Dear Editor – I wonder if you could please have this letter published in your paper.
I have just lately come to learn of the controversy over the above matter upon coincidentally sighting a letter in your issue of 25th of June 2017, authored by Alec Leuba Bonunga, in which the author was retorting at those whom he labelled as ‘his opponents’.
Though I do not consider myself one of Alec’s opponents, being one of the principal landowners of Lomlom Airport I feel it obligatory to contribute something to the discussion in the hope of putting the records straight (for the benefit of the tax payers of this country and, more importantly, every stakeholder ministry responsible for the airport project).
To be specific, it is hoped that by this contribution the government will be saved from continuing to misplace its trust and unknowingly expending its painfully earned or procured funds on some uneconomical scheme which only satisfies a few people’s selfish motives or greed.
At the outset I would like to register that I am glad for being a member of Ngaube Landowners’ Association with Alec as the chairman.
Alec is a devout Christian, a former sergeant in the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force, and subsequently, an investigator with the country’s Ombudsman’s Office.
Accordingly, Alec is extremely knowledgeable and knows far better than any other member of NLA about Christian obligations towards one’s neighbours as well as about the different laws of the country.
Likewise, Alec thoroughly understands that a small law (such as the NLA Constitution) can NOT take precedence over a bigger law (such as the National Constitution).
Additionally, Alec is well versed with the knowledge that while every citizen of the country has certain rights and freedoms to enjoy those rights, it is WRONG for anyone exercising any of those rights to injure or intrude upon another person’s right.
That is to say that while exercising his freedom to enjoy any of these rights, that person is bound by the same law to ensure that he does NOT deny any other person’s right to enjoy the same right.
Taking the above points into consideration, believing that Alec’s committee has the power and freedom under the NLA Constitution to do whatever pleases them concerning landowners’ money is a misconception.
Any such belief is synonymous to a defiance of the National Constitution of this country. Besides, expending landowners’ money without their knowledge and consent squarely equates to theft. These are truths which I undoubtingly believe Alec and his advocates will totally agree with.
A truth which Alec and his parasitic proponents have always refused to accept is the fact that the authority Alec and his committee has over the Association is only the power of attorney to receive and dispense to the rightful beneficiaries the benefits of their private lands, NOT the power of attorney to receive and pocket what is intended for landowners.
An argument which Alec asserted in the letter referred to at the outset is that everything the committee has done concerning landowners’ money has been proper as it is allowed by the NLA Constitution.
If the chairman claims adherence to the NLA Constitution, the question he or his committee has to answer is: “Why have they NEVER complied with the requirements of other sections and/or clauses of the same document, such as facilitating a review of the constitution, and/or rendering a financial report to landowners?”
In my view, therefore, there exists an inerasable credibility gap between Alec’s justifications and his committees’ actual deeds.
A further point raised by Alec, on which I would like to also comment, is his claim that his opponents’ opposition to his committee’s leadership is motivated by power hunger, covetousness, and envy.
In my humble view, Alec’s so-called opponents have neither been hungry for power, nor covetous, nor envious of his committee’s leadership.
These descriptions would have been qualified if the intention of Alec’s opponents had been to benefit themselves with landowners’ money like the current committee has always done.
This goes to say that I do not agree with Alec’s assumptions.
What I do believe, rather, is that these opponents of Alec’s have only been eager to ensure that any further monies spent by the government of Solomon Islands on Lomlom Airport meets its intended purpose and that no one ever capitalises on the project to satisfy their own greed and craving for self-affluence at the expense of the unsuspecting government and the intended beneficiaries.
I hope the message is clear.
I see no point in further petty arguments and so would now rest my case.