Manning’s arrest refused

The National Main Stories

AN attempt to get a warrant to arrest police commissioner David Manning had been refused by a Committal Court in Waigani on March 15, 2024.
The application was made by a Detective Senior Sergeant Tinol Pakiapon over an allegation against Manning in West New Britain’s Talasea on June 9, 2000.
Magistrate Billy Pidu, in Waigani, told Pakiapon that the application was incomplete, and asked him to re-apply after satisfying the verifying affidavit requirement.
“This application requesting for a warrant to arrest the police commissioner must be supported by a verifying affidavit from the senior Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary leadership level,” Magistrate Pidu said. The application, by way of a notice of motion filed by Pakiapon, dated March 12, was supported by his affidavit sworn on the same date, with annexures comprising the crime report dated Jan 26, 2024 and a 10-page statement by the complainant dated Jan 2, 2024 and an affidavit sworn in support on May 12, 2020.
Magistrate Pidu refused the application because it was not supported by a verifying affidavit.
He said such affidavit should provide ample explanation and evidence in relation to the details surrounding the complainant’s human rights case in the National Court in 2020, which was alleged to have been dismissed, and that the application would not be an abuse of process. “It is imperative that a verifying affidavit be part of the application, given the following circumstances;

  • A warrant of arrest is sought to arrest the incumbent police commissioner which makes it a very serious matter;
  • The application for a warrant appears to be based on a crime report filed at the Boroko Police Station on Jan 26, 2024 over an (alleged) incident that occurred on June 9, 2000 at Ganiboku village of Talasia in the West New Britain;
  • The crime report appears to be based on a signed statement (Form 12 A) dated Jan 2, 2024;
  • There is another set of documents attached, in which the (alleged) victim appears to have recounted that (alleged) incident on June 9, 2000. Those other documents are an affidavit dated May 12, 2020 and its annexures. It seems those documents were created for the purpose of a National Court proceedings (OS HR) in 2020, which according to the victim, was dismissed for want of prosecution; and,
  • The contents of the (alleged)victim’s statement that caused the 2024 crime report and the 2020 National Court case affidavit are similar. However, the (alleged) victim’s signature on the 2024 crime report and the signature on the National Court case affidavit are different. The signature anomaly immediately raises a red flag.”