N6050
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

EP NO 05 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF THE ORGANIC LAW ON NATIONAL AND LOCAL-LEVEL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS AND IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTED RETURNS FOR THE KARIMUI-NOMANE OPEN ELECTORATE

BETWEEN

MICHAEL KORRY
Petitioner
 
AND

MOGEREMA SIGO WEI
First Respondent

AND

ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Respondent

Waigani: Makail, J
2013: 12th, 13th, 14th November, 16th, 17th December
2014: 23rd, 24th January
2015: 24th June

ELECTION PETITION – TRIAL – Allegations of illegal practices – Illegal practices at polling and counting – Double voting – Allegations of errors and omissions at counting – Threats to counting officials – Misplacing of ballot-papers – Unauthorised entry of candidate into counting centre – Proof of – Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections – Sections 206, 210, 215(3) & 218.

PLEADINGS – Failure to plead material facts – Failure to plead allegations of bribery of security personnel at polling location – Effect of – Evidence on bribery discounted as recent invention.

EVIDENCE – Presiding Officer's Journal/Report – Contemporaneous notes – Accounts of events at polling – Different account to evidence of Presiding Officer – Contradictory accounts – Authenticity of.

Cases cited:

Michael Korry v. Mogerema Sigo Wei & Electoral Commission (2013) N5416
Samson Malcolm Kuli v. James Apamia & Electoral Commission (2013) N5275

Counsel:

 Messrs P. Ame & J. Apo, for the Petitioner
Mr R. Diveni, for the First Respondent
Ms C. Lari, for the Second Respondent

JUDGMENT

24th June, 2015

1. MAKAIL, J: This is a re-trial of an election petition by Mr Michael Korry disputing the election of the first respondent The Honourable Mr Mogorema Sigo Wei as Member for Karimui-Nomane Open electorate in the 2012 General Election following a successful Supreme Court review on 30th August 2013. Mr Korry was the runner-up to Mr Wei scoring 7,715 votes to 7,792, a difference of 77 votes. He brings this petition pursuant to sections 206 & 208(c) of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections ("Organic Law on Elections"). 

Allegations

2. In the ruling on objection to competency delivered on 08th November 2013 at Goroka in Michael Korry v. Mogerema Sigo Wei & Electoral Commission (2013) N5416, the Court summarised the allegations which Mr Korry relies on to void the election of Mr Wei or alternatively, seek a recount of votes. They are respectfully re-stated as follows:

 "The petition pleads three allegations: 

 2.1. Illegal practices at polling at Dawa Polling Booth;

 2.2. Illegal practices, errors and omissions at counting; and

 2.3. Illegal presence of the first respondent at the counting room. 

3. From a close perusal of the pleadings, the allegation of illegal practices at Dawa Polling Booth can be summarised as follows; on 09th July 2012 at about 8:00 am and before polling started, the first respondent entered the polling booth and forced the Returning Officer to sign the ballot-papers. He also took some ballot-papers, gave them to his wife and children, they marked them and put them in the ballot-box. Each marked four to five ballot-papers each. He also told his nephew to mark all the ballot-papers while he supervised him and when the nephew had finished, the nephew told the supporters of the first respondent to stand in line and gave each of them a marked ballot-paper and they placed them in the ballot-box. 

4. The second allegation can be summarised as follows; during the counting at the counting centre at Dickson oval in Kundiawa, Mr Korry led in the primary count and also the second count until the 59th exclusion when a security personnel identified as Corporal Witne threatened counting officials and placed exhausted ballot-papers in the first respondent's box. As a result, at the 61st exclusion, the first respondent surged ahead and won by 77 votes. Corporal Witne shouted at the Returning Officer to declare the winner without doing a quality check on the last exclusion.

5. In relation to the third allegation, it can be summarised as follows; before the results were checked and put on the board, Corporal Witne went out of the counting room and announced that the first respondent had won. He ushered the first respondent into counting room without the authority of the counting officials and the first respondent remained in the room without the authority of the counting officials."

3. Mr Wei and the Electoral Commission denied the allegations. Evidence led at trial centred round these allegations. Mr Korry gave evidence by affidavit and called 13 witnesses who also gave evidence by affidavits. They were cross-examined by counsel for the respondents to test the veracity of their evidence. Mr Wei also gave evidence by affidavit and was cross-examined by counsel for Mr Korry. Mr Wei and the Electoral Commission called a total of 12 witnesses who also gave evidence by affidavits and were cross-examined by counsel for Mr Korry. 

