Landowners

THE PROBLEMATIC ISSUE

The false premise that many people rely upon is that Axiom has the support of the Kolosori customary landowners and therefore getting a PL is a given and represents what the locals want. The reason for this is always given that the locals own 20% of the project through AXIOM KB.

AXIOM KB is owned 80% (ultimately) by AXIOM MINING LIMITED (AVQ) and 20% by KB MINERALS LIMITED.

KB MINERALS LIMITED is owned 50% by East San Jorge Community Company Limited which is now deregistered and removed from the companies list, and 50% owned by Kolosori Holdings Community Company Limited. This is the company that is held out to represent the landowners.

This company is a commercial entity and is owned equally by:

	Column 1	Column 2	Column 3	Column 4	Column 5	Column 6
1	TRIBE				REPRESENTATIVE
2
3	GOE TRIBE			ELLIOT CORTEZ
4	VIHVUNAGI TRIBE			ERIC SELO
5	IPUTU TRIBE			FRANCIS SELO
6	THAVIA TRIBE			LEONARD BAVA
7	TARAOA TRIBE			WILSON MAPURU

The problem is the assumption that this shareholding represents the customary landowners. Does it?
The way that the community benefits from mining activity on their land is the implementation of an SAA that properly identifies the rightful stakeholders and sets out how the mining operations will proceed and what benefits the community and landowners recieve. It is done in a highly formalized way and takes time and there are proper appeals processes set down for disputes etc. It also involves the government in these deliberations. It is NOT sorted out by setting up a corporation with those who you believe represent the landowners. The only SAA over Kolosori land is the one they signed with these 5 people after they registered the land. It was shown in the COA that it was not conceivable that it was procurred correctly in line with the legislation. It was nullified by the court.

By s 21(4) of the Mines and Minerals Act, the first step in acquiring surface access rights was to identify and record the names of the landowners, land holding groups, or any person or groups of persons having an interest in the land. The company had to do this in consultation with the Director; s 21(4) (a). Then it had to undertake negotiations for surface access rights, make arrangements for payment of surface access fees and compensation for damage, and, in consultation with the landowners, appoint trustees to receive those payments - all in consultation with the Director; s 21(4) (b), (c), (d).
410. A Surface Access Agreement was reached within three days of the Letter of Intent. It is implausible that the steps required by s 21(4) were all fulfilled in that short period.


So who then are the Landowners at Kolosori?

The Court of Appeal stated that

“Kolosori is sometimes used as an alternative name for Takata. More accurately, it is that part of Takata between the Takata and Havihua rivers. Its customary owners belonged to three tribes - the Thogakama, the Vihuvunaghi and the Posomogo. There were sub-tribes and clans within the tribes, including the Thavia sub-tribe or clan of the Thogakama and the Veronica Lona clan of the Posomogo. “


So some background:

In 1992 the Commissioner of Lands decided after public consultation that the Kolosori land would be represented by the following 5 Persons as representatives of the Customary landowners.

Joel Malo (from the G1 area), Hugo Bugoro (G2), Levi Likoho (G3), Lonsdale Manase (G4) and Joseph Bengere (G6). There was no-one identified from the G5 area. (from COA DECISION)

There was then years of appeals and disputes, however in 2002 all that was finalized in the courts and as such the final determination was that

“there were four representatives of the customary owners authorised to sign a lease to the Commissioner of Lands: Joel Malo, Martin Tango (in lieu of Bugoro), Lonsdale Manase and Joseph Bengere. “

Then in 2008 at a meeting at the Iron Bottom Sounds Hotel it was decided that the original Trustees from 1992 would be replaced by the following people. This meeting seemingly ignored the decisions subsequently made by the courts but the result was that the replacements were as follows.

