TAWAU: The scope of operational responsibilities within the Bukit Mantri gold mining project emerged as a key issue during civil proceedings between AuMAS Resources Berhad (AuMas) and its subsidiary Wullersdorf Resources Sdn Bhd (WRSB), and Southsea Gold Sdn Bhd (Southsea) at the Tawau High Court on Wednesday.
The hearing, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Steve Ritikos, focused on the cross-examination of plaintiff’s fourth witness, Wong Ji Yung, formerly Chief Operating Officer and now Chief Financial Officer of AuMas and WRSB, concerning the extent of WRSB’s responsibilities within the project area.
Earlier in the trial in May, Wong had acknowledged that WRSB does not possess an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under its own name, but maintained that the company’s operations remain lawful as WRSB is operating legally under the EIA approved for the project and registered under Southsea, through a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) under which the benefit of the EIA approval is extended to WRSB.
During the proceedings, Wong maintained that WRSB’s responsibilities covered an area referred to as the “project boundary”, which he said was defined by the EIA documentation and the project’s Operational Mining Scheme documents.
Counsel Andy Tay for the opposing party challenged that position, arguing that WRSB’s rights and obligations should be confined to the area covered under the sub-lease agreement and questioning the legal basis of the alleged project boundary which extends beyond the sub-leased area.
The witness disagreed, contending that WRSB’s responsibilities as project operator encompassed the entire area covered by the approved EIA report including the area outside the sub-leased area.
The court also heard arguments regarding the interpretation of the MOA, including whether the document extended WRSB’s responsibilities beyond the sub-leased area.
Wong further testified that compliance with EIA requirements fell under WRSB’s responsibilities as project operator, despite certain EIA-related documents having been signed by Southsea as the project applicant.
According to the witness, any enforcement action by the authorities arising from activities within that boundary, including a potential stop-work order, would have a direct impact on WRSB’s mining operations and the company’s commercial interests.
The proceedings also examined works involving the drainage system and the Tailings Storage Facility (TSF), including disputes over whether the modifications were carried out within the approved project area or constituted an expansion beyond the original project perimeter.
Counsel for the opposing party questioned both the necessity and scope of the works.
Wong told the court that the modifications were undertaken on WRSB’s existing operational facilities within the project boundary, and in response to issues he alleged were caused by acts of sabotage.
AuMas had previously announced in May 2025 that incidents involving interference by Southsea had resulted in a breach of the TSF.
The hearing continues with further cross-examination on issues relating to operational responsibility, EIA compliance and the interpretation of agreements that remain central to the dispute between the parties.