Illegal Practices at Polling

4. The evidence in relation to the allegation of illegal voting at polling came from Joe Gende Mongo, Kume Yakka, Nebe Jack, Benny Nuabo Konny, Helen Benny, Jacob Kale and Anna Kame. These witnesses said that they saw Mr Wei, his wife and children voted twice and he forced electors to vote for him. They also said Mr Wei forced or directed his nephew Mogerema Mane to mark ballot-papers in his name. He told voters to stand in line and his nephew gave each voter a pre-marked ballot-paper and placed it in the ballot-box. His nephew did as directed with the assistance and connivance of the Presiding Officer Moses Karao. Nebe Jack and Jack Kale said they were given pre-marked ballot-papers for the Open and Provincial seats.

5. Although the police and defence force security personnel were present at the polling centre, they did not stop Mr Wei, his wife and children from voting twice and secondly, his nephew from marking out the ballot-papers in favour of Mr Wei. Their evidence was further corroborated by a policeman named Chris Maropa who gave evidence that security was compromised because the wife of Mr Wei, Mrs Bomaigi Wei bribed security personnel by giving them cash, sugar cane and soft drinks. As a result, they did not stop Mr Wei and his nephew from marking the ballot-papers in favour of Mr Wei and placed them in the ballot-box. Their inaction resulted in Mr Wei receiving more votes than Mr Korry. 

6. Mr Wei and his witnesses said he did not force the electors to vote for him. He did not direct Mogerema Mane to mark all the ballot-papers in his name nor did he, his wife and children voted twice. Mr Wei's witnesses were Mogorema Mane, Moses Karao, Omen Wii, Jeremiah Goro and Moses Miapa. Mr Ame of counsel for Mr Korry submitted that the evidence of Mr Korry's witnesses should be accepted while Mr Diveni and Ms Lari submitted that their evidence should not be accepted and that the evidence of the defence be accepted. Whose evidence should be accepted?

7. The evidence of both sides matched or is on equal footing. Obviously, one party is telling the truth and the other, a lie. Each witness knows in his or her heart whether he or she had told the truth at trial. Giving false evidence is perjury and is a criminal offence. Yet witnesses in this case were prepared to lie. Interestingly, most witnesses from both sides said that they were Seventh Day Adventist Christians. If that were so, one would expect them to be conscious of their oath to God, that is, to tell the truth and not lie in front of God and men. It is even worst when Mr Korry and Mr Wei claim that the subject polling booth is their stronghold and each expected to receive more votes from this polling booth. This is the very problem. It is a complete misunderstanding of the secret ballot voting system we have. And so, with all these factors in conflict, it has been a difficult task trying to work out which party's evidence should be accepted. At the end of the day, it must come down to whose version is believable. This will depend on whether the evidence is logical and makes sense and not contradictory or conflicting. It will also depend on the demeanour of the witnesses.

8. Mr Korry's evidence in relation to the allegation of double voting and interference at the polling booth is discounted because he was not present and did not see the incident. The evidence that has some relevance is where he said when he arrived at the polling booth, he saw Mr Wei inside the enclosed area where the polling booth was. When Mr Wei saw him, he walked out. He confronted Mr Wei and told him not to interfere with the polling and Mr Wei did not respond. When he asked two policemen one of them Chris Maropa, about claims of security personnel been bribed, they denied them. After the declaration, the two policemen came with bribe money and gave it to him. The respondents argued the evidence of bribery should be rejected because it has no foundation in the pleading. I accept this submission. This aspect of Mr Korry's evidence is discounted. I will say a little more on this later.

9. The Campaign Co-ordinator Joe Gende Mongo said Mr Wei publicly announced that he would get all the ballot-papers and then he walked into the polling booth and demanded the Presiding Officer to sign all the ballot-papers. He grabbed them and distributed to his wife and children and they cast their votes. They placed more than one ballot-paper into the ballot-box. After he voted, he remained in the polling booth and controlled the voters. This witness was given one pre-marked ballot-paper and he placed it in the ballot-box. But if he was a supporter of Mr Korry, he did not protest the pre-marking of the ballot-paper. He said that he thought the ballot-paper would be considered an informal vote. There is no evidence that he was threatened to cast the vote in favour of Mr Wei. If he was not threatened, it is strange that he did not protest or report it to the Presiding Officer. To that extent, Mr Mongo's evidence does not make sense. 

