By CLIFFORD FAIPARIK
NATIONAL Youth Development Authority (NYDA) Director-General Joe Itaki can still be rearrested for allegedly misappropriating funds K9.7million from public funds, Crimes Assistant Commissioner Hodge Ette says
“The reasons why the Waigani District Court Magistrate Garry Unjo struck out his case over a year ago were because of technicalities that arose during his arrest. But those technicalities can be revisited and amended for him to be rearrested and brought back before the same court to face those three corruption charges that he was suspected of committing in office”.
Mr Ette made this remarks t on Thursday to brush aside allegations that went viral on Facebook of him getting bribes from Mr Itaki. Mr Ette said that he was with Mr Itaki in broad day light outside Mr Itaki’s office in January to get a letter from Mr Itaki.in that letter Mr Itaki wrote to him requesting the return of the financial documents kept at the National Fraud and Anti-Corruption Directorate .These financial documents were retrieved from NYDA office during the investigation and has not been returned since the Court struck out the case on the 12.08. 21.
Magistrate Garry Unjo had struck out the charges because the case against Mr Itaki failed to go through the police vetting process before being brought to court.
Itaki, 46, from Waeres village, Wapenamanda, Enga, was charged with misappropriation, conspiracy to defraud and official corruption in relation to provincial investment programme (PIP) project funds totaling K9.7 million.
Magistrate Unjo struck out all three charges after an application made by Itaki to have the police information struck out for being defective as it was not properly vetted before being presented in court.
The court heard that Itaki had written to the office of the Police Commissioner to determine the merit of the complainant but was arrested before getting a response.
“The defendant (Itaki) was waiting for a response from the office of the Police Commissioner when he got arrested and charged by police,” Magistrate Unjo said.
“The police administrative requirement of vetting of evidence is to determine whether there is merit on what is before the court to put the accused to stand trial.
“The police officers have not followed the vetting process.
“The letter from the assistant police commissioner admits that the vetting process is necessary.
“The (vetting) committee is established to ensure that investigations and arrest powers of police are not abused when it comes to a person with standing in society.
“It is a regulatory measure to ensure credibility before the matter is subject to the court’s scrutiny.
“The matter is now before the court without going through the vetting process.
“It is an abuse of the court process.
“The police information is improperly before the court, so the defendant (Itaki) is discharged from the charges.”
