Damaru seeks to revoke warrant of arrest

The National National

By Alice Osii
National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate (NFACD) director Mathew Damaru is seeking to revoke a warrant of arrest issued by the Waigani Committal Court last year for his arrest on allegations of conspiracy to defeat justice.
Magistrate Cosmas Bidar will make a ruling on June 28 after hearing his application.
In court yesterday, Damaru through his lawyer, Christopher Karaiye of the Morgens Lawyers, made an application intended for the following:

  • To revoke or dissolve three warrants of arrests issued against Damaru on Dec 15 last year because they claimed the warrants were defective, incompetent, a gross abuse of process and a malicious prosecution;
  • to permanently restrain informants and members of the police from implementing or conducting any further investigation relating to or arising out of the same allegations in which the three warrants for the arrest of Damaru were issued by the Waigani Committal court; and,
  • That the proceedings and related investigations subject of these proceedings be permanently stayed.

The three warrants of arrest were issued on the following grounds:

  • Conspiring to defeat justice;
  • perjury; and
  • Fabricating evidence.

Police alleged that on April 30, 2015, Damaru was in his office in Konedobu when he was assaulted by police officer Stanley Poga and for those reasons Damaru did not recommend Poga to be transferred to NFACD.
It was alleged after the assault that Damaru was brought to St Mary’s Medical Centre at 4-Mile and was attended to by Dr Karol Popei, and was treated.
Police alleged that Damaru conspired with his doctor to lie and fabricate evidence to defeat justice.
On April 30 and May 1 Poga made an application to introduce fresh evidence on the medical report, which he claimed to have been fabricated on which his complaint in obtaining the arrest warrants at the Supreme Court were unanimously refused.
Karaiye argued that warrants of arrest for Damaru were ex-parte orders of the committal court and thus, it had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.