Honesty always the best policy

The National Weekender
JUSTICE

By BEVERLY PETER
THERE is major confusion and issues with people identifying what belongs
to a company, government or the public and what should be personal property because people are either confused of what is right and true or just turn a blind eye to it.
And again, this all depends on how one identifies, interprets and believes to be true and right because they are entitled to their own individual opinions.
Our characters are then defined in manifestation of our beliefs, thought, our actions, attitude and language towards things, people and events.
Certain things may be right to us but are not right to someone else and what seems to be right to them may not be right to us.
But we must always remember that truth, combined with common sense, does justice.
Honesty can be seen and interpreted differently depending on situations and the way people are built.
As Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika,
in one of his recent judgement last year, said, one is not being honest with himself or herself if he or she is trying to convince himself or herself that he or she did not really do anything wrong.
Sir Gibbs said it was an individual’s habits, motives and thoughts in relation to morality as that related to one’s integrity.
“Character is defined as the moral and mental equalities descriptive to an individual,” he said.
“It is one’s moral built over time and is also described by other or how they consider you.”
Sir Gibbs made those comments at the Waigani National Court last June 15 when handing down the decision on sentence for former National Airport Corporation (NAC) managing director Richard Yopo.
Yopo was charged for misappropriating a motor vehicle belonging to the NAC, was convicted after a trial and sentenced to five years – three years were suspended on several conditions.

Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika. Sir Gibbs, in a recent judgement, said one is not being honest with himself or herself if he or she is trying to convince himself or herself that he or she did not really do anything wrong. – Picture borrowed

Indictment
It was before that from July 2013, Yopo was employed as the NAC
general manager business strategic unit.
As part of his contract, the NAC was to provide a car for him to use for business and personal runs.
On Aug 28, 2013, the NAC raised a cheque for K128,580.39 to Ela Motors to purchase the vehicle (a Toyota five-door LandCruiser) for Yopo to use.
Ela Motors issued the receipt to Rick Hire Car Limited stating the customer’s name on the receipt as Rick Hire Car Ltd.
The vehicle was then registered at Moto Vehicle Insurance Limited under Yopo’s name and the NAC, despite purchasing it, have no records of the purchase.
It was also recorded that Yopo was appointed as the NAC managing director in 2017 and was in that position until 2020.
The said vehicle was with Yopo
from the date of purchase to Jan 13, 2022.
The conduct was reported to the police and police upon investigation found out that the vehicle was registered under Yopo’s name and the purchase receipt was made to Ricks Hire Car as the buyer.
He was then arrest and charged.
Submissions after verdict
Yopo in his defence, said he had never benefited from the vehicle as it was used for its intended purpose – do the NAC’s jobs.
He said he was not aware that the vehicle was registered under his name until a later date and he thought it was because of a verbal agreement he had with Joseph Kintau who was the NAC director at that time.
He added that although the vehicle was registered under his name, it was available for seizure by the NAC any time but due to constant issues with multiple changes with the NAC board and chief executive officer, that was never done.

‘It is sadly not so easy to see it (dishonesty) manifested in ourselves, and when we do, we tend to rationalise our action to justify them and downplay the significance of the wrong we commit. We fool ourselves by doing that. We might fool ourselves and others most of the time but we know, as Christians, that we can never fool God.”
– Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika

He said they just started discussing his contract and return of assets once the changes where settled at that time and he had returned the car to the NAC.
Yopo’s lawyer submitted on his behalf that Yopo was a first time offender, and apologised to the court and NAC for his conduct. He said the vehicle was put to the intended use and further added that Yopo was willing to return it in good condition and was willing to pay any compensation or fine.
The State, on the other hand, submitted for Yopo to serve a prison term saying that the offence occurred over time and the act was a serious breach of trust.
The State said the NAC spent a large amount of money of the vehicle which was never used for its intended purpose.

Decision
Sir Gibbs said several people gave their opinions describing the kind of person Yopo was but they were
entitled to their own opinion and
the court did not share the same views as theirs because it had its own opinion.
He said the court must stick to its own findings.
Sir Gibbs said the honest thing to do in this case was to take the vehicle to the NAC’s premises and arranging a handover which would be the right thing to do.
He said in this case, Yopo was convinced that he did not do anything wrong but in fact, what he did was wrong.
“He (Yopo) realised in 2014 that the vehicle was registered under his name but did nothing to correct the record of ownership and have the car registered back to NAC the true owner,” he said.
“When Yopo was promoted to another office within the NAC, he was supposed to leave the car with the next person appointed to be the manager strategic unit.
“He did nothing and continued to use it because by then it was difficult to return the vehicle as it was registered under his name.
“This defiant act was dishonest and continued for nine years.”
Sir Gibbs added that to him, in respect, the person continued to maintain his innocence in such a case, appears to be person with no conscience.
“A conscience is the voice in your head and that feeling in your heart that tells you if something is wrong or right even if no one is looking.”
Sir Gibbs said instead of returning the vehicle, it was parked at the Hilton car park and that was fishy.
He said Yopo’s defences raised in the trial did not succeed.
He said most Christians did not like dishonesty when it manifested in others.
“It is sadly not so easy to see it manifested in ourselves, and when we do, we tend to rationalise our action to justify them and downplay the significance of the wrong we commit,” he said.
“We fool ourselves by doing that.
“We might fool ourselves and others most of the time but we know, as Christians, that we can never fool God.
“Having said all of that, I take note of the submissions from both parties, the circumstance of the facts, level of education and the level of position, number of years and the organisations he had served, mitigating and aggravating factors.”
Sir Gibbs said he was mindful that Yopo’s assertion that what happened was result of his discussion with Kintau.
“His discussion with Kintau was a verbal conversion and was not part of his contract,” he said.
“It was the employment contract that governs the perks and privileges and not discussion with Kintau which appears to be misconceived and misunderstand.”

The law
The law on such cases is found in Section 383A (1) and (2) of the Criminal Code which state as follows:

  • A person who dishonestly applied to his own use or to the use of another person:
  • Property belonging to another; or,
  • Property belonging to him which is in his possession or control (either solely or conjointly with another person) subject to a trust, direction or condition or on account of any other person:
  • IS guilty of the crime of misappropriation of property. An offender guilty of the crime of misappropriation of property is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years except in any of the following cases when he is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.
  • WHERE the offender is a director of a company and the property dishonestly applied is the company property;
  • WHERE the offender is an employee and the property dishonestly applied in the property of his employer; and,
  • WHERE the property dishonestly applied is of a value of K2,000 or upward.

That section 383A was amended in 2013 by inserting the following subsection:
(1A) Notwithstanding subsection (2), an offender guilty of the crime of misappropriation shall be sentenced –
To imprisonment for a term of 50 years without remission and without parole, if the property misappropriated is of a value of K1 million or upwards, but does not exceed K10 million; and
To life imprisonment if the property misappropriated is of a value K10 million or upwards.”
Sir Gibbs said the court dealt with this case under Section 383A(2)(b) and (d) of the Criminal Code Act and considered the sentence for which the maximum is 10 years.
He then sentenced Yopo to five years in prison, suspended three years of term on the following conditions:

  • YOPO to pay K50,000 to NAC for depriving them of the vehicle.
  • HE was to bring the car to the National Court car park for it to be examined by court.
  • THE car’s keys to be handed to an NAC mechanic to be tested to determine that it was road worthy; and,
  • THE vehicle to be returned to NAC after checks and testing.