lawyer Erik Anderson said there was nothing legally wrong about Puma approaching BPNG for foreign currency and that there was no arguable case.
Anderson said Puma had not been making any threats. “We have been transparent.”
Anderson said asking the Government or approaching politicians in relation to this issue was not political interference because BPNG was a state entity.
“And the Government had a direct interest in ensuring there was no disruption in supply of petroleum products,” he said.
Anderson said asking BPNG to perform its statutory function was not an inconvenience, but just asking them to do their job.
He said there was no case and urged the court to dismiss it with costs.
Kints argued that the court should grant permanent restraining orders against Puma, otherwise Puma would continue to directly communicate with BPNG.
He said Puma should communicate with the AFEDs or commercial banks. Justice Tamade reserved her ruling for today.