Thank you Paul Barker,
The leaders involved in the previous attack on the powers of the Ombudsman are now in the present Government. There is no doubt that the general educated public want a strong Ombudsman. Our leaders apparently do not represent the attitude of the electorate in this sensitive issue. The whittling away at the powers of the Ombudsman is a part of the nature of corruption.
Tony Flynn

Sony Pacus, I support you that the Ombudsman Commission (OC) does not carry out its duties efficiently and fairly like any other public institution in PNG, however I am against the move to amend the Constitution.

If there is ineffectiveness by OC then the government should be looking at rectifying the problem and not changing the Constitution.

Hire qualified and effective workers, increase incentives for OC employees, speak well of their efforts and, most importantly, cooperate with them during their investigations so that they can achieve substantial findings and not be above them, speaking of how stupid they are.

If Sir Michael Somare says the OC is stupid then he is also as stupid as they are, because he is structurally under their watchful eyes and directives.

All am saying is that the Constitution is as good as before. Leave it alone but change the people or their attitude within the OC. Thanks.

Moses Maladina has never done any thing for Esa'ala open. What is he intending to do for PNG? He's a nutshell that makes a lot of gong.

The fact that corruption is on the increase despite the existence and operation of the Ombudsman Commission (OC) gives rise to many questions about the effectiveness of the OC. Is the OC truly an effective institution, has the OC reduced corruption. Obviously the answer is no.

The OC’s role has been two fold, first to protect against mal-administration and second to monitor the leadership code.

For the first part the 'Finance Inquiry' clearly proved that massive corruption exists in the public service and it continues to increase. We hear that corrupt practices in other areas of Government have not been addressed by the OC e.g. the health department and the issue of the purchase and supply of medicine. The OC has therefore failed in its duty to protect against mal-administration since its inception on Independence.

We however hear that the OC is focusing more on the leadership Code matters in recent times. This is well and good but have they succeeded in reducing corruption by Leaders. Again the answer is no.

Perhaps it is time to review the OC and its operation.

We hear for example that Parliament has not been sitting its required time period, what has the OC done? We hear that there are bank accounts held by corrupt government officials offshore e.g. in Singapore, what has the OC done? Why has the OC not referred those implicated in the Moti saga to the Public Prosecutor?

Under the present law, without the Maladina Amendments, I can assure you that nothing...nothing! will ever happen..and perhaps in 5 or 6 years if we are lucky the OC might comeback with a response. But by then it will be too late! This is in fact the current practice of the OC.

With the Maladina Amendments the OC has no choice but to act within 30 days apon receiving a complaint. Under the Maladina Amendment the OC has the powers to issue directives.. powers which they do NOT presently have.

Those who wish to make a comment read the Amendments carefully first before commenting. My observation is that people like Peter Aitsi and Noel Anjou have not properly read the Amendments and do not entirely understand the true nature of its impact on the OC.

In PNG the Community Coalition Against Corruption, an interest based coalition comprised of organisations and individuals from all sectors in society with support from Transparency International PNG, is taking the lead to push for the proposed amendment to be opposed.

At the moment we are circulating nationwide petitions to be signed by concerned Papua New Guineans opposing the amendment. We have a meeting planned with Mr Maladina but a date is yet to be set. Through this meeting we want to get his views of the amendment and find out why he wants that amendment to be done.

I see no substance in the comment posted by Richard Pamboa given our current activities.

OC not keen on making changes
_____________________________

BY JONATHAN TANNOS, POST-COURIER

The Ombudsman Commission says it has only sparingly used Section 27(4) of the Constitution to prevent misuse of public money by leaders.

And on those occasions, it had saved millions of kina for the country.

“To amend it in any shape or form is akin to inviting corruption to flourish,” Chief Ombudsman Chronox Manek has warned.

Mr Manek was responding to moves by Parliament to amend the section through Esa’ala MP Moses Maladina.

Mr Manek said the commission “does not see the need for change.”

“The commission invokes the use of Section 27(4) very sparingly and only in very exceptional circumstances where there is prima facie evidence to demonstrate possible misuse of public funds,” Mr Manek said.

“This is intended to protect the integrity of leaders from possible conflict of interest or possible breach of the Leadership Code while matters are under investigation.”

He added that the section was not a hindrance to economic, social, cultural or infrastructure development of PNG “if the leaders and relevant bureaucrats were to follow established procedures for the disbursement of public funds.”

Mr Manek said Mr Maladina had first submitted the first proposed Bill last year but withdrew it due to procedural irregularities.

He said the Ombudsman had on two occasions formally sought consultation with Mr Maladina before debate on the amendments but to no avail, adding the invitations were still pending.

“The Ombudsman Commission is concerned that many of the proposals will hamper its ability to enforce the Leadership Code and making it harder to hold leaders accountable for their misconduct,” Mr Manek said.

He said that the change would make the work of the commission more difficult and created preferential treatment of leaders in relation to criminal offences.

He said it also presented inappropriate shifting of responsibilities of management of the public service from relevant ministers to the commission and confused its roles and that of the Leadership Code.