BLANKET FORGIVENESS OFFENSIVE: WALE

By Editor's Desk

Deputy Opposition Leader, Mathew Wale says granting of blanket forgiveness to perpetrators in the ethnic conflict will be meaningless and also highly disrespectful and offensive to the victims.

Mr Wale was responding to the views expressed in the Letters to the Editor column in the Solomon Star on statements he made at a recent media forum regarding the NCRA Government’s proposed Forgiveness Bill.

He said his statement that the government’s announced policy to pass a forgiveness bill is misguided was made on the following bases:

• Solomon Islanders appreciate the achievement of the cessation of active hostilities under the Townsville Peace Agreement (TPA). Unfortunately, that was the only achievement of the TPA. Militants continued to hold onto weapons and were terrorizing ordinary Solomon Islanders until RAMSI landed. The TPA was breached by all stakeholders, including the former militia groups.

• The government then proceeded to enact amnesty legislation which specifically excluded human rights violations, murder, rape (serious offences) from eligibility for amnesty. And for an offender to receive amnesty he/she still needs to plead for it – in other words, it too is conditional on disclosure of truth. This seemed to have been understood by the lead negotiators of the TPA. So it is consistent with the spirit of the TPA.

• the Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was enacted to focus on the plight of victims of the conflict who have for the most part been neglected throughout the peace process because those who had the guns and power had the ascendancy then and were almost exclusively the focus of the peace process.

• The TRC Act is clear that any and all evidence presented by any witness cannot be admitted in any criminal proceedings against such a person. Therefore, it is in the interest of all perpetrators/offenders to come clean and tell all. If they give full and truthful disclosure then none of that evidence will ever be used against them. This, in effect, is the forgiveness that both the state and society will grant to offenders. It is forgiveness conditioned on full and truthful disclosures.

• It is important to understand that forgiveness by its very meaning is specific to a person or group of identified persons for specific wrongs. It is therefore essential that the offences and the identity of the persons seeking forgiveness are disclosed. There is no such thing as “blanket” forgiveness. If there is, it cannot be called forgiveness. The one forgiving must know who to forgive and for what wrongs. There is something dehumanizing about “blanket” forgiveness, as it assumes no human beings were involved. On the other hand, the one requiring forgiveness ought to seek and obtain it from specifically identified persons. This is simply because crimes/offences were committed by identified persons against specific persons.

• The role of the State, of course, in perpetrating any offences must also be addressed. And even in this, specific persons would have given decisions, directions, and commands that resulted in offences committed in the name of the State against specific persons. The State, per se, therefore cannot grant “blanket” forgiveness for all offences. If the State were to grant such “blanket” forgiveness”, it would be meaningless and it would be highly disrespectful and offensive to victims. Further, it would only serve to postpone further conflict as victims and their families will never find healing and closure from any “blanket” forgiveness. Try putting ourselves in the victims’ shoes, who desperately want healing and closure.

The Deputy Opposition Leader said further, the announcement is likely to have the adverse effect of discouraging some people who would otherwise likely appear before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as they will now prefer to wait for just such “blanket” forgiveness.

He said these are very foundational issues for the country and thus it must resist the temptation to pick easy options that may seem right for a few but only lead to more problems later on.

WALE CLARIFIES EXEMPTION TO BEMOBILE

Deputy Opposition Leader, Mathew Wale

By Editor's Desk

Deputy Opposition Leader, Mathew Wale has refuted the implication by the Finance and Treasury Minister, Mr Gordon Darcy Lilo that the granting of duty exemptions to BeMobile when the Member of Parliament for Aoke/Langalanga was Acting Minister for Finance under the previous CNURA Government was a personal decision.

Mr Wale pointed out that the decision was reached in a meeting between the then Prime Minister, then Deputy Prime Minister, then Minister for Finance, then Minister for Planning, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Finance and a Senior Adviser from the Economic Reform Unit in the Ministry of Finance.

