Construction of the Mukuramanda Correctional Facility, In re [2026] PGNC 50; N11724 (4 March 2026)

N11724

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]
HROI NO. 4 OF 2014

IN THE MATTER OF ENFORCEMENT OF BASIC RIGHTS

UNDER SECTION 57 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA

RE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE
MUKURAMANDA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

WABAG: ELLIS J
3, 4 MARCH 2026

HUMAN RIGHTS – Consideration of completion correctional facility at Mukuramanda and what orders should be made to achieve that goal

Cases cited

No cases are cited in these reasons

Counsel

B William, Principal Legal Officer for the PNG Correctional Service

REASONS

1. ELLIS J: Construction of the Mukuramanda Correctional Facility commenced in 1998. In 2014, this matter was commenced and orders have been made on multiple occasions since then, with the aim of progressing the construction of that correctional facility. With the approval of the Deputy Chief Justice, who initiated this matter, it has been transferred from Waigani to Wabag now that there is a resident judge in Enga Province.
   
2. This matter was relisted for a hearing that was conducted yesterday. That hearing was intended to identify what can be done to achieve:
   

(1) partial completion, to be able to house remandees, and

(2) completion of the Mukuramanda Correctional Facility.

3. An opportunity was provided for documents to be lodged on behalf of:
   

(1) the Papua New Guinea Correctional Service (CS),

(2) the Enga Provincial Government (EPG), and

(3) New Porgera Limited (NPL).

4. Those who attended that hearing were:
   

(1) Acting Commissioner Bernard Nepo, via What’s App, for the CS,

(2) Mr William, the Principal Legal Officer for the CS,

(3) Charles Bannah, EPG’s Director of Technical Works and Services, and

(4) Ms Karo Maha, NPL’s Country Manager.

5. The evidence of Ms Maha was taken first, as her involvement was confined to an application by NPL under the Tax Credit Scheme (TCS) to assist with the construction of the Mukuramanda Correctional Facility. After that, the documents upon which the CS and EPG wished to rely were identified and admitted as evidence. Questions were asked, followed by submissions.
   

Background

6. As this matter has a history which spans more than a decade, there is no utility in recounting either what happened, when or why. The preferable course is to focus on the objective of achieving completion of the Correctional Facility at Mukuramanda as soon as possible.
   

Evidence

7. The documents which became evidence, each dated in 2026, were:
   

Exhibit A Email from Karo Maha dated 24 February

Exhibit B Affidavit of Bernard Nepo sworn 23 February

Exhibit C Letter from A/Commissioner Nepo dated 23 February

Exhibit D Letter from A/Commissioner Nepo dated 09 February

Exhibit E Letter from Commanding Officer Tembil dated 16 February

Exhibit F Letter from Charles Bannah dated 20 February and annexures

8. A letter received from A/Commissioner Nepo was marked “Without prejudice and confidential”. It is fundamental that Courts do not receive documents that are not disclosed to other parties. In the context of this matter the EPG, CS and NPL can be regarded as parties. For that reason, an opportunity was given for that letter to be either provided to EPG’s Mr Bannah or returned. Mr William opted for the latter course. As a result, that letter did not become part of the evidence.
   

Consideration

9. It was the contention of CS that it should replace EPG as the manager of this project. That contention is rejected for the following reasons:
   

(1) The affidavit placed before the Court annexed a copy of orders made in this matter on 27 June 2014 despite there be subsequent, more relevant orders.

(2) That affidavit annexed a partial copy of a report that was out of date.

(3) There was no indication of who would be in charge if CS were to be managing this project.

(4) There was no indication of whether CS would manage this project from Port Moresby or somewhere else.

(5) There was no indication of the estimated time for completion.

(6) There were valid explanations for the delays which have occurred since the EPG took over the project in 2018, including:

(a) time taken to deal with contracts which CS had entered,

(b) the use of contractors based in Port Moresby,

(c) the COVID-19 pandemic, and

(d) tribal fighting.

(7) The remaining period required for completion may be less than one year.

(8) In those circumstances, there was insufficient evidence to warrant overturning the earlier decision of the Deputy Chief Justice to transfer management of the project from the CS to the EPG.

10. K2 million was identified as being in a bank account in Wabag. However, there were matters appearing to need attention before that money could be used.
    
11. It was agreed that such an amount would be sufficient to enable partial completion, to the point where Mukuramanda could house remandees, ie those awaiting trial who had been denied bail. It was also agreed that such work, which was termed Stage 1, could be completed within three months, which would suggest by 30 June 2026.
    
12. Completion to a point which enabled remandees to be housed would bring very desirable benefits, including:

(1) enabling friends and relatives to visit remandees,

(2) making it easier for lawyers to confer with remandees,
(3) saving the time and cost of transporting remandees to and from Baisu,

(4) easing overcrowding in the remand section at Baisu, and

(5) reducing the pressure on the Police cells in Wabag.

13. Using the term Stage 2 to refer to the completion of the project, there are questions of:
    

(1) what work is required,

(2) how much will that work cost,

(3) how much funding will be available, and

(4) how soon can that work be completed?

14. As to those four matters:
    

(1) The work that will be required is not difficult to identify.

(2) The cost of that work is an issue that will be considered over the next three months, for the reason indicated below.

(3) As to funding, it appears that the K2m referred to above was part of an amount that was promised by the Prime Minister late last year, when he came to Wabag to open the Enga Provincial Hospital. To that should be added the application of NPL for an amount in the vicinity of K10m under the Tax Credit Scheme. It may be that those two sources of funding enable the completion of the construction of the Mukuramanda Correctional Facility with little or no additional funding required.

