Bungled prosecution undermines the fight against forest crime

The National Court in Vanimo has dismissed landmark criminal charges of corruption and abuse of office against a senior forestry officer after repeated failures by the prosecution to bring the case to trial.

The decision is a major blow to efforts to combat widespread illegal logging and forest crime in Papua New Guinea as the case was the first to be brought against a public official for accepting a bribe from a foreign logging company.

Jim Silu, as the then Provincial Forest Manager for West Sepik Province, is alleged to have unlawfully received K151,000 from a foreign owned logging company, Kukusang Plywood Limited.

Kukusang Plywood is a part of the Giant Kingdom group of companies owned by Malaysian businessman Chiong Ming Ting. The GK group has extensive logging operations in both East and West Sepik Provinces, including several controversial Forest Clearing Authority projects.

Despite the seriousness of the charges against Mr Silu, Justice Makail has ruled the prosecution had not made a genuine effort to bring the case to trial over a two-and-a-half year period.

Mr Silu was first committed to stand trail by the Waigani District Court on 22 February 2024, having first been interviewed and charged by police in July 2023.

Mr Silu was committed on three charges of official corruption, dealing with suspected criminal property and abuse of office, offences which carry a cumulative maximum sentence of twelve years.

After the committal hearing the prosecution and the defendant agreed to have the case transferred from the Waigani National Court to Vanimo. This was a decision that has ultimately favoured Mr Silu by creating unnecessary logistical and legal hurdles for the prosecution.

A pre-trial hearing was held in November 2024, and the case was set down for trial, apparently in November 2025.

Come November 2025 though, the Public Prosecutor told the court he was not ready the proceed as some witnesses were unavailable and there was new information that needed to be verified.

The defendants lawyers objected to any further delays, arguing too much time had already elapsed. Although the court did agree to adjourn the trial until the beginning of 2026, the prosecution was told by the judge, ‘in no uncertain terms’, they had to be ready to proceed at the next hearing date.

Nonetheless, when the court reconvened in March 2026, the Prosecutor told the court he had a personal conflict of interest and asked for the matter to be further delayed.

The matter was then set down for trial beginning on 7 July 2026.

On that date, a new Prosecutor, Ms Mosoro (a relative of the PNG Forest Authority Managing Director, John Mosoro) asked for a further adjournment of one-week as some State witnesses were yet to arrive in Vanimo.

The defendant meanwhile made a further application for the case to be dismissed.

Given all the circumstances, including the delay of 30 months since the committal hearing, the vacated trial dates in November 2025 and March 2026, the defendants previous unsuccessful application for dismissal and the warning given to the Prosecution some eight-months earlier, the Court found the Defandant’s Constitutional right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time had been breached.

“For these reasons I am satisfied the State has not made a genuine effort to complete its case” said the Judge as he granted the Defendants application to have the case dismissed.

The public deserve an explanation from the Public Prosector as to why his office failed in its duty to prosecute the case in a timely manner and what were the reasons behind a number of curious decisions relating to the case management. These include, allowing the matter to be transferred to Vanimo which then presented severe difficulties for State witnesses and led to at least one prosecutor being compromised by family ties which led to further delays and the ultimate dismissal of the charges.