Delay survey plan, address land claims

I OBJECT to an advertisement by the customary land registration director with the Department of Lands and Physical Planning, for Waffes incorporated land group’s intention to survey its customary land known as Mangense.
Mangense land was disputed by the Babuaf and the Hengabu people in the early 1980s.
The local land court that presided over the case awarded ownership to the Babuaf people.
As required by the Land Disputes Settlement Act, the Hengabu people were eligible to appeal the local land court decision, but didn’t do so at the time.
One of the mandatory requirements when the local land court is adjudicating customary land dispute is, together with the disputants in company with the magistrate, land mediators, ward councilor, village court officials, they should walk the boundaries of the land during the court sitting and after the court hearing.
Unfortunately for both parties, this important and mandatory requirement was never undertaken.
The result of the case is that we are now faced with overlapping claims by both the Babuaf and Hengabu people who do not know where the Mangense land boundaries are.
Some years later, the Hengabu and Yanta people went to court over the same land, principally now known as the 50:50 Wafi-Golpu land.
The court awarded land on a 50:50 basis to Yanta and Hengabu, without diminishing Babuaf people’s rights to the land, as the Babuaf insisted this land is part of their Mangense land.
The same mandatory requirement for the court to have walked and physically inspected the land at the time never eventuated until now.
Nobody knows where the boundaries are.
Today, we have joint ventures, Newcrest and Harmony mining companies, having registered exploration licenses over these customary land under the Mining Act.
According to law, correct me if I am wrong, the exploration licenses granted to both companies would have precedence over any dealings within these customary land that are now subjected to be granted a special mining lease.
Perhaps a relevant authority can clarify this matter.
Because the claims of ownership over the land are not clearly identified by the Yanta, Hengabu and Babuaf, it should be cancelled.
It is potentially pointless for the proposed survey to be undertaken and registered.
The land to be surveyed is 8361.55 hectares.
It covers the two exploration licenses, which has an area of 6,280 hectares.
To do so would only incite conflicts between these groups of people and others from nearby villages.
I am certain that objections will be aired from these three groups of people in due course.
Let’s hope the customary land registration director carefully considers the above points and doesn’t proceed with the registration of this survey plan for the sake of good governance.

Address Land Issues,
Lae