Still not satisfied with explanation

AS a former senior fraud squad police officer, I read with interest the explanation by acting Public Pro­secutor Camillus Sambua to withdraw 49 charges filed by businessman Peter Yama against Australian John Maddison for misappropriating K1.3 million.
I wrote to The National querying that de­ci­sion, which Sambua replied.
However, I am still not satisfied.
His response contradic­ted the reasons he gave in court for withdrawing the matter.
In court, he never said it was a civil matter; he said the files could not be located and he had to withdraw the matter.
I pity the police investigators who spent three years working on this case.
Many questions re­main­ed unanswered:
* Why the sudden in­terest in the Yama vs Maddison case if it was a civil matter?
* If the matter was committed for trial by a lower court, where is the logic that there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute?
* Sambua was in office for only a few weeks. Did it take him three weeks to peruse the Yama-Maddison file containing all 49 charges while it took police three years?
* Did Sambua discuss with police his intentions to withdraw the charges?
He had made a mockery of police work and the justice system.
The police have stated they were unhappy they were not consulted prior to withdrawing the case (The National, May 6).
The Ombudsman Commission might be dragged into the matter.
That is good news.

Anti-fraud
Port Moresby