While addressing members of the media and NGO groups, on Thursday 21st April, the Acting Secretary for the Department of Lands, Romilly Kila-Pat, made comments to the effect that the State has no control over business dealings between customary landowners and foreign businesses after a Special Agricultural Business Lease (SABL) title is registered.

This statement missed the point completely and failed to address the main issue and surrounding the controversial SABLs issued over 5.2 million hectares customary land throughout Papua New Guinea.

The main concern in the controversy is that landowners are loosing their rights to use and occupy land for three generations and Department of Lands is facilitating this without any due diligence to ensure the law has been followed and landowners know what is happening and have consented

Questions that remain unanswered:

The State has the sole responsibility of administering the Land Act 1996, and it acquires land either through agreement, for the lease-lease back purpose or by compulsory acquisition.

The State is the only entity that can lease customary land because customary landowners are prohibited from dealing selling, leasing or otherwise disposing of land to persons other than citizens.

Whose responsibility is it, therefore to ensure customary owners are not breaching provisions of the Land Act 1996 by subleasing customary land?

When land is required for a non-customary use, a Land Investigation Report (under the Land Act 1996) must be carried out for each separately owned parcel by a government Lands Officer. A Schedule of Landowners, with attached signatures (or marks) is attached to a survey plan and other descriptive details. 

The Schedule of Landowners is a mere list of people who attest to the fact that the description of the land is accurate and that they have interests in it.  This schedule does not constitute a group capable of being called an “owning entity”

Were land investigation undertaken and reports compiled for the 5.2 million hectares of customary land now subject of SABLs ?

For a long time, Incorporated Land Group (ILG) under the Land Groups Incorporation Act 1974 has been recognized in PNG  as land owning entity for customary land. 

Who administers this  the Land Group Incorporation Act? 

A position called The Director of ILGs is based within the structure of the Department of Lands.  It is therefore  evident by implication that the Department  of Lands and Physical Planning that is responsible for ILGs and incorporation process.

What is the process available to ascertain the authenticity of these groups prior to incorporation?

The Land Act provides the option of involving the Land Titles Commission or Local Land Courts to determine ownership, before acquiring customary land.

Why is it that, for land subject to be leased for SABs, (which forfeit compensation and all traditional rights, is granted for 99 years, and is for a term more than the average life-span of a Papua New Guinean) is not diligently handled to ascertain authenticity of genuine ownership, using the options provided under the Land Act ?

Who is responsible for ensuring the interests of customary landowners are protected ?

102. GRANT OF SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL AND BUSINESS LEASES

(1) The Minister may grant a lease for special agricultural and business purposes of land acquired under Section 11.

(2) A special agricultural and business lease shall be granted:

(a) to a person or persons; or

(b) to a land group, business group or other incorporated body, to whom the customary landowners have agreed that such a lease should be granted.

What is the process of determining whether all customary landowners have agreed and given their consent to that a land group, business group or other incorporated group should be the lease titleholder?

The Department of Lands cannot easily distance itself from this issue, because the law is clear that  it is the department that administers the law relating to land, and where customary land is involved it has the duty to ensure customary landowners are not only protected but educated on the implication of any dealings with customary land, so that they can give their free prior informed consent in the developmental process.