10. The evidence of Kume Yakka and Benny Nuabo Konny is similar to the evidence of Mr Mongo. In addition seeing Mr Wei and family cast their votes, Mr Wei forcing the Presiding Officer to sign all the ballot-papers and the security personnel cocking their guns and chased all of Mr Korry's supporters away, Mr Konny said that he saw the Assistant Returning Officer Mrs Norah Kumo talk to Mr Wei and then left. After she left, Mr Wei stopped all of Mr Korry's supporters from voting. He also saw Mrs Wei giving a carton of coke and plastic of betel-nut to the security personnel and that Mr Mogerema Mane entered the polling booth and marked all the remaining ballot-papers and gave to Mr Wei's supporters to place in the ballot-box.

11. Similarly, the evidence of Nebe Jack and Jacob Kale is similar to the evidence of Mr Mongo. Apart from seeing Mr Wei controlling and dictating voters to vote for him, they were each given a pre-marked ballot-paper for the Open seat to cast. Each did not protest the pre-marking of the ballot-paper. Again, this is strange. If they were supporters of Mr Korry and were not threatened in any way, they should have protested the pre-marking of the ballot-papers. They did not. Again, there is no evidence that each witness was threatened to cast vote in favour of Mr Wei. To that extent, each witness's evidence does not make sense. 

12. The evidence of Helen Benny a strong supporter of Mr Korry is that she was the second last person to cast her vote. She saw Onba Daniel a supporter of Mr Wei controlling voters and as a result, soldiers came and assaulted him. She also saw Mr Wei controlling voters and Mr. Mane entered the polling booth and marked all the ballot-papers. Then on cross-examination, she said she only saw policemen providing security and she voted according to her preference of candidates. 

13. Anna Kame a supporter and in-law of Mr Korry gave evidence similar to Ms Benny's evidence. She saw a soldier assaulting Onba Daniel because he was controlling voters at the entrance of the polling booth and she also saw Mrs Wei giving bundles of K20.00 notes to a soldier. Her evidence in relation to seeing Mrs Wei giving money to a soldier is discounted because there is no pleading to that effect to lead evidence from. 

14. The witness Norah Kumo was the Assistant Returning Officer and sister in-law of Mr Korry. She spoke of Mr Wei forcing people to vote for him and of him manipulating votes. She saw Mr Wei's Campaign Coordinator gave sugar-cane to policemen. She told the Presiding Officer Mr Andrew Karao to write down the incident in the summary sheet and he did.

15. The weakness in the defence case is the evidence of the Presiding Officer Mr Andrew Karao. Mr Karao was called twice to give evidence. First for Mr Wei and in his affidavit (exhibit "D2"), he did not refute the account in the Presiding Officer's Journal ("Report") and secondly, for the Electoral Commission and this time, he refuted the account in the Report. It may be argued this may suggest his evidence is a recent invention which casts doubt on the credibility of his evidence. He had the affidavit of Mr Jacob Maben which attached the Report and should have refuted it in his affidavit filed for Mr Wei. When cross-examined by counsel, he was clearly unsettled. He panicked. His demeanour was poor. I am not sure I should accept all his evidence. 

16. The next piece of evidence is the Report. I consider that the Report is a contemporaneous note of events at polling. It is compiled by the Presiding Officer assigned to the polling booth and at the completion of polling must be submitted by the Presiding Officer to the Returning Officer of the electorate concerned. In this case, the accounts of the events described in the Report are different from the evidence of the Presiding Officer. It contradicts the evidence of the Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer denies signing the Report. He said he did not write it and sign it. The question of authenticity of the Report arises.

