The Kumul Petroleum Holdings Limited (KPHL) Board has commended the suspended KPHL Managing Director Mr. Wapu Sonk for the withdrawal of two applications before the courts on Friday and Sunday.
KPHL made this announcement in recent statement this week, further extending their gratitude also to Mr. Sonk’s lawyers for steering to this result, withdrawing the court proceedings filed, challenging the appointment of KPHL board (Friday) and challenging his suspension as KPHL Managing Director (Sunday).
The two withdrawn applications now allow the court to proceed unhindered in their assigned roles, responsibilities and decisions as noted in their instrument of appointment.
According to Board Chairman Gerea Aopi, the Board resolution to suspend Mr. Sonk as KPHL Managing Director and appoint Mr. Luke Liria as acting MD was not malicious in intent but administrative for ensuring integrity of process, both for KPHL in ensuring good governance principle of transparency and accountability.
“Justice as we all know, must not only be done, but seen to be done, both in KPHL’s case as PNG’s leading multi-billion State company involved in oil and gas sector in PNG and abroad; and in the case of Mr. Sonk as the pioneer and leading chief executive of KPHL over allegations of impropriety published initially in the Australian press.”
“Whatever perceptions and public opinion may be, only courts of law can ascertain guilt or otherwise. Mr. Sonk, is therefore innocent insofar as the law, and the Board is concerned,” said Chairman Aopi.
The withdrawal of the applications by agreement, endorsed by the courts today effectively means a halt on the challenges on the appointment of the current KPHL Board led by Chairman Aopi; and the Board’s unanimous decision on suspension of Mr. Sonk as Managing Director and Mr. Luke Liria as Acting Managing Director.
Mr. Aopi concluded that an independent investigation and any necessary court action on the public allegations are needed to resolve issues surrounding KPHL and Mr. Sonk, warning that further court challenges over the Board’s appointment would interfere causing delays and increase legal costs without addressing the main issues.