EVERYONE … Government Ministers, Members of Parliament, businessmen, companies, foreigners and ordinary citizens – whether a Malaitan or any Solomon Islander for that matter – will lose their title to the land they had bought on the outskirts of east Honiara, a High Court ruling has revealed.

All the land between the Lunga River through to GPPOL would be affected, according to the ruling in the case between Singwong v Commissioner of Lands, Civil Case No. 326 of 2021. 

Puisine Judge Lawry handed down the decision on 27 April 2023.

The ramifications of the ruling will be massive and is certain to hit home like a tsunami when everyone wakes up. 

Put it simply, the result will be devastating for everyone – everyone who owns land in the area.

“At this stage, it is no longer the question of if. It is the question of whether GNUT has the political will to instruct the Commissioner of Lands to stop as a matter of policy to save the day,” sources familiar with the implications of the case, told Solomon Star,

The High Court ruling is based on the Singwong v Commissioner of Lands case, which has also exposed the false belief that the Commissioner of Lands possesses the power of forfeiture. 

The Commissioner of Lands does not (not) have the power of forfeiture … the Land Board does, according to court papers.

This is the result of amendments to the Land and Titles Act of 2014, as amended, according to the High Court ruling. This Ruling was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal and it now returns to the High Court for a full hearing.

The ruling in the Singwong v Commissioner of Lands is based on the purchase of piece of land, which was originally Lever’s in 1978. The land was sub-divided from the original FTE 192-004-004 and 192-004-0045. These were Lever’s land under a Grant to Levers in 1986.

It gets worse for the Commissioner of Lands.

“… if the Commissioner of Lands now wish to rely upon this grant, as the official legal reason to forfeit the land, this would mean everyone who owns land in this area, that is, from Lungga River to GPPOL will be caught,” the sources said.

On the other hand, if the High Court accepts and gives Judgment in favour of the Commissioner of Lands, then this would mean anyone, whether you a Foreigner or a Solomon Islander, whether you a Malaitan or from West or Rennel, all will be affected, as the Law is Blind and is equal to all.  

“I cannot imagine the social consequences that will follow as families, Government Ministers, individuals and corporate entities, among others, are abruptly uprooted from their dwellings.” 

This means thousands of families and businesses who now own land which was originally Levers land, would be affected. That area stretches from Lungga River through to GPPOL.

The Solomon Star has sighted a copy of this Grant of FTEs 192-004-0044 and 192-004-0045 and it covers all the land from Henderson Airport, North to the Sea, from Lunga River to Alligator Creek.

Members of Parliament who own properties in this area, including former Prime Ministers, Hon Manasseh Sogavare, Hon Rick Hou, Hon Chacha Bule and others, for example would be affected.

Shouldn’t they be issued a Notice of Forfeiture? Why only against Wong. The Commissioner will say no, it only applies to these people, but isn’t the law equal for all.

How will this affect Foreign Investors – those who have already invested in the area and potential investors? 

As the custodian of government land, the Commissioner falsely believes he has the power to issue Notices of Forfeiture. 

The Commissioner of Lands does not have the power of forfeiture … the Land Board does, the court heard, it was revealed.

The case is between Andrew Chee Singwong (claimant) and the Commissioner of Lands as First defendant, Registrar of Titles as Second and the Attorney General, representing the Land Board, as the Third defendant.

Mr. Singwong was represented by Mr. J Sullivan QC, while Mr. N Ofanakwai represented the First, Second and Third Defendant. 

And, according to insiders, if the High Court does agree and uphold the argument by the Commissioner of Lands, the fallout from the ruling has the potential force of a nuclear bomb in terms of policy and costs for the Government of National Unity and Transformation (GNUT). The consequences will be massive.

The country’s fragile peace and law and order is certain to be threatened as land buyers face eviction. What guarantee does anyone have that this would happen?

The problem with this is that the Commissioner of Lands or Land Board may serve Notice of Forfeiture to one group today. 

Tomorrow another Commissioner decides to serve Notice of Forfeiture to another group. Where is the Guarantee this will not happen to you?