17. But the manner in which the defence conducted its case has been explained by Mr Karao and also the Returning Officer Mr Francis Aiwa. They said a Presiding Officer of a polling booth is duty bound to forward a Report to the Returning Officer after the completion of polling. In this case, Mr Karao did forward a Report to Mr Aiwa. The one produced in Court was not the one he prepared. He did not know about it until it was produced at trial. This was why he denied signing it. I accept this explanation. It makes a lot of sense and is logical. On the other hand, I find the failure by Mr Maben and Mrs Kumo to hand it over to Mr Aiwa suspicious. In any event, I have had the benefit of first hand information so to speak from Mr Karao (direct evidence) and other witnesses recounting the events at polling and I am not satisfied Mr Wei and his family voted twice and that he forced voters to vote for him. Let me further explain.

18. The allegation that Mrs Wei bribed security personnel was not pleaded as either bribery or undue influence which is a distinct ground (sections 102 and 103 of the Criminal Code) or interference at election constituting an illegal act and that the act was to procure or induce the security personnel to ensure the return of Mr Wei as Member. There is, therefore, no foundation in the pleading for this evidence to be led and even if it were to be considered, less weight will be given because it may be a recent invention. Evidence must be consistent with the pleadings because pleadings lay the foundation for evidence to be led or called. Evidence of Mrs Wei giving cash and food to security personnel is discounted.

19. Conversely, the defence is under no obligation to call Mrs Wei to refute the allegation of bribery or undue influence or illegal practice (interference at election) because neither of them is a ground of the petition. Neither is the defence under an obligation to call the police squad commander Robert Kalasim to refute the allegation for the same reason. 
20. The evidence of First Constable Chris Maropa about receiving cash of K200.00 from Robert Kalasim is a complete departure from the pleading because it has no foundation in the pleadings. This is a material fact which supports Mr Korry's claim that security of the polling area was compromised. It must have foundation in the pleadings. This is a critical and fatal omission by Mr Korry and casts doubt as to the credibility of the evidence of Chris Maropa where in a case such as this where the evidence is evenly balanced or matched and it is not so easy to accept one party's evidence as opposed to the other. The onus of proof is always on the petitioner to prove the allegations of illegal practice to the satisfaction of the Court.

21. There is evidence that Mr Wei took control of the polling by telling people to vote for him and telling his nephew Mogorema Mane to mark all ballot-papers in his name. But the evidence security being compromised is not supported with the relevant pleading of the allegation. It is doubtful and discounted because it was not pleaded in the petition that Mrs Wei bribed the security personnel and as a result, they did not stop Mr Wei from controlling the polling.

22. The evidence from Mr Wei's witnesses is that they assisted illiterate voters to cast their votes and that was why the petitioner and his witnesses thought that they were double voting. Section 140 of the Organic Law on Elections makes provision for voter assistance. It states:
 
"140. Assistance to certain Voters.

(1) If a voter satisfies the presiding officer that —

(a) his sight is impaired; or

(b) that he is so physically incapacitated that he is unable to vote without assistance; or

(c) that he is so illiterate that he is unable to vote without assistance, the presiding officer shall permit such number of persons appointed by the voter to enter an unoccupied compartment of the booth with the voter, and mark, fold and deposit the voter's ballot-paper for him.

(1A) A voter may present to a Presiding Officer or other polling officer a list indicating the candidates the voter wants to vote for and upon receipt of such a list and in the presence of another polling official, the Presiding Officer or polling officer shall read to the voter the candidates named on the list and confirm if the voter wishes to mark votes for these candidates and in the order of preference so indicated and only after this can the Presiding Officer or other polling officer complete a ballot paper for the voter in accordance with the voters instructions.

(2) A person appointed under Subsection (1) to assist a voter shall restrain from disclosing any knowledge of the vote of the voter.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K400.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months."

23. Mr Korry's witnesses did not give evidence that Mr Mane did not seek and was granted approval by the Presiding Officer to assist the illiterate voters to cast their votes. It was not suggested to Mr Mane at cross-examination that he did not seek approval from the Presiding Officer before he assisted the elderly and illiterate voters to cast their votes. On the other hand, Mr Mane maintained in his response that he assisted these voters to cast their votes. I accept the respondents' submission that Mr Mane assisted the illiterate voters cast their votes. These voters were mainly elderly people. 

24. I accept the submission of Mr Wei's counsel that Mr Wei's evidence was not discredited when he was cross-examined to such an extent that it can be found to be lacking in credibility and unreliability. The questions asked by Mr Korry's counsel during cross-examination merely affirmed the position all along that Mr. Wei had entered the polling booth to cast his vote and he went there with his wife and children. They also confirmed the position that Mr Wei did not order voters to votes for him.

