THERE was a notice in The National’s page 39 on April 21, issued by the Lands and Physical Planning Minister John Rosso under section 122 of the Land Act 1996.
The notice was addressed to FTM Holdings Ltd to show cause on why the State lease should not be forfeited as it had failed to comply with the conditions of the agreement.
But while this notice was published in the media, a private company implicated in the recent National Housing Corporation’s evictions in Lae fenced the property’s perimeters.
The property is now subject to being forfeited.
Why is this development allowed?
As per the notice, the property is owned by FTM Holdings Ltd so how can another company be allowed by the Morobe physical planning board to fence the land?
People in Lae know that this property was a single-quarters government hostel occupied by young male public servants.
It is quite surprising as to how this government-owned property is under FTM Holdings Ltd.
How did FTM Holdings Ltd obtain a lease over the property in the first place?
Was the property properly advertised in the government gazette as available for leasing?
Under what land board meeting was this property deliberated upon for the grant to have been made to FTM Holdings Ltd?
Did FTM Holdings Ltd buy it from someone else?
Something fishy is going on with this land.
What is the motive behind this?
For those who are unfamiliar with the nature of forfeitures, after the expiry of one month given to show cause, if the response is insufficient to the minister’s satisfaction, the forfeiture process is commenced by gazetting the forfeiture in the government gazette.
After the above gazettal, the land then goes back to the State and becomes unallocated.
The ongoing fishy deal raises concerns of corruption and should be looked into.