(4) Detailed information provided by the EPG’s Mr Bannah suggests that, subject to funding being available, completion by the end of 2026 is achievable.

15. Evidence was provided as to how the Tax Credit Scheme operates. It is sufficient to observe that it is estimated that NPL will require three months to prepare its application and then there will be time required for its consideration before it is, hopefully, approved as it represents the quickest way to achieve completion of a project that already has a 28-year history. If such approval is obtained, it would appear NPL would have a greater level of control over the construction process, and the role of the EPG would lessen. Applications under the Tax Credit Scheme involve a bureaucratic process, not a political process: such applications are assessed by the executive branch of government (ie public servants) and not by the legislative branch (ie politicians).
    
16. It is noted that there appear to be five stakeholders in this project and there is a need for communication, co-ordination and cooperation between them:

(1) the Papua New Guinea Correctional Service, which will have requirements in relation to the facilities at Mukuramanda,
(2) the Department of Treasury, which will doubtless consider funding issues,
(3) the Department of National Planning, which understands such projects,

(4) the Enga Provincial Government, which is the current manager and the relevant government authority at the Provincial level, and

(5) New Porgera Limited, which is trying to assist with funding via the Tax Credit Scheme.

17. It is desirable to have a representative of each of those five stakeholders meet regularly to discuss and resolve any issues so that this project progresses promptly but properly. For that reason, the Court will order the formation of a Mukuramanda Working Group that should meet weekly, to avoid delays. Each of those institutions should nominate a representative to be a member of that Working Group and the same person should participate each week to ensure continuity. If there is a week when there is nothing to discuss then so be it. Better that than have work stop while stakeholders wait for the next meeting.
    
18. As the Court is satisfied that the management of the project should be currently under the control of the EPG, its representative should chair the Mukuramanda Working Group, although that may need to change to the representative of NPL when/if its tax credit scheme proposal is approved.
    
19. With the benefit of facilities such as What’s App, it is not necessary for all five representatives to be in the same place at the same time. In case there is an issue that cannot be resolved, leave (ie permission) will be granted for any stakeholder to request that this matter be relisted, such request being ideally made immediately after weekly meeting, in which case the Court will list that issue for consideration at 9am on the next working day after the request for relisting is submitted.
    
20. As to a sequence that combines the required work and the available funding, there would appear to be three stages:

(1) use existing funding to complete Stage 1, hopefully by 30 June 2026,

(2) use the remaining funding promised by the Prime Minister to progress Stage 2, while NPL’s Tax Credit Scheme proposal is considered, then

(3) hopefully, complete the project if that proposal is approved, with little or no need for additional funding.

21. Marrying the required work with the available funding will be a matter for the Mukuramanda Working Group to consider.
    
22. This matter should be relisted on 30 June 2026 because, by that time:
    

(1) Stage 1 should be completed, and

(2) the application of NPL under the Tax Credit Scheme should have been finalised.

Orders

23. In view of what is set out above, the Court makes the following orders:
    1. With the consent of the Deputy Chief Justice, this matter is transferred from Waigani to Wabag, now that there is a resident judge in Wabag.
       
    2. On or before Wednesday 11 March 2026, the Provincial Administrator or his delegate are to ascertain and address any impediments to being able to use the K2m currently held in the Mukuramanda CS Project Trust Account, being the account numbered 700 706 0804 at BSP’s Wabag branch, including any need to update the signatories to that bank account.
       
    3. A Mukuramanda Working Group is to be formed and is to meet weekly, ideally at the same time on the same day each week, and the members of that Mukuramanda Working Group are to be:
       
       • (1) the nominee of the Provincial Administrator who, until any further order of the Court, shall chair meetings of that group,
       • (2) the nominee of the Acting Commissioner of the Papua New Guinea Correctional Service,
       • (3) the nominee of the Secretary for the Department of Treasury,
       • (4) the nominee of the Secretary for the Department of National Planning, and
       • (5) the nominee of New Porgera Limited.
         
    4. By Friday 13 March 2026, each member so nominated is to provide to his/her What’s App contact number and email address to the Court, by email to: [e-mail]
       
    5. On or before Monday 16 March 2026, the Court will provide those contact details for all five members to each of those five members.
       
    6. The first meeting of the Mukuramanda Working Group is to be held on or before Monday 23 March 2026.
       
    7. Leave (ie permission) is granted for any member of the Working Group to apply to have this matter relisted in which case the Court will endeavour to consider and resolve the reason for that relisting at 9am on the next working day.
       

8. The goals of the Mukuramanda Working Group shall be to:

(1) achieve partial completion, to enable remandees to be housed at the Mukuramanda Correctional Facility, with a target date of 30 June 2026, and

(2) to obtain sufficient funding to enable that facility to be completed as soon as possible thereafter.

9. By 4pm today, copies of these reasons are to be provided to:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of the Papua New Guinea Correctional Service,
(2) the Provincial Administrator of the Enga Provincial Government,
(3) the Country Manager of New Porgera Limited,
(4) the Secretary of the Department of Treasury, and
(5) the Secretary of the Department of National Planning.

10. This matter will be relisted at 9.30am on Tuesday 30 June 2026.

11. Time is abridged so that these orders may be entered straightaway.

Orders accordingly.

________________________________________________________________

Lawyer for PNG Correctional Services: PNGCS Inhouse Lawyer