25. The evidence of Mr Karao was critical to tipping the scale so to speak. Questions asked by counsel during examination of Mr Karao did very little to damage the credibility of this witness. Questions asked and the response to them also confirmed the position that Mr Wei had entered the polling booth with his wife and children to vote and he did not force any voter to vote for him.

26. The evidence of Mogorema Mane was critical to tipping the scale so speak. One of the main allegations of the case is the marking of all ballot-papers by Mogorema Mane. The allegation is that Mr Mane pre-marked all ballot-papers and gave to voters to place in the ballot-box. Evidence led by Mr Korry showed that not all ballot-papers were pre-marked by Mr Mane. This evidence contradicts the pleading in the petition. Evidence on this matter must be discounted.

27. Secondly, questions asked by counsel during cross-examination of Mr Mane did not damage or destroy the credibility of this witness. The response to the questions confirmed the defence position that there was no double or multiple voting. A critical aspect of Mr Mane's response and also his evidence in chief was that he assisted elderly voters to cast their votes at the polling booth. He said he helped 12 of them and it was with the approval of the electoral officials (polling officers). The voters identified the candidates of their choice by reference to their photographs at the polling booth and he helped them by marking the ballot-papers based on the choice of candidate in order of preference.

28. Finally, my observation of Mr Wei during evidence in chief and cross-examination gives me no reason to doubt or question the credibility of his evidence. He remained calm and answered questions without much difficulty. Mr Mane also gave me the impression that he is a truthful witness. I have no reason to disbelieve him. 

29. It was also submitted for Mr Korry the fact that Mr Korry and Mr Wei made peace by shaking hands after the dispute at the polling centre did not prevent Mr Korry to dispute the result and file the petition. It should not be considered as evidence supporting Mr Wei's claim that polling went well. The Court should look at all the circumstances of the case to reach a decision, which decision is that Mr Wei committed illegal activities at polling. I accept this submission. The hand shaking ceremony must be considered with other aspects of the case. When considered in that context, it supports the defence case that the incident was resolved and voting concluded peacefully. 

30. In summing up the evidence, I am not satisfied that Mr Wei with his wife and children voted twice nor did he force voters to vote for him. I further find that Mr Mane assisted elderly voters to cast their votes. There is nothing illegal about it. This caused the supporters of the petitioner to dispute the manner in which polling was conducted and the suggestion that Mr Mane marked ballot-papers for the voters and told the voters to simply place in the ballot-box. That led to a commotion and security personnel had to intervene to stop it. That was when they cocked their guns and chased away people who tried to double vote and restore order which was eventually done. I am not satisfied this ground is proven. It is dismissed.

Illegal Practices at Counting and Declaration

31. As to the second and third allegations, evidence came from the father of Mr Korry, Mr Nick Korry, Norah Kumo and Henz Temai to prove them. For the defence, Francis Aiwa, Andrew Karao, Heidi Gigmai, Corporal Francis Witne, Lucas Mal and David Kubolo gave evidence. 

32. It was submitted for Mr Korry the unauthorised entry and presence of Mr Wei at the counting room before the declaration of a winner was made by the Returning Officer was illegal and amounted to an electoral offence under section 175 of the Organic Law on Elections. It also supports Mr Korry's claim that there were illegal activities during counting of votes and errors or omissions committed by counting officials which affected the final result.

33. I am of the view that the unauthorised entry and presence of Mr Wei at the counting room before the declaration of a winner was made by the Returning Officer was illegal and amounted to an electoral offence under section 175 of the Organic Law on Elections. But it is not sufficient to overturn the result of the election. There must be something more than that. There must be further evidence establishing that Mr Wei influenced or materially changed the way the counting was done when he entered the counting room and which had the effect of changing the final result of the election. On its own, it is not sufficient to void the election of the successful candidate and must be dismissed: see section 215(3) of the Organic Law on Elections.

