LAWYER Jimmy Maladina has challenged Ialibu-Pangia MP and former Prime Minister Peter O’Neill to explain why he labeled him as a “convicted criminal” in Parliament on Wednesday last week.
O’Neill, while defending himself during debate on the Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) Commission-of-Inquiry (COI) report by Prime Minister James Marape, kept on asking why the COI relied on “Convicted criminal’.
He did not name the “convicted criminal” he was referring to; however, it is understood that he was referring to Maladina who gave evidence against him during the COI.
O’Neill later spilled the beans in a press statement he released after Parliament in which he attached Chief Commissioner and Chairman of the UBS COI, Sir Salamo Injia, and Maladina.
“I believe there is a serious conflict of interest as the Chief Commissioner and Chairman of the UBS COI (Sir Salamo Injia) who was replaced as Chief Justice during the O’Neill government,” O’Neill said in the statement.
“He has now chosen to believe that word of unreliable witness, infamous Jimmy Maladina, against my testimony and has subsequently recommended I be referred to ICAC.
“I intend to test this in court because there is no collaborating evidence to support the claim by Mr Maladina that he was a witness to an alleged meeting of some sort.”
Maladina responded:
“The lackluster Peter O’Neill should be reminded that I have never been convicted or served time behind bars.
“I have been cleared by the highest court of this land of any corrupt deals in PNG, and if Peter O’Neill said I was a convicted person, then I challenge him to utter the same words outside precinct of Parliament.”
Maladina said he told the truth to the COI and it was O’Neill who was lying.
“I was only telling the truth as required under Oath, and if Pter O’neill is hurt by my evidence, then he should have cross-examined me in the COI, but he chose not to do so,” he said.
“Therefore, my evidence stood unchallenged and the eminent commissioners and counsels assisting the Inquiry all chose to believe my version of events and evidence presented in the Inquiry – as opposed to Peter O’Neill’s evidence.
“However, when the time comes, a competent court of law will again test my evidence against his words and will determine who is telling them the truth…all in good time so he should not count his eggs too quickly because the truth always prevails.”
