Opposition questions the Government’s SBD64.68 million Lever Solomons settlement and its implications for land acquisition and education funding.
The Leader of the Official Opposition and Member of Parliament for East Choiseul, Manasseh Sogavare MP, says the Government’s decision to abandon its appeals in the Lever Solomons land cases has consequences that go well beyond Hells Point. It will shape how every future compulsory acquisition of land in Solomon Islands is made and tested in the courts.
On 29 April 2026, the High Court found that three Government declarations compulsorily acquiring land from Lever Solomons Limited were unlawful, together with a related forfeiture process. The Attorney-General appealed. By a consent order sealed on 27 October 2026, those appeals have now been withdrawn and dismissed. The Government has undertaken not to appeal again.
This means the Court of Appeal will not review the High Court’s reasoning. That reasoning now stands as the leading authority on compulsory acquisition in this country.
The Opposition Leader wants the public, landholders and public officers to understand what the law now requires;
First, stating a public purpose is not enough. The Government must show that the particular land was actually required for that purpose. It is not enough for the land to be suitable, convenient or desirable.
Second, the reasons must exist at the time. The material showing why the land was needed must exist when the Minister makes the declaration. Plans, drawings or explanations prepared afterwards cannot fix a defective decision.
Third, later use does not cure the defect. Even if the land is later used for a genuine public service, that use cannot justify an acquisition that was not properly supported when it was made.
Fourth, a notice in the Gazette is not proof. If an acquisition is challenged in court, the Government must produce the material that supported it. If Ministers and officials do not come to court to explain their decisions, that will count against the Government.
Fifth, forfeiture is not a shortcut. The Commissioner of Lands can forfeit land only under a valid, written delegation from the Land Board. Where the Government has accepted rent, or has refused to accept it, a rent breach that could have been fixed cannot be used to take the land. In the Levers case, evidence was provided to the Court that the Land Board had indeed delegated its authority to the Commissioner, and that the Court of Appeal in a separate case had determined that the Land Board does have the power to give that delegation. This is one of the factors that would have been tested by the Court of Appeal had the appeals not been withdrawn and dismissed.
Sogavare said, by withdrawing the appeals, the Government gave up the chance to have the Court of Appeal decide important questions about the Minister’s powers under the Lands and Titles Act. Those questions will now wait for some future case. Meanwhile, every past compulsory acquisition made the same way may be open to challenge, such as the land the Tina Hydro project is situated on.
The settlement also commits the State to paying SBD 64,678,871.78 for Hells Point by 31 October 2027. The first payment of SBD 15 million falls due by 23 November 2026. Under the settlement, the State takes title only after the full amount is paid. The proposed township land and public housing land covered by the High Court decision remains with the company, and the State receives nothing for them.
Leader of the Official Opposition adds, by agreeing to this consent order, the Government has committed the country to spending SBD 64.68 million. SBD 15 million is due within weeks, and nearly SBD 50 million more falls due across 2027. That is the same year the Government plans to launch its flagship Free Education Policy.
This is contradictory. The Government’s own 2027 Budget Strategy admits that the 2027 Budget will remain in deficit, partly because of the cost of Free Education. The Government says it is asking development partners for more money to fund its flagship programmes. The Prime Minister has told Parliament that the full rollout of Free Education will cost an additional SBD 1.1 billion. The Public Accounts Committee has questioned whether the roughly SBD 1 million set aside to prepare for the policy is enough.
Sogavare said, a Government that is searching for money to fund free education for our children cannot at the same time sign away more than SBD 64 million to a private company, including rent and interest that built up because successive governments failed to resolve this matter, without explaining why. The SBD 15 million first payment alone is about fifteen times what has been set aside to prepare for Free Education.
“Parents, teachers and school communities deserve to know where this money will come from, and what will be cut, delayed or borrowed to pay it. If the Government had the funds for this settlement, it must explain why those funds were found for a land deal, while Free Education depends on deficits and donor support,” emphasized the Leader of the Official Opposition.
He calls on the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General to explain to the nation;
- Who authorised the settlement, and whether Cabinet approved it.
- Whether the Minister for Lands, Housing and Survey took any part in the decision, given his past directorship of Lever Solomons Limited.
- How the figure of SBD 64.68 million was calculated, and how much of it is interest and rent.
- Whether the first payment of SBD 15 million has been properly appropriated and funded, and from which budget line the SBD 64.68 million will be paid.
- Whether any education funding, including money intended for the Free Education Policy, will be reduced, delayed or reallocated to meet these payments.
- How many other compulsory acquisitions and forfeitures were made in the same way, and what the Government will do to protect the public interest in that land.
- What steps the Ministry of Lands will take now to make sure future acquisitions meet the standard set by the High Court.
The Official Opposition Leader further questioned how much tax Levers Solomons Limited paid to the Government in recent years. He also sought clarification on how the Government intends to recover outstanding tax owed by Levers Solomon Limited.
The Opposition respects the courts and the right of parties to settle cases. Even if settlement was legally sensible, a settlement of this size, agreed at a time of budget deficit, affecting land of national importance and leaving a ruling that will govern all future acquisitions, must be explained openly to the people who will pay for it.
On a related matter, the High Court earlier this year ruled that the Solomon Islands Government has a binding agreement to enter into a Deed of Company Arrangement (DOCA) to acquire interest in parent companies that partially own Levers Solomons Limited. While it is understood the Attorney General has appealed that ruling, there is no guarantee the Court of Appeal will rule differently to the High Court. As it stands, and if the High Court ruling is upheld, the Solomon Islands Government could potentially be sued for very significant damages if it does not proceed with the DOCA.
The Opposition will pursue these questions in Parliament.
SOURCE// OPPOSITION PRESS RELEASE