No doubt, among the questions being asked is, will GNUT, as a policy, going to evict everyone from the Lungga River through to GPPOL, including the Henderson international Airport? 

It appears the problem being experienced now stems from the time the Commodities Export and Marketing Authority (CEMA) took over the land and formed or incorporated the Russell Island Plantation Estates Ltd, RIPEL for short.

Because CEMA had no money, the then Government of the day authorised CEMA, that it may subdivide the land. Was this done with the Consent of the Commissioner of Lands?

Presuming that consent was obtained, CEMA then started subdividing in 1996 to sell in order to pay off the purchase of Unilever shares – the parent company of Lever Solomons Ltd (LSL).

The question is, if the CoL gave the consent that CEMA may subdivide the land to sell, how can the same commissioner now turn around and grab that very same land back via Notice of Forfeiture.

This could be Civil War. 

“Counsel [for the defendant] has referred to the minutes of the Land Board made on 12 December 2017. The minutes show that the Land Board delegated the power of forfeiture to the Commissioner on a six months trial. 

“Even if the Land Board had power to delegate the power of forfeiture, which it does not, the minute limited the delegation to the period between 12 December 2017 and 12 June 2018, that being six months after the date of the decision.

“… the power of forfeiture is vested in the Land Board. That power cannot be delegated to the Commissioner,” the Court heard.

“After the LTA Amendment Act the right to forfeit was changed from the Commissioner to the Land Board. With the exception of an amendment to the proviso in subsection (3) (which is not relevant to these proceedings) subsection (2) and (3) remain unchanged. 

“It is the Land Board that exercises the right of forfeiture and the function of the Commissioner to carry out the decision,” it said.

Many questions remain unanswered.

For example, will future Government and future Commissioner of Lands (CoL) elect to serve these very same Notices of Forfeiture to say, as an example a Malaitan – citing this new court precedence if the Commissioner of Lands, wins? 

What Guarantee is there, they won’t?

By Alfred Sasako

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Response by Commissioner of Lands

In response Commissioner of Lands Alan McNeil had hit back describing report as false claims by Mr Sasako.

The Commissioner of Lands strongly refuted statements made in an article written by Alfred Sasako for the Solomon Star. 

Commissioner McNeil said, there are so many false statements in this article, it is difficult to know where to start, but he has provided a summary of the main points:

1. Mr Sasako claims the Commissioner of Lands does not have the power to forfeit Fixed Term Estates, and only the Land Board does.

Commissioner McNeil’s response: “While it is true that the 2014 amendments to the Land and Titles Act removed that power from the Commissioner and transferred that power to the Land Board, the Land Board does also have the power to delegate its own powers, under section 8C(2) of the Act”. Commissioner McNeil went on to explain: “The Board did delegate those powers to the Commissioner some years ago, and that power still stands to this day. While the High Court in HCSI CC 326 of 2021 did initially rule that the power of forfeiture could not be transferred by the Land Board to the Commissioner, Mr Sasako failed to clarify that the Court of Appeal (CAC 16 of 2023) ruled that there were errors in the High Court judgement, including an error in the ruling relating to forfeiture. 

“The Court of Appeal held that the Land Board does indeed have the power to delegate the power of forfeiture to the Commissioner of Lands, and it was sent back to the High Court to be considered by another judge, and that case is still pending”. 

Commissioner McNeil told the Solomon Star: “It is false and misleading for Mr Sasako to claim the power of forfeiture rests with the Land Board without also mentioning that the Board delegated that power to the Commissioner of Lands, as upheld by the Court of Appeal”.

2. Mr Sasako claims everyone will lose their land title east of Honiara because of the ruling in a single High Court case. 

In response, Commissioner McNeil states: “As mentioned above, the appeal against the High Court judgement has been allowed, therefore effectively there has been no judgement by the High Court yet. It is nonsensical to talk about the implications of a judgement in High Court Civil Case Number 326 of 2021 because that judgement no longer stands. Furthermore, even if there had been a final, unchallenged judgement (which there hasn’t been), the case relates to a single land parcel, not all land parcels east of Honiara. 

Apart from this single land parcel plus a small handful of others plus Fixed Term Estates registered to Levers Solomons Limited, no other Fixed Term Estates east of Honiara are affected by forfeiture. It is totally false and misleading for Mr Sasako to claim that other people who own land in this area, including families, businesses, former Prime Ministers and Members of Parliament would be affected”. Commissioner McNeil said to the Solomon Star: “I am not forfeiting any Fixed Term Estates from any current or former Members of Parliament or local Solomon Islanders, and Mr Sasako should not use scaremongering and false claims in his ongoing biased media campaign against me”. 

3. Mr Sasako claims (by the usual unnamed “insiders”) there will be “a nuclear bomb in terms of policy and costs for the Government of National Unity and Transformation (GNUT)… the consequences will be massive”. Mr Sasako even suggests there could be “civil war” and that the Commissioner plans to “evict everyone” and it will be ethnic tension #2.

In response, Commissioner McNeil states: “I am in no way, shape or form planning to evict everyone, and I am not evicting anyone at all from land east of Honiara, and this is just more lies from Mr Sasako. 

“As mentioned above, the only Fixed Term Estates east of Honiara that are under forfeiture are those registered in the name of Levers Solomons Limited and a small handful of others, which are not held by local Solomon Islanders. 

“In cases where those Fixed Term Estate holders have filed claims in the High Court against the forfeiture action, we respectfully wait for the court process. If the High Court (or Court of Appeal if there is an appeal) ultimately rules in favour of the forfeiture action, there is no cost to government. If the ruling goes against the forfeiture the only cost to government has been the legal cost of those court proceedings. 

“Furthermore, as the Levers case involves hundreds of Fixed Term Estates, the action was put to Cabinet, and Cabinet gave its approval to the forfeiture action, so it is official government policy”. Commissioner McNeil further stated: “I have no intention whatsoever to forfeit anyone else’s registered Fixed Term Estates east of Honiara, and Mr Sasako is unnecessarily trying to create fear amongst the public and to drum up hatred towards me, all on the basis of lies. Furthermore, there is no substance to the claim that these forfeitures have any kind of “nuclear bomb” of massive consequences in costs or policy to the government”. 

Commissioner McNeil summed up by saying “this is yet another case of Mr Sasako telling outright lies in the media to suit his narrative and that of the people pulling his strings behind the scenes”.

In summary, Commissioner McNeil says that Mr Sasako’s article as a clear and undisguised attempt to smear his name yet again, and to attempt to isolate him by drawing a wedge between him and the government and people of Solomon Islands. 

Mr McNeil told the Solomon Star that there are clearly people behind the scenes including his unnamed “sources” who have a personal financial interest in the land and desire to see him removed from office by feeding false and misleading information to Mr Sasako to publish in this newspaper, in the hope that the mud will stick and will lead to his termination. 

Mr McNeil cited the recent example of the court proceedings involving Levers Solomons Limited, whereby Mr Sasako obtained draft court orders from the company and published them before the Commissioner (who the orders relate to) had even seen them himself. 

“Patrick Wong stands to retain or lose multi-million dollars worth of real estate depending on whether the court finds that the forfeiture of Levers’ Fixed Term Estates has been done correctly or not, so he has a very strong personal interest in seeing me removed from office” Commissioner McNeil said. 

“I am carrying out my duties in accordance with the Land and Titles Act and in accordance with a Cabinet decision to forfeit Levers’ Fixed Term Estates, and I intend to see that through to a final outcome, despite the mud slinging in the media and court actions by Levers”. 

Commissioner McNeil added that he was looking forward to the High Court mention in the Levers cases which is scheduled for this week.

On a final note, Commissioner McNeil requested the Solomon Star to issue a retraction of the false article by Alfred Sasako and an official apology for defaming him in the newspaper. Commissioner McNeil reminded the newspaper that he has previously won a defamation claim in the High Court against this newspaper and Alfred Sasako, and that there is sufficient evidence of defamation in this latest article for him to commence another claim unless the article is retracted and an official apology issued.