He said indeed the new telecommunications company’s application was initially rejected by the Exemption Committee, however after much careful consideration, the senior Ministers and Officials in that meeting concluded with the resolution that the Finance Minister should proceed to approve the exemptions.

“The senior Ministers considered the overall impact of the investment on the country and economy and decided that there was an overwhelmingly strong case for government to support it by way of duty exemptions. Our Telekom was also informed of this decision, as required by the Act.

“Their decision was made in light of the following reasons:
• That the GST would still be payable at the time SBD11-million was payable
• BeMobile would forfeit the first installment of its performance bond.
• BeMobile’s launch programme was being held back by a stockpile of equipment at the wharf and the government wanted to ensure the company can launch as soon as possible and the exemption would assist in that direction
• The BeMobile investment is a $200-million investment that needed government support. In its bid document, the company stated it would not need duty exemptions. However, its application demonstrated it needed some government support.
• The entrance by BeMobile into the telecommunications market has had substantial impact on the cost of telecommunications. This is a substantial positive impact on the economy.
• The BeMobile investment has the potential to touch the lives of many ordinary Solomon Islanders by extending its network of mobile telephone services right to rural villages across the country, adding this is now happening,” Mr Wale said.

The Deputy Opposition Leader said soon after the decision was taken, the then Finance Minister went for medical examination in Australia and the MP for Aoke/Langalanga then became Acting Minister for Finance and implemented it.

Lilo Refutes Exemption Approvals

Minister for Finance and Treasury, Mr. Gordon Darcy Lilo. (Pic: Solomon Times Online)

By Andrew Fanasia Jr.

Minister for Finance and Treasury, Mr. Gordon Darcy Lilo refutes the information around the granting of discretionary exemptions previously published in one of the Solomon Star newspaper last week.

Mr. Lilo stated that in the month of September 2010 he has granted only 12 discretionary exemptions totaling a value of approximately $3 million.

“The statement which published in the local newspaper last week stated that the minister had issued exemption to a total of 162 exemption is totally incorrect,” Mr. Lilo said in a press conference yesterday.

The report in the media also stated that the figure (162) included statutory exemptions

Mr. Lilo however stressed that statutory exemptions that exist in the law and Minister has no discretion over these.

Mr. Lilo stressed that of this $3 million exemption, $2.6m was granted through customs duty and $0.4m was granted through Goods Tax while half of this exemptions approved were for churches, schools or rural community based initiatives.

“The total of 12 exemptions which was granted by the minister has been considered through exemption committee which was established under the amendment Customs and Excise Act 2002,” Mr. Lilo said.

Mr. Lilo question where did the media obtained the figure 162, but expressed concern of the level of reporting which may have tarnish the image of our government and mislead the public.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lilo stressed that while he does have discretionary power as the Minister of Finance and Treasury to exempt goods tax and import duty, he follows the strict administrative process that was established in 2006 to assist Ministers exercise this power in a fair and consistent manner.

Mr. Lilo further explained that the administrative process ensures that all applications for exemption are considered by Exemption Committees that sit within the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise Divisions of the Ministry.

“Applications are considered against a set of criteria set out in Exemption Guidelines,” Mr. Lilo said.

He added that the criteria include the benefit to the Country-employment/infrastructure/rural development, applicants’ previous tax compliance, type and value of investment and any previous government assistance.

“The committee then forwards their recommendations to the Minister for approval,” Mr. Lilo further explained,

Mr. Lilo stressed that the process for granting exemption is not an exclusive responsibility of the Minister, “the exemption application process is vigorous and considerable effort is made by the committee to ensure that validity and genuineness of the applicants.”

“Where there is any suggestion that an applicant is misrepresenting the truth or using false names the application would be declined.”

Mr. Lilo said according to the legal advice from the Attorney General Chamber, it has been confirmed that under the Customs Act in view of the amendment that has been made to the Customs Act in 2002, “the Minister has no power to vary or even to receive appeal in the case of any recommendation or decisions that comes out from the exemption committee.”

