At no stage have the courts ruled in favour of the settlers.

Every decision by the District, National and Supreme Courts of PNG has maintained that PHDC is the legitimate titleholder to Paga Hill, that the settlers were extensively consulted and that they were knowingly illegally squatting.

Some persist in misrepresenting a Supreme Court decision that found a small area of land evicted on 12^th May 2012 was not part of PHDC’s title. These same people claim that this was some form of victory for the settlers, and that their ultimate eviction was a ‘miscarriage of justice’. This false misrepresentation is solely for the purpose of pursuing a marketable narrative for a film, together with the promotion of those associated with it. Furthermore, PHDC argues that this claim is contemptuous, which is the subject of proceedings sub judice in PNG against the filmmaker and its protagonist.

The facts are clear: while the Supreme Court ruled that a small portion of the evicted area on reclaimed land at Paga Hill’s waterfront was outside of PHDC’s title, no alternate title existed and to the best of anyone’s knowledge, that area constituted part of PHDC’s title. Furthermore, the Supreme Court upheld that the settlers were illegally squatting and would have to relocate.

The land in question, which is at Paga Hill’s waterfront, had otherwise always been considered part of PHDC’s title. The Section 81 Agreement (between the city authority NCDC and PHDC) of 2000 makes provision for a ring road around Paga Hill’s waterfront. PHDC submitted designs for a ring road in early 2011, which featured a road alignment through this same portion of reclaimed land, and were eventually approved prior to the first evictions taking place. Whilst the settlers sought to remain at Paga Hill on a technicality, the Supreme Court maintained that they were illegally squatting, hence why they were subsequently evicted by the State and its contractor as part of the development of the ring road about Paga Hill.