Singirok's fall from grace

By Sam Vulum

Former army commander General Jerry Singirok, the people’s hero of the 1996 Sandline crisis in Papua New Guinea, shot himself on the back by doing what he did. He offered his own crucifixion by blowing the whistle on the then Government’s secret plan with British mercenary company, Sandline International, to flush out Bougainville secessionist rebels in a massive military backed operation.

At least that’s what it all appears to look today, almost five years later for the disgraced commander at the conclusion of a leadership tribunal hearing into bribery claims against him with international arms dealer Sydney Franklin and other questionable activities as required under the Leadership Code.

Although he may have escaped sedition charges which were brought against him for speaking out against the Government in separate case earlier, he was unlucky in the tribunal case.

The verdict of the trial was guilty for the bribery charge. The penalty was dismissal from office as army chief and barred from holding any public office for three years.

Mr Singirok, who was initially removed as commander immediately after going public about the mercenaries, was re-instated by former Prime Minister Bill Skate following the national elections. Mr Skate returned the job to Mr Singirok although the bribery allegations

had already been public knowledge.

However, he was again stood down by the current Government of Sir Mekere Morauta to appear before the leadership tribunal.

The grueling public scrutiny that he had to live with since the crisis and the recent punishment, could have been less severe, had .he done the right thing. He could have kept quiet and tagged along with the military operation or could have disclosed the gifts to the Ombudsman Commission before going public. He had been reduced, especially by the media, from a popular hero to nothing more humiliating than have been made to look like a convicted criminal. In one instance, he complained to the tribunal that he had been put on “trial by the media” without having been properly informed of his charges. He said there was a lot of media coverage about the crisis

but when the situation change, he was no longer seen as a savior of democracy and the Constitution and the people of PNG or Bougainville.

“The focus of the whole Sandline (issue) changed from one of saving people to one that is of a military leaderalleged to have got bribes and is a corrupt leader,” he said. “So I and my family and my friends are stuck with the fact that here you are Jerry Singirok, forget what good things you have done for this country.”

He also argued vehemently that the money was offered as gifts and not to win favor.

However, the fact that being a public office holder, he was not allowed to accept the offer from Franklin.

Tribunal chairman Judge Moses Jalina, rightly highlighted this fact when making the guilty findings. He said: “When a high ranking public official such as the PNGDF commander, who is required by law to disclose any gifts or favors, decides to keep such gifts or favors a secret and then proceeds to use such gifts or favors for personal and private purposes, what other conclusion is an ordinary person to reach other than one amounting to misconduct.”

The general public, which has been battered with the endemic corruption problem over the years, just cannot take it anymore.

How hard Singirok argues, as far as the public is concerned, he is guilty of an offense. His name is now in the bad books of many, even once loyal supporters.

The tribunal however found the general not guilty on allegations that he had influenced the Defence Force Supply and Tenders Board to buy more than K 1.5 million worth of military hardware from Unicom International.

Judge Jalina also dismissed submissions by the prosecution that leaders should be made to apologise for their wrongs, especially when General Singirok had Jied under oath during the Andrew Commission of Inquiry into the Sandline Affair, regarding gifts and benefits he received from J&S Franklin.

“If there is no law to compel a leader who is subject to the Leadership Code to publicly apologise for or acknowledge his misdeeds, then it is not the function of this tribunal to make such laws,” Judge Jalina said. ■