“If the Exemption Committee reject or decline that particular application, that’s the end of the matter,” Mr. Lilo said.

“That is the new position of the law we have obtained from the AG’s Chamber.”

Mr. Lilo however stated that “the value and number of discretionary exemptions have reduced by 75% over the last 3 years.”

He said, this reduction is an encouraging measure of achievement on the part of the exemption application and screening process.

Cabinet to Consider Previous Exemption Cases.

“I am basically enforcing what the law says and that is the process in which they are granted that exemption is wrong in law,”(Pic: Supplied)

By Andrew Fanasia Jr.

Minister for Finance and Treasury affirmed to the media that he will submit a paper to the cabinet to make a thorough consideration on the case of exemptions that have been granted by previous Finance Ministers which include other recent cases to be revoked.

Finance Minister Mr. Gordon Darcy Lilo revealed this yesterday in the light of the new position of the law they have obtained from the Attorney General’s Chamber.

Mr. Lilo stressed that these cases will subjected of certain review and then, could eventually lead to relocation of some of those exemptions.

“This was done according to the recent legal explanation which was given by the AG’s Chamber,” Mr. Lilo said.

Compared to other exemption which was granted in the past, he added, for instance in June this year, a total value of $8million has been granted out by the previous government.


He further stated that out of the $8million, $6.5 million alone was granted to Bemobile Company which has recently launched their mobile network in the country.

Mr. Lilo stated that the $6.5 million exemption was granted to Bemobile Company by the CNURA government under the hands then the acting Minister of Finance now the Member of Parliament for Aoke/Langalanga constituency.

Express understand that when Bemobile applied to bid for a second license provider of mobile services, they have outclassed Digicel Company on the basis that they did not apply for exemption which was stated in their (Bemobile) proposal and secondly they will pay up the bond.

Mr. Lilo however said that four months after the approval was granted Bemobile applied for exemption which was declined by the former Ministers of Finance on the 30th of April, “but then approved by the acting Minister of Finance in June, “they are blackmailing the system.”

Initially, Mr. Lilo said, the exemption was rejected by the committee but the Acting Minister for Finance acting contrary to all the advices and granted the exemption of $SBD6.5m to Bemobile in June. .

Mr. Lilo said that will also be the subject of revocation while showing the order paper which was signed by the acting Minister for Finance and Treasury to the media yesterday.

When asked what will happen to Bemobile if the Minister revokes the exemption, Mr. Lilo stressed that it is the law that says the company did not entitled to it.

“I am basically enforcing what the law says and that is the process in which they are granted that exemption is wrong in law,” Mr. Lilo affirmed.

Mr. Lilo told the media that this is an example of the case they are looking at, so that they can regularize why there is an inconsistency in decisions and also ensure that there is a level playing field applied to all operators in the communication industries and other investors.

Police Probe Alleged Corruption in COI

Editor's Desk

A Police investigation into allegations of fraud and misuse of public funds is currently underway.

Police sources say the corruption and fraud squad is leading the probe.

Sources say a case file has been opened and officers are now talking to those alleged to have been directly involved.

This came as Government announced last week it has suspended the Commission of Inquiry (COI) into Guadalcanal Land Dealings.

The decision was taken after cabinet met to discuss the issue.

The Government said the suspension will allow a "taskforce to look into the allegations raised by Counsel assisting the inquiry, Ruth Townsend."

Meanwhile, Solomon Star reports Ms Townsend, who brought to light the allege corruption network, has welcomed the steps taken.

She was quoted as also warning certain commission staff against providing false information to the public about her.

Ms Townsend denied claims made in a letter to the editor in the Island Sun newspaper on Tuesday about her salary and other claims.

She said the figures quoted as her salary "were excessive."

Ms Townsend said she is prepared to reveal the salaries of these people so that the public could see how much they are getting from the COI.