34. If it was to support the ground of illegal practice and errors or omissions at counting, evidence centred round the allegation that counting officials failed to do quality check and recount of ballot-papers at the last elimination when the winning margin was only 77 votes. The failure to do that was caused by the intervention of security personnel led by Corporal Witne to declare the winner based on the result of the final elimination. This allegation found its prominence in the lead up to the final elimination where Mr Korry was leading, only to come second in the final elimination count. 

35. The witnesses for Mr Korry said that counting of the primary votes went well until the elimination round when the dispute arose at the final elimination. Mr Nick Korry the father and scrutineer for Mr Korry said he picked up a counting error at elimination no. 49 where a counting official picked up a live ballot-paper marked for his son in the exhausted ballot tray. The second error was at elimination no. 59 where counting officials distributed ballot-papers very fast and made it difficult for the scrutineers to follow the allocation of ballot-papers to each candidate. After first and second checks, Mr Korry asked for third check and that it to be deferred until the next day (morning) as it was late (night). His request was denied.
 
36. I accept Mr Korry's witnesses' evidence and in particular Mr Giano's evidence that he was pressured and intimidated by Corporal Witne to authorise the counting of ballot-papers at elimination no 60. I do not think he lied when he said that he was pressured and intimidated by Corporal Witne to finish off the counting in the absence of the Returning Officer. I accept his evidence that Corporal Witne was present at the counting centre and pointed a gun on his head and forced him to proceed with the counting of votes for elimination no. 60 despite his explanation that he was not authorised to do so and the Returning Officer was the authorised officer to permit the counting of votes at that point. 

37. However, in my view, the interference by Corporal Witne to that extent is not sufficient to void the election or return of the successful candidate. It must be established that the interference resulted in the result of the election was affected: see section 215(3) of the Organic Law on Elections. In that respect, there is no evidence that the interference caused Mr Giano to either misallocate the ballot-papers marked for Mr Korry. The assertion that it was the final elimination and that he should not approve the counting of the votes until the Returning Officer arrives and approves is speculative and is rejected.

38. Zeroing down on the illegal act or error or omission, the highest the petitioner can put his case is firstly, Corporal Witne's presence in the counting room and secondly, the fast counting of the ballot-papers at the elimination round. In my view, the evidence falls short of establishing that ballot-papers were misplaced or misallocated: see section 218 of the Organic Law on Elections. A classic example of misplace and misallocation of ballot-papers during counting is the case of Samson Malcolm Kuli v. James Apamia & Electoral Commission (2013) N5275, an election petition case for the Usino-Bundi Open electorate in Madang Province. Gross error at counting by counting officials was proven in that case. No such allegation and evidence advanced in this case. 

39. If it were accepted based on the evidence of Mr Korry's witness Mr Hanz Temai that Corporal Witne tempered with ballot-papers when he picked up some and placed in the exhausted ballot-papers tray, at the end of the day, it must be emphasised that two rounds of checks were done by counting officials to verify the final figure, the difference between the petitioner and the successful candidate or the winning margin. The result was the same; 77 votes. So what was the point for asking for a further check? 

40. The petitioner's request and the refusal of the request for a further check must be appreciated in the context in which it was made and refused. There was one check made after the first check and counting was reaching the end and it was already night. Security of the ballot-papers, not to mention the human beings involved (counting officials and security personnel), time and costs must also be considered. It was a difficult decision for the Returning Officer to make and it is not simply a matter to suspend and adjourn the counting until the next day just because one particular candidate did not like the counting as the petitioner seems to suggest.

41. Finally, Mr Ame submitted Mr Nick Korry did not raise any objection because the second respondent's position was that, all objections were to be raised after the election in the Court of Disputed Returns. There is no dispute on this. But the refusal by the second respondent to deal with objections under section 153A of the Organic Law on Elections is not a ground of the petition. It is irrelevant and of no consequence. 

42. In the end, I am not satisfied this further ground is made out and dismiss it.

Order

43. The orders are:

1. The petition is dismissed.

2. The petitioner shall pay the costs of the proceedings, to be taxed, if not agreed.

3. The security deposit of K5, 000.00 held by the Registrar shall be paid to the respondents in equal portions and is to be applied towards settlement of the respondents' costs.

_______________________________________________________________
Ame Lawyers: Lawyers for the Petitioner
Divenis Lawyers: Lawyers for the First Respondent
Niugini Legal Practice: Lawyers for the Second Respondent