Department’s decision to suspend board members wrong

THE Porgera local-level government Special Purposes Authority (PDA) was established in Porgera as a direct result of the development of the Porgera gold mine.
It was established to work alongside and in partnership with Porgera and Paiela/Hewa LLGs to implement key Government development policies.
The primary purpose of the Authority is to manage and expend funds derived from the Porgera gold mine for various projects identified by PDA under the various Agreements including the Porgera Mining Memorandum of Agreement.
The funds are predominantly Infrastructure Development Grants and are used to fund impact projects such as schools, health centres, roads, and bridges. The idea is to take the responsibility away from the Enga government and place it in the hands of PDA where there will be more landowner participation in the management and control of funds.
Pursuant to Section 42 of the Local-level Governments Administration Act, 1997 the then Head of State, Sir Silas Atopare, issued a proclamation for the legal framework of PDA.
The Constitution of the Porgera LLG Special Purpose Authority, among other things, established the Management Committee.
The committee comprises of nine members. Out of this, four are landowner representatives of Porgera Landowners Association, two are representatives of Porgera and Paiela/Hewa LLGs, one from the Department of National Planning and Monitoring, one from Barrick Porgera Joint Venture and the last is the District Administrator of Porgera District. The committee elects the chairman.
In a nutshell, the laws that govern PDA are LLGA Act, PDA Constitution, the proclamation and minor application of Organic Law on Provincial and Local Level Government (Organic Law).
These enabling laws do not provide for the head of the Department of Provincial and Local-level Government Affairs to intervene and suspend the members of PDA Board when he/she sees that there are divisions existing between the board and PDA staff.
The appropriate suspending authorities for the members of the PDA Board are their respective appointing authorities which they represent as stated above.
The PDA, as an authority, can only be suspended by the Head of State acting upon advice from the National Executive Council after it being recommended to do so by the recommendations presented to it by the Minister for Inter-Government Relations.
There is neither provision in the Organic Law nor the LLGA Act which empowers the departmental head to suspend members of PDA board of management and appoint caretakers at his discretion.
Even the PDA Constitution and the proclamation do not provide for any action(s) along that line.
I, therefore, of the firm view that the Acting Secretary was acting beyond his powers, which clearly shows that his decision to suspend the members of PDA board is ultra vires and was in excess of jurisdiction.
There is no legal basis and/or foundation to empower him to suspend the members of the PDA board and appoint caretakers.
In the best interest of stability and consistency in governance and management of PDA at this very critical times, the Acting Secretary can rescind his legally flawed decision to suspend the PDA board and allow the interim PDA board continue to perform their duties to maintain the status quo of PDA pending determination of outstanding issues affecting the appointing authorities of the members of PDA board.

Yalo Hexton Kapili
Lagaip-Porgera, Enga