New appointee in lieu of
Robert Malo Joel Malo
Leonard Bava Hugo Bugoro
Elliot Cortez Levi Likoho
Francis Selo Lonsdale Manase
Wilson Maparu Joseph Bengere

Obviously these 5 incorporated Kolosori Holdings Community Company Limited and did the deal with Axiom and subsequently applied to have the land changed to registered title which as we know was overturned by the COA in March 2016.
The COA also stated that they did not accept the validity of the appointments made at this meeting in respect of acting as representatives. And that if the landowners wanted to enter into lease arrangements a new process of identification should have been undertaken.

344. We do not accept appointments made at the first IBS meeting had any validity in respect of the right to act as representatives of the lessors proposed on the agreement to lease made by Palmer in 1992. They should not have been accepted as such by the Commissioner of Lands. Had the Commissioner of Lands still wished in 2010 (in accordance with section 61(1)) to lease the land which Palmer had been appointed to acquire nearly twenty years before, it would have been sensible to appoint another Acquisition Officer in order to ascertain whether the original representatives were still acceptable to the current landowners and that any new representatives were properly identified under custom.

So as Axiom would have us believe all the locals are behind AVQ, but is this realistic to believe?


Let’s look at this cohesive group of landowners.
Here are the landowner plaintiffs:
ALFRED JOLO (representing the trustees and members of the Anika Thai clan)
AND: HUGO BUGORO AND WILLIE DENIMANA (representing the Trustees and members of the Thavia clan)
AND: HENRY VASULA RAOGA (representing the trustees and members of the Vihuvunagi tribe)
AND: BEN SALUSU (representing the trustees and members of the Vihuvunagi tribe in respect of the Chogea and Beajong land Area within Takata
AND: PAUL FOTAMANA (representing the trustees and members of the Veronica Lona clan)

These are landowners that took legal action to have the title reverted back to customary land. They include representatives of the Veronica Lona Clan which the court had already stated were customary landowners. Where are they in the cosy Axiom KB arrangement?
Hugo Bugoro and Wille Denimana had already been acknowledged as landowners of the G3 area through to the high court as per Justice Palmers decision. He found the land was owned by them and others and affirmed Mr Martin Tango to sign on their behalf. So how come they were all left out of the arrangement? Does anyone really think they are happy campers or on team AVQ? Doubtful IMO.
In fact, we know they aren’t because Martin Tango is a director and shareholder of Kolosori Nickel (SI) Limited who are saying they want to lodge their own PL over the land as per media reports.
Another Director and Shareholder over at Kolosori Nickel (SI) Limited is Lonsdale Manase who was a designated trustee of area G4 until he was replaced in 2008 at the meeting at Iron Bottom Sounds Hotel. He seems to have been left out in the cold under the Axiom KB arrangement as well.
Wilson Mapuru is a Director of Kolosori Nickel (SI) Limited and still appears to be a shareholder and Director of Kolosori Holdings Community Company Limited as well, so who can tell what is happening here.
The view that AxiomKB or KB Minerals or Kolosori Holdings Community Company Limited (despite its warm and fuzzy name) represent the wishes of the customary landowners is a flawed premise. They represent the view of the people involved in those organizations and not the community as a whole which would be represented by the procurement of a proper SAA.
IMO Axiom continue to let the shareholders think that they are in a deal with the landowners rather than a commercial arrangements with a sub group within that.

Unfortunately the situation is a shambles from top to bottom with decades of rivalries and court actions and disruption that shows little chance of coming together for anyone IMO. The conversion of the land from customary to registered land was a genius idea that cut through all the need for a proper SAA and short cutted the application process. Unfortunately it didn’t work. Indeed, it was never going to work because it was unconstitutional at the heart of it and was bound to fail but it was worth a try.
Its been stalled since the day the plan went out the window with the COA decision. ☹

This i believe is the fundamental problem. IMO There is no broad and cohesive community support for any mining company. This makes getting a workable SAA in place virtually impossible and thus convincing the Minerals Board that a PL should be granted. Stalemate!