Jonesse denies submission of dishonesty [1]
Friday, February 12, 2010 - 22:45. Updated on Friday, May 9, 2014 - 20:38.
The Shipping Corporation of Polynesia Managing Director John Jonesse was persistently questioned at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the sinking of the Ashika today where he denied submissions that he was dishonest and untruthful in his dealings with the Ashika vessel, which included his report that it was well maintained - when it was not.
Jonesse in continuing his evidence on February 12 denied a submission from Assisting Counsel Manuel Varitimos that he was so keen for the Government of Tonga to purchase the vessel; he was prepared to be untruthful.
The counsel submitted to the witness that his evidence given in the inquiry had been less than frank because it was clear that the Ashika was unfit to be used in Tonga and he knew that.
But Jonesse denied this.
"I suggest to you it was untruthful to report that the vessel was well maintained, as you knew from seeing it was not in good condition," said Varitimos.
But Jonesse said, no, and stuck to his belief that it was good mechanically compared to the Olovaha.
The counsel then suggested to Jonesse that he knew from his inspection of the vessel in Fiji that it was unseaworthy. Jonesse denied this.
"You provided dishonest reports to SCP and the Ministry of Transport, you were prepared to forge a signature and you went to the extent of forging an audit document," said Varitimos.
But Jonesse again denied these submissions.
Signature forged
The inquiry had previously heard evidence by a New Zealand surveyor, David Shaw, who confirmed that his signature was forged in an alleged audit document on the Ashika, which he never knew existed. This was confirmed to have been Jonesse's doing.
Jonesse accepted that he was in part responsible for the steps that he took but he at the same time added that he expected that the owners [Government] would carry out the normal procedure including survey, and claimed that he had mentioned to former Director Bill Johnson about a name of surveyor to survey the Ashika.
He also agreed he went on four different occasions to Fiji, and accepted that he had plenty opportunity to do an inspection of the vessel.
"I suggest you had a duty to ensure that the vessel was safe and appropriate for Tonga?" said Varitimos.
Jonesse agreed and the steps he took led for the procurement process that he believed was to follow, but it did not.
"Did Paul Karalus ever suggest to you that an independent survey was done?" Varitimos asked.
Jonesse said, no.
No one had suggested a valuation report of the vessel, and Jonesse did not request for surveyors to survey the Ashika.
Responsibility
"Do you accept responsibility in part for this disaster?" said the cousel.
"I accept responsibility for the steps I took," said Jonesse.
Jonesse believed that in relation to his recommendation for the purchase of the Ashika he acted responsibly at all times.
Jonesse then agreed that on his visits to Fiji from March to June 2009 he saw some rust but, however, disagreed that the rust was so extensive that it was shaking off the vessel and he claimed this was never reported to him.
"I suggest to you that it was clear that this vessel was unfit to be used in Tonga, and you knew that," said Varitimos.
But Jonesse said, no.
"I suggest that it was untruthful to report this vessel was well maintained when it was not," said Varitimos.
Jonesse said mechanically it was. He disagreed with the counsel's suggestion that upon inspection of the vessel in Fiji it was unseaworthy.
Holes in hull
Soane Foliaki then doggedly questioned Jonesse who accepted there were holes in the hull of the vessel but clamed that he was not aware that the vessel had in fact sailed with holes because no one reported it to him.
The counsel put to him that he was aware that ramp was not properly sealed, and Jonesse said it was closed but he was not 100 percent certain if it was sealed and claimed that he was told of water coming into the vessel through the ramp only later.
"And you continued to allow the vessel to sail?" put the counsel.
Jonesse claimed that he never received any reports from crew and said the only reports he received was in relation to technical problems regarding failure of the generator, fuel pump and steering. With regards to the rust, Jonesse said he did not see it but disagreed that it was in a state put by the counsel as absolutely disgusting.
"You are not being honest?" put the counsel, but Jonesse disagreed.
Jonesse admitted that the deficiency list was not all fixed before the vessel sailed in Tonga, and added that a duration of three months was given to complete it.
"Did you complete repairing the deficiency list before the vessel sank on August 5?" said the counsel; and Jonesse said, no.
Consequences
The counsel then asked Jonesse whether he was aware that one could be charged in Tonga with an offence of manslaughter by negligence. Jonesse said, yes, he was aware of this charge.
The counsel then put to him that after the inquiry some would find themselves in Hu'atolitoli prison for a very long time.
"As Managing Director you allowed the vessel to sail killing 74 people, you are saying you are innocent because you did not know. Do you expect the commission to believe that, as you accepted very little responsibility?" asked the counsel.
Jonesse asserted that he took the steps that he expected to be followed with the proper procurement process.
"But that was not done," put the counsel, and Jonesse agreed that there were no survey or valuation reports done on the Ashika before and after Government purchased it.
Before finishing his re-examination the counsel told Jonesse, "good luck on whatever is going to happen after this inquiry."