PORGERA - THE 'BLOOD GOLD'
- Kotu Akema
- Mar 11
- 4 min read
Updated: Mar 24
Port Moresby
08th March, 2025
The Porgera Gold Mine in Papua New Guinea’s Enga Province sits atop one of the world’s richest gold deposits, but its wealth is stained with blood.
Since its reopening in December 2023 under New Porgera Limited (NPL), a joint venture involving Barrick Gold, Zijin Mining, and the PNG government, the mine has been a flashpoint of violence.
Reports indicate that in the last nine months, PNG police and military personnel providing security have killed nine customary landowners, labelling them trespassers on their ancestral land.
Simply put: the mine operates illegally, lacking the consent of customary landowners, violating PNG laws, and relying on state-sanctioned violence to suppress dissent. Drawing on news reports, legal analysis, and international norms, we uncover a story of exploitation masquerading as development.
In PNG, 97% of land is held under customary tenure, a system rooted in communal ownership and cultural identity.
The Constitution (Section 53) protects against unjust deprivation of property, while the Land Act 1995 reinforces customary rights. Internationally, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) mandates free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) for projects affecting indigenous lands.
At Porgera, these principles are foundational, yet routinely ignored, setting the stage for illegal operations.
Porgera’s gold was first mined in 1989 by Barrick Gold, becoming a cornerstone of PNG’s economy, contributing 10% of annual exports.
After a 2020 shutdown due to lease disputes, the mine reopened in 2023 with the state holding a 51% stake alongside local landowners and foreign firms.
Yet, this “new” Porgera has reignited old tensions, with illegal mining and tribal violence escalating. The state’s role as both shareholder and enforcer has blurred lines, prioritizing profit over rights.
The Mining Act 1992 governs the issuance of Special Mining Leases (SMLs), requiring consultation with landowners.
However, at Porgera, the SML process has been opaque. Landowners report no meaningful consent, with negotiations often limited to handpicked representatives or conducted under duress.
The state’s issuance of the SML over customary land without FPIC violates the Constitution’s property protections and the Land Act’s recognition of customary tenure, rendering the mine’s legal basis suspect.
The PNG government’s 51% ownership in NPL creates a glaring conflict. As a shareholder, it profits from gold extraction; as a regulator, it issues the SML; as a security provider, it deploys police and military to protect the mine.
This trifecta undermines impartiality, turning the state into a predator against its own citizens. The deployment of lethal force against landowners—nine killed in nine months—exemplifies this betrayal, prioritizing corporate interests over human lives.
Recent news underscores the violence: RNZ reported on March 3, 2025, that two illegal miners were shot by security forces at Porgera after allegedly firing on personnel.
Earlier incidents, like the October 2024 shooting of six people (one fatally), highlight a pattern.
Police Commissioner David Manning justifies such actions, claiming intruders threaten operations. Yet, these “trespassers” are often customary landowners asserting their rights.
This violence violates the Constitution’s right to life (Section 35) and international human rights law, suggesting an illegal occupation enforced by force.
Prime Minister James Marape promised a community benefit-sharing agreement by March 2025, but landowners argue it’s too little, too late. Historical negotiations—like those before the 2023 reopening—excluded many clans or coerced agreement through promises of benefits that never materialized. Without FPIC, as required by UNDRIP, the mine’s operations lack legitimacy, a point reinforced by landowner testimonies reported in outlets like BenarNews.
The mine breaches multiple laws: Constitution Section 53 (unjust deprivation of customary land), Mining Act 1992 (inadequate consultation for the SML), and Land Act 1995 (failure to respect customary ownership).
Case law, such as Madaha Resena v. PNG (1991), affirms customary rights over statutory grants when consent is absent. Porgera’s SML flouts these precedents, making its operation legally untenable.
UNDRIP Article 10 prohibits forced removal from indigenous lands without consent, while the ICCPR protects the right to life.
The killings at Porgera violate both, echoing global cases like Bougainville, where mining disputes led to civil war.
The state’s use of lethal force also contravenes ILO Convention 169, which PNG has not ratified but is urged to follow as a UN member.
The mine generates billions, yet landowners face displacement, environmental ruin, and cultural erosion.
Tailings have polluted rivers, and violence has fractured communities, as noted in studies like those from the Griffith Asia Institute. The economic argument crumbles when weighed against these losses, exposing the mine’s illegality as a moral and practical failure.
Landowner Mark Ekepa, chairman of the Porgera Landowners Association, told BenarNews in January 2025 of a “complete breakdown” of law and order, with police “utterly ineffective.” Others, like Rocky Tupia (ABC News, April 2024), fear security crackdowns.
These voices reveal a community betrayed by a mine that claims to benefit them.
The Porgera Gold Mine operates illegally, lacking consent, violating laws, and relying on violence. We call for:
1. Suspension of operations pending FPIC.
2. An independent inquiry into killings.
3. Legal reforms to prioritize customary rights. Porgera is not just a mine—it’s a battleground for justice.
Thankyou, Andawai, Waya-Hara
(Editor's Note: Bad Leadership leads to Bad decisions and people suffer. A Royal Commission of Inquiry needs to be done. State is spending more tax payer funds as a Security Provider and Regulator, much more then the Investor.
How will those funds be recovered if it is not part of the Investment Deal?
Mark Bristow was smart in putting the State in front to pay all the costs and he will still recoup his costs.)
Comments