What Duties Does the Leadership Code Impose?

Section 27 of the Constitution is the heart of the Leadership Code. It is short, it is drafted in terms of standards rather than lists of prohibited acts, and it reaches into a leader’s private life.

The four duties — section 27(1)

A leader has a duty to conduct themselves in such a way, both in public or official life and in private life, and in associations with other persons, as not:

1. to place themselves in a position in which they have or could have a conflict of interests, or might be compromised when discharging public or official duties;
2. to demean the office or position;
3. to allow their public or official integrity, or their personal integrity, to be called into question; or
4. to endanger or diminish respect for and confidence in the integrity of government in Papua New Guinea.

Section 27(2) — personal gain and public doubt

In particular, a leader shall not use their office for personal gain, or enter into any transaction or engage in any enterprise or activity that might be expected to give rise to doubt in the public mind as to whether they are carrying out, or have carried out, the section 27(1) duty.

The test is objective and public-facing: might this be expected to give rise to doubt? A leader who says “I knew my own mind was pure” has not answered the question the section asks.

Section 27(3) — family, nominees and associates

It is a further duty of a leader:

• (a) to ensure, as far as is within their lawful power, that their spouse and children and any other persons for whom they are responsible — whether morally, legally or by usage, including nominees, trustees and agents — do not conduct themselves in a way that might be expected to give rise to doubt in the public mind about the leader’s compliance; and
• (b) if necessary, to publicly disassociate themselves from any activity or enterprise of an associate or such a person that might be expected to give rise to that doubt.

The phrase “or by usage” matters in a Melanesian context. Responsibility under section 27(3) is not confined to the nuclear family or to legal relationships; it extends to those for whom a leader is responsible by custom and practice.

Section 27(4) — directions

The Ombudsman Commission, or another authority prescribed under section 28, may give directions — generally or in a particular case — to ensure the objects of section 27 are attained. Directions are the Commission’s preventive tool: they can stop a transaction before it happens rather than punish it afterwards.

The scope of that power has been litigated. See Ombudsman Commission v Yer [2009] PGSC 45; SC1041 and O’Neil v Ombudsman Commission [2014] PGNC 206; N5828.

Section 27(5) — what constitutes misconduct in office

A leader is guilty of misconduct in office who:

• (a) is convicted of an offence in respect of their office or position, or in relation to the performance of their functions or duties; or
• (b) fails to comply with a direction under section 27(4), or otherwise fails to carry out the obligations imposed by subsections (1), (2) and (3).

Paragraph (b) is why the Code has real force. Misconduct does not require a criminal conviction. Breaching the standards in section 27(1)–(3) is itself misconduct in office.

Disclosure and asset control

Section 28(1)(b) requires an Organic Law to provide for disclosure to the Ombudsman Commission of the personal and business incomes and financial affairs of leaders, their families and associates — in particular interests in contracts with governmental bodies, and directorships and similar offices, including powers to nominate directors, trustees or agents.

Section 28(1)(c) goes further: the Organic Law shall empower the Commission or other authority to require a leader to dispose of, or to place under the control of the Public Trustee, any assets or income where that appears desirable for attaining the objects of the Division. The detail is in the Organic Law on the Duties and Responsibilities of Leadership.