HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name: 	Soqoilo v Tanagada 	
		
Citation:		
		
Date of decision: 	25 September 2024	
		
Parties: 	Peter Soqoilo v Jimson Fiau Tanagada 	
		
Date of hearing: 	9 August 2024	
		
Court file number(s): 	185 of 2024	
		
Jurisdiction: 	Civil 	
		
Place of delivery: 		
		
Judge(s): 	Palmer; CJ 	
		
On appeal from:		
		
Order:	1. Grant application for strike out herewith with costs to be taxed if not agreed.
2. Direct that a Certificate of this Court’s Order or dismissal be issued herewith, confirming that the Applicant/ Respondent is the duly elected Member of Parliament for the Gizo/ Kolombangara Constituency, to the Electoral Commission, His Excellency the Governor-General of Solomon Islands, and the Speaker of Parliament.	
		
Representation: 	Ms Jillian Soaika for the Appellant/Respondent 
Mr Francis Waleanisia for the Respondent/Petitioner  	
		
Catchwords: 		
		
Words and phrases:		
		
Legislation cited:	Electoral Act 2018 as amended, S 111 (1) (b) (i) and (iii), S 126, s 108 (6) (7) and (8)
Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rule 2007, r 9.75 (a), (b) and (c), r 9.75 (a) (b) and (c) 
Electoral act Petition Rules 2019, r 25 (4)
Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023 S 108 (7) (a) and (b)

Cases cited:	Sasako v Sofu [2020] SBHC 7, Lusibaea v Filualea [2020] SBHC 28	

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 185 of 2024

BETWEEN 

PETER SOQOILO 
The Petitioner 

AND:

JIMSON FIAU TANAGADA 
The Respondent 

Date of Hearing: 9 August 2024
Date of Judgment: 25 September 2024

Ms Jillian Soaika for the Appellant/Respondent 
Mr Francis Waleanisia for the Respondent/Petitioner 
Palmer CJ:
1. 	This is an application for strike out filed by the Applicant / Respondent on the 1st July 2024, pursuant to section 111(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2018 as amended, and rules 9.75 (a), (b), and (c), of the Solomon Islands Courts’ (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (“the Civil Procedure Rules”).
2. 	The jurisdiction the Court to dismiss or strike out an election petition is founded on section 111(1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act 2018 (“the Electoral Act”), coupled with rule 25(4) of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019 (“the Petition Rules”), and rule 9.75 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) `Rules 2007, which is applicable pursuant to rule 50 of the Petition Rules.
3. 	Section 111(1)(b) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act provides:
	“(1) The Court:
(a) 	must hear and decide a petition under this Part in open court; but
(b) 	may dismiss a petition without a hearing if:
(i) 	the petition is frivolous or vexatious; or
(ii) 	there are insufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition.”
(Emphasis added)
4. 	Rule 25(4) of the Petition Rules in turn provides:
	“ (4) The subject matter of the directions hearing shall be fixed by practice direction and may include:— 
(a)	whether the petition should be summarily dismissed— 
(i) 	for failure to give security for costs,  or 
(ii) 	because, in the opinion of the Court, the presentation of the petition is frivolous or vexatious;” (emphasis added).
5. 	Both section 111(1) (b) (i) and (ii) of the Electoral Act, and rule 25(4) of the Petition Rules, provide that a petition may be dismissed as “frivolous or vexatious”, in addition to the ground of “insufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition”.
6. 	Rule 9.75(a)(b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules also provides as follows:
	“Frivolous and vexatious proceedings 
	9.75 If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings: 
	(a) the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious; or 
	(b) no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or 
	(c) the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court; 
the court may, on the application of a party or on its own initiative, order that the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim.”
7. 	Rule 9.75 (a) (b) and (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules is fairly wide in terms of the grounds for striking out and includes an additional ground of abuse of process of the court.
8. 	The Applicant relies on two documents for the application for strike out as follows:
(i) 	The Application to strike out filed on 1st July 2024; and 
(ii) 	The sworn statement of Jimson Tanangada filed on the 1st July 2024 in support of the Application for strike out.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION.
9. 	The issues for determination raised by the Applicant are two-fold:
(i) 	Whether the Respondent (Petitioner) was not qualified for election, or was disqualified at the time of election, that being, the period from February to April 2024; and 
(ii) 	Whether the six allegations of bribery pleaded in the Petition amounts to “election bribery” provided under sections 126 as read with 108 (6) (7) and (8) of the Electoral Act 2018, as amended.
10. 	In their submissions in response, the Respondent / Petitioner, seek to point out that the Petition does not challenge the eligibility of the Applicant, and so the submissions raised in paragraphs 26 – 37 of the Applicant’s written submissions are irrelevant as they deal with the issue of eligibility to contest, which is not disputed.
11. 	They say rather that the issues for consideration should be:
(i) 	Whether the Applicant has succeeded in convincing the court under the grounds footing the Application, to apply the strike out option and put an early stop to the Petition, or not; and 
(ii) 	If the court finds that the Petition is defective or lacking in some way, whether the option of amendment is not available to cure the defect so as to deny the petition proceeding to trial proper?
The Petition.
12. 	The Petition in essence challenges the validity of the election of the Applicant/ Respondent on six grounds of election bribery contrary to section 126 of the Electoral Act and sets out in the pleadings the particulars supporting the allegations of bribery.  These will be dealt with in detail later in this judgment.
	The first issue raised by the Applicant: Whether the Respondent (Petitioner) was not qualified for election, or was disqualified at the time of election, that being, the period from February to April 2024
13. 	I think this ground can be shortly disposed of in that there is very little ground or basis, on which it can be sustained, as it is clear from the wording of the Petition itself that the allegations of bribery raised do not relate to the question of whether the Respondent was ineligible for election or disqualified from election from the outset.
14. 	This a misconception of that ground by reading too much into the allegations raised of bribery and construing the words used in isolation from the context of the grounds raised in the Petition and relied on.
15. 	The construction sought to be relied on by the Applicant arises from the wording used in paragraph 4 of the Petition as follows:
	“And the Petitioner says that the Respondent was and is disqualified on the ground of briberies contrary to section 126 of the Electoral Act, the particulars of which are stated below;” (emphasis added)
16. 	The Petition then spells out details of the alleged “briberies” before continuing at paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:
	“5. And the Petitioner further says that the votes given for the said Respondent in the circumstances abovementioned were void and of no effect, and that the Petitioner had a majority of lawful votes.
	6. The Petitioner seeks that this Court invokes its power under section 108(5) of the Electoral Act 2018 to find and declare that the Respondent was not qualified for election at the time of election.”
17. 	In his submissions in response, Mr. Waleanisia of Counsel for the Respondent/ Petitioner, submits and concedes that the Petition did not challenge the eligibility of the Applicant.  He goes on to clarify that the issues for determination raised in the Petition are whether the Applicant has shown that the Petition should be struck out on the grounds that it is frivolous or vexatious, or that there are insufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition.
18. 	Having heard submissions of Counsel on this issue and noting the written submissions relied on, I am satisfied this first ground should be dismissed as relying on a misconstruction of the ground sought to be relied on in the Petition by erroneously focusing on the use of the words “not qualified” and or “disqualified” and taking them out of context from the substance of the petition, which seeks to submit that the election be declared invalid as a consequence of the six grounds of bribery alleged.
19. 	I am satisfied therefore this first ground of the application should be dismissed.
	The second issue raised: Whether the six grounds of bribery raised amount to “election bribery”, as provided under sections 126 as read with section 108 (6) (7) and (8) of the Electoral Act 2018, as amended.
20. 	I will deal with each ground of bribery separately as alleged in the pleadings.
	1st allegation of bribery: Particulars of bribing Mile 3 Community. 
	“On Sunday 3rd March 2024, an Agent of the Respondent, Joshua Loko, gave to one Peter Anama $450.00 to be handed to the Mile 3 Community for the purpose of buying food and to prevent the voters in the