Santa Cruz mining issue

Advertise with Islandsun

DEAR EDITOR, let me further reply to this ghost name Jim Khalir in his ill-fated witch-hunt campaign article on Feb 20. First of all Jim Khalir you choose to remain anonymous simply because you want to hide your foolishness and cowardice in the face of public loathe for mining in Santa Cruz.

I will undertake to make reply in paragraphs in response to your article for clarity.

Paragraph two. I must admit to you in no reserving term Mr Khalir, am the leader of this anti-mining. You picked on me by no mistake nor did I not promote myself as you basely claimed. You knew me am the person behind the entire anti-mining movement how dare you disown and question my standing in some portion of your column after initial admissions.

Paragraph three. You have not taught me nor taught anyone in the public media about prospecting and mining. You are alien to the subject of prospecting and mining. You professed to be a watchdog for mining issue in Nende. What a joke. I doubt you being a watchdog. Your use of alias name gratifies well your role as a sock puppet in the media to camouflage and propagate bad as if it is good, under veil. If you are a watchdog for people of Nende as you professed to be and do not pick up these flaws and abnormalities then two things are obvious to describe your finality on this subject and that is either you are sitting on the fence because you do not know anything about this matter as evidenced in your alien name or simply you are a die hard supporter of the company who will do anything foolish to appease your master.

Paragraph four. Yes. In the outset we need development. However not all developments are suitable for all style of geographical make-up of our land masses. Hence that why people ought to be properly informed to make prior-informed decision on what form of development is sustainable and environment friendly for their settings for the good of people today and for future generations.

Paragraph six. I did not mention the SAA subject of debate is for mining. No! The SAA is for prospecting. If there is anyone who is confusing himself and misleading public it must be you Mr Khalir for miserably failing to understand the entire process of mineral exploration and development in Solomon Islands and thereby propagating baseless and distorted views. People of Nende are fully aware of these processes starting from reconnaissance, prospecting, acquisition of SAR, due diligence in the conduct of SAA, and then eventual mining, having attended various awareness conducted at Nende and so it is pointless and irrelevant on your part to conduct your media lecture on something you knew little about.

Further to paragraph six above. The duration of disposition of LOI yes it is not limited and it rather decided on basis of resolution reached by MMB however my general assertion was on the basis of the short period of time your Company was prompt to come up with a SAA. The duration of LOI would be normally expressed in the LOI proper.

Nende land tenure system is quite complex and it is therefore unbelievable that your company can navigate its way through to settle a SAA in such a short period of time. The unfortunate outcome of this is what I have alluded to in my earlier article and that is (1) A lot of LOs their consents were not obtained – these are people whose land are being subjected to PL without their consent (2) Some LOs consents were hijacked – these were LOs whose signatures and names were on the company list but at no time did they sign up their land for such development. Basically someone forged their signatures and names (3) Some LOs their consenters withdraw their consent – these were LOs who have realised that something is not ok with the process and the development itself is bad for the place hence withdraw consent. I have list of this data to proof to you my claim.

Paragraph eight. I maintained the position. Though there were consultations it is not done properly. The 12 days is too short. The mandatory consultations were carelessly done. Some signatures were collected randomly and others were paid SBD200 in return for signatures. The signature were set as appendix to the Report by your company and presented to MMB and were purported to represent an overwhelming support for the project. Unfortunately these were cooked up lies by your company.

Paragraph 9. You are incorrect to say the SAA is standard all throughout. Standard under what circumstance? Certain terms of SAA are negotiated and subject to change depending on outcome of dialogue. Unless applicant can agree and negotiate settlement of SAA and the same submitted to MMB the applicant won’t be granted PL. Your further commentaries on this part were mere opinion and lack consistencies to statutory processes of MMA.

Paragraph 10 on PL 01/16. Again you mislead yourself. Further commentaries you put up on this part were mere opinion and lack insights of the processes. For clarity and in brief Mr Khalir this is the basics of what you are struggling to grapple with ; Stage 1 – Application for mineral prospecting pursuant to s20 (a – k) is submitted by applicant, stage2 – MMB – deliberate on the application s21 (1), stage3 Minister issues LOI s21 (2), stage4 Applicant or Company together with Director dispose with LOI – see s21(4) a – d, stage5 where successful dialogue occur at stage4 parties settle SAA – see s21(8), stage6 The company report back to MMB with the SAA – see s21(9), stage7 On recommendation of MMB – the minister thereafter issued PL.

A screening committee set up for purpose of s20 (4) and MM-Regulation 3D come into operation if area of tenement is put out on tender.

The mandatory consultation I make reference to which is very important and must be done thoroughly and in my considered view it is done properly by your company is stage 4 and they must do diligently activities set out in s21(4) a-d. Mr Khalir this mandatory process here in s21(4) a-d was not done properly. That is very messy so say the least. You must admit something is wrong hence why am building up momentum with people of Nende to challenge these many flaws.

The minister by strict adherence to this process does not sign PL instrument in the midst of the stages I set out you imply in contrary in your article.

Read this MMA on paclii – if you don’t have access to this material so that you can make good and constructive judgement of where I stand on these many issues. But I must tell you there is no way you can deter and intimidate my stand with the majority of people of Nende to bulldozer your PL down the ditch. It is our constitutional right to seek redress in Court of law over what we see as unlawful and corrupt for which you Mr Khalir and your company are at liberty to challenge our contentions.

Ruddy S Oti

Leave a comment

Advertise with Islandsun