Land titles

Letters

I AM not up to date with the latest Land Titles Commission decision over Wafi-Golpu land ownership boundary issue.
I would like to point out the following comments for general information and consumption.
It is known that there are two previous land court cases involving customary land ownership disputes where two current special mining leases (SML) areas are located.
These are the cases of Mangese land, which was awarded 100 per cent to the Babuaf people.
The other is the 50:50 per cent ownership split, awarded to the Yanta and Hengabu people, with reservation that the Babuaf’s rights within this land were not diminished.
It must be pointed out here that the land courts presiding over these two cases did not, as a matter of course, physically walked, inspected and demarcated land boundaries over these two land dispute cases.
By law, this is a mandatory requirement which must be undertaken, by the land court.
Otherwise, the decisions made in such situations would normally be declared null-and-void.
For those not familiar with land disputes within the immediate project area and surroundings villages, the Mangese land, and as the Babuaf people will agree, is unfortunately the same parcel of land, in which the 50:50 land case is or was decided upon.
This is a judicial error that was created by the land court not demarcating the land boundaries, during early stages of hearing the land disputes, firstly between the Babuaf people and the Hengabu people over Mangese land, and secondly between the Yanta and the Hengabu people over the 50:50 land.
It is worth noting here as well, that one land group known as the Piu Incorporated Land Group, had at one stage, also made claims of ownership over the Wafi-Golpu land through a dubious special agricultural and business lease (SABL) issued by corrupt officials from Department of Lands and Physical Planning.
The Piu Incorporated Land Group claim, however, ended in court where their claims of ownership over the land was dismissed in its entirety.
They have persistently continued to make their claims.
The main issue of concern at this point in time is the requirements for the all-important land boundaries here to be physically walked, identified and demarcated.
This must be done in company of leaders of the clans or groups identified by the decision of the court or the Land Titles Commission hearings.
Perhaps Office of the Attorney-General and/or Land Titles Commission can inform us if the land boundaries issue had been determined during its number of hearings conducted so far over Wafi-Golpu land.
It is uncertain whether the three groups, that is the Yanta, Hengabu and the Babuaf, have agreed amongst themselves, on their percentage breakup of their share of benefits from the project or not.
It is in the interest of all three groups, despite the land boundaries demarcation issues, if at all yet to be decided, to agree to share any benefits equitably between themselves.
This is why the important aspect of land boundaries demarcation is required to be made known and addressed before the project commencement.
Otherwise, this issue is potentially a sticking point which could derail smooth progress of the upcoming development forum.

Lorenitz Gaius
Ketskets village