Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

In the Matter of The Election for The Lufa Open Electorate; Wasege v Karani and Electoral Commission of PNG [1997] PGNC 122; N1617 (30 September 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1617

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

EP 23 OF 1997
IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE LUFA OPEN ELECTORATE
KOMANE ASANO WASEGE - PETITIONER
MATHIAS KARANI - FIRST RESPONDENT
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF PNG - SECOND RESPONDENT

Waigani

Woods J
25 September 1997
30 September 1997

ELECTION PETITION - application to strike out petition - compliance with Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections Section 208 - facts on which petition grounded - pleading the appropriate relief.

Counsel

J Bray for the Petitioner

P Paraka for the First Respondent

D Steven for the Second Respondent

30 September 1997

WOODS J: This istition disputing thng the validity of the Election for the Lufa Open seat in the Eastern Highlands Province in the 1997 Nationaltions. The Respondents have move the Court to strike out the Petition on the basis tsis that the Petition does not comply with the provisions of section 208 of the Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections.

Generally the submissions raised by the respondents have been that the various clauses in the Petition fail to specify the facts relied upon to invalidate the election. As to what are required hred has been determined by the National and Supreme Court in various cases, the main statements being tn the cases Holloway v Ivarato [1988] PNGLR 99, and the case Agonia v Karo & Electoral Commission [1992] PNGLR 463. And the principlelined andd and highlighted in these cases are guided by the fundamental principles outlined by the Supreme Court in the case Biri v Ninkama [1982] PNGLR 342 which I will repeat here. This Cou acting under the the Organic Law as what is often called a Court of Disputed Returns is not an open forum for unspecified complaints where after all parties hired their dissatisfaction the Court sifts the complaints ants and reports whether on a balance of probabilities the election can be considered satisfactory or whether a new election should be held. A Court of Disputed Retuass has the duty of hearing and determining only those petitions which challenge an election by specific charges that, if proved, will result in an election beit aside. As the Supreme Court s/p>

The Organirganic Law on National Elections has clearly stated its intentions that a petition must strictly comply with S. 208. It is not difficult e why. why. An election petitionot an t an ordinary cause. It very serious thing.&#16. It is and fundamental thal that elections are decided by the voters who have a free anr oppity octing ting the candidate that the majority preferrefer. This is a saright and thnd thnd the legislature has accordingly laid down very strict provisions before there can be any challenge to the expressing of the will of the majority. In our opinion it isnd artument that if a petitpetition does not comply with all the requirements of S. 208 of the Organic Law then there can be no proces on the petition because of S. 210.

So what are the objections here.

Most ofst of the allegations are of bribery. Allegation 1 is that a Mr Weyamo Imara being a campaign committee for the first respondent gave an elector an envelope containing some money and the allegation is that it was for the elector to procure votes of electors. er the allegation is only only of bribery by Mr Imara, there is no allegation that the first respondent was involved in this alleged bribery therefore it was nobery by the first respondent. Irefore can only bnly be a be an allegation under Section 215 (3) and it becomes a question whether the result of the election could have been affected. In thisation there was onls only the alleged bribery of one person. Thuld not have affected thed the election. It is not therefore angatiegation that should continue to be pursued. alleg should becktruck outk out.

Allegation 2 alleges that a Nori Korani attempted to brio bribe certain named persons. This ationllegehave have have happened with the knowledge of the first respondent so it is therefore fore attempted bribery by the first respon There are sufficient details included in this allegation, there are names of personsrsons who were given cash, when this happened and how much was involved. ing the principles enunciaunciated in the cases, there are enough facts for the purpose of compliance with Section 208 (a). I aisfied that this allegallegation should go to trial.

Allegation 3 is an allegation of bribery by the first respondent. Tare names of persons alle alleged to have been bribed and the amounts involved. There are enougts for the the purpose of the Section. I am satisfied that thiegallegation should go to trial.

Allegation 4 is an ation that the first respondent gave money to Councillor Ilivilo for bribery purposes.&#160 It was nst given to Counciouncillorilo for his own purposes bues but to induce others and the names of the persons who received the amounts is given. So it is nottter st givingiving the money to a committed supporter, it , it was for him to induce others. I am sied there are sufficufficiects for the purpose of the Organic Law. I am satisfied this allegation should go to t to trial.

The allegation 5 is thatmployee of the first respondent gave benefits to people to e to induce them to vote. It is alleged that this was done with the knowlef the first respondent.&#16. Thre names of people who rwho received these benefits. I am satisthat the connectnnection with the first respondent is sufficient. There are sufficient facts and I am satisfied that this matter should go to trial.