Impartial police investigation needed in PNG
Amnesty International has questioned the impartiality of a proposed police investigation into alleged forced evictions near the Porgera gold mine following media reports that the Police Commissioner dismissed allegations of police misconduct.
“It is essential that such an investigation be transparent, effective, impartial and independent, and the results clearly based on the evidence,” said Shanta Martin, Amnesty International's mining and human rights specialist. “It should not be launched by the police with a predetermined objective of clearing the police of misconduct.”
On 4 February 2010, Papua New Guinea’s Police Commissioner, Gari Baki, was reported in the media to have said that he might order a police investigation so as to refute claims that people in Porgera were the victims of police violence. He reportedly dismissed evidence of illegal evictions of people living near the Porgera gold mine and police violence as “fabricated”.
Background
On 2 February 2010, Amnesty International launched its report, Undermining Rights: Forced evictions and police brutality around the Porgera gold mine, Papua New Guinea, which documents police violence and the forced eviction by police of families living alongside the Porgera gold mine.
Amnesty International also has concerns regarding ongoing support to the police by companies involved in the mine after the companies became aware of police misconduct in the area. The mine is 95% owned and operated by subsidiaries of the largest gold mining company in the world, Canadian-based Barrick Gold Corporation, as part of the Porgera Joint Venture.
Comments
Michael Wild | Posted on 9 February 2010, 12:10AM | Report comment
I agree that PNG’s police commissioner’s comments hardly inspire confidence in the rigour and impartiality of the police investigating the police. The only question is who should do it? Competent investigators are thin on the ground in 3rd World Countries and the few that exist are are probably policeman. Independent commissions cost money and small 3rd World countries have very little of it. What does AI have in mind? This comes to one of my worries about AI getting into 3rd World Poverty/Development. I feel REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE telling very poor countries how they should spend their money. Especially given I know nothing about their economies and the numerous calls on the public purse. It’s much easier and safer to suggest they shouldn’t arrest, charge or imprison people for their non violent beliefs.