SMM Document, page-98

I just had the most wonderful revelation and I feel so stupid that I did not pick this up earlier.

Axiom KB and the other defendants are not parties to what has now been consented to
and their case is ongoing.

This is unrelated to Axiom's case. I believe there are two concurrent cases? I could be wrong, there is no information on this at all. There is certainly very strong evidence suggesting this and if this is the case then this is the largest waste of time. Yes it is related to the case, however all of the evidence that we have put forward isn't being considered as part of this agreement.

Anyone care to shed some light on this?



IMO that means that the bribery charges (amongst other misdemeanours committed by SMM) are not considered at all in this document. Hence, I put forward this:



SMM will lose on this front due to the bribery which was admitted to on stand during the trial. Twice.

In any case, it all comes down to this final clause:



"Should the Court, when giving judgment in the case, agree with the Claimants and the Government on these issues, then this would involve quashing the cancellation decision and making certain declarations."

It is the old faithful conditional clause. Government covering their ass? Perhaps.

"the Claimants (SMM Solomon and others), the Cross-Claimants (Bugotu Minerals Limited), and the First to Fourth and Eighth Defendants (The Attorney-General and others)"

So the A-G is a party to the case. Yes. However, you are right. They did not sign anything.

Regarding the 48 year lease: the court can more than likely revoke it if it decides it is necessary. It is an executive decision and can be overturned by the court. Or if it was a court award which I think it was, can also be overturned (i think this was conditional upon a win).

"It's not a strange document at all"

No. It isn't. It's completely logical and makes 100% sense. SMM have been 0% logical and have made 0% sense in this whole case, so I purport that it is a strange document for this reason. They have been doing strange things this whole period and they come out of nowhere with this? You gotta say, what the hell?

"The government the document is referring to is the government that is a party to the trial. It's not ambiguous at all"

I have a quote from the CoA case (Chetwynd decision):

"The first to fourth defendants are respectively the Attorney General in two capacities, The Commissioner of Lands, and the Registrar of Titles. That group can conveniently be referred to as the "government parties"."

So yes, you are right about this aspect. And yes, it does appear negative on face value but there is more to it than meets the eye as Optimus Prime repeatedly wisely states.