Damaru’s charges stayed: What irony, what blatant hypocrisy!

By PNG Echo.

Matthew Damaru
Matthew Damaru

Yesterday, Judge Polume heard an urgent application, ex parte (without the opposing parties) to stay the criminal charges recently levelled against Fraud Squad Officer, Matthew Damaru.

Ostensibly, according to her ruling, this was to enable Damaru to continue with his policing duties.

So what was stopping him, in the first place?

According to the press release of the RPNGC immediately following the arrest:

Mr Andrews [Deputy Police Commissioner] said whilst Mr Damaru is criminally charged for the alleged offences, he remains on active duty as Director NFACD and continues to perform his normal Constitutional Duties.

So what was so urgent?  Why was it held ex parte?  Why did the court entertain such an application?  What could the cause of actions possibly be when Damaru was still in position?

This was not an internal issue, this was an official investigated complaint by one of PNGs most senior judges.

Sir Bernard’s Case

To say that Sir Bernard Sakora “got off on a technicality” on the charges for which he was recently arrested, is to downplay the devious manner in which the arrest was effected.

Sir Bernard Sakora and the Chief Justice share a moment.
Sir Bernard Sakora and the Chief Justice share a moment.

In these circumstances, it is up to the Public Prosecutor to decide whether there is enough evidence to arrest someone.  I suggest that Damaru’s motives for not following the correct procedure may just have been because he was afraid the Public Prosecutor would say no. He was operating on the premise that it was easier to obtain forgiveness than permission.

But what he got was neither – and he should be made to answer for this treachery.

Irony and hypocrisy

Just in case you’ve missed the ironic and hypocritical part – Damaru has decided not to ‘submit’ to the court (as he and others of his ilk want the Prime Minister to do) but has decided to try to use the system to stymie the process.

Peter+O'NeillThat’s his legal right – but it’s also the Prime Minister’s.

However if I’d been screaming the line of “step down and submit to the process” as loud as Damaru has, I would now be very embarrassed at my own actions.

No sense, no feeling?

What’s more, people are constantly quoting how no one is above the law – well public perception is that Damaru now is.

On a popular, anti-government Facebook site one commenter wrote:

Today, as we write or speak, there is one man immune to the law and that is Damaru. Nothing will be done to him.

This was said, not in lament, but in triumph. The courts have a lot to answer for.

Share Button

6 thoughts on “Damaru’s charges stayed: What irony, what blatant hypocrisy!

  1. Hi Susan, I like your article on the Damaru case, how about we send it to the mainstream media to the national or post courier?

  2. As do various parliaments, Doctor- factors which are influencing the populace – the “periphery” that I have been talking about to react in an anti-social way against the power-grabbing “centre” – a pre-cursor to every civil war that I’ve read about.

  3. Polume is just one of many stupid bodies Injia is lining the judiciary with – so that he will control the decision making process and the judges who make the ‘decisions’. Damaru most likely sought permission from Injia before he could arrest Sakora – why? Sakora cannot be controlled. Injia has now put all cases against the O’Neill government on the ‘fast lane’. You don’t have to be rocket scientist to work out why. Students’ activism maybe wanning but Injia will do O’Neill in. The Damarus and Koims and others like them are just pawns on the chess board. Remember what Namah did to Injia at O’Neill’s acquiescence in 2012?

  4. I agree with Lypit. Polume’s decision was yet another anti-O’Neill decision. Injia is the puppeteer – pulling the strings – he is unelected, not transparent, accountable to no-one and our country is stuck with him for a couple more years.

  5. Plus, let’s not forget that Injia stopped an inquiry into his own conduct and that he breached the Supreme Court Act when delivering judgment against O’Neill after two judges left the bench in a case between O;Neill and Somare. How can Injia ever talk about the rule of law when he places himself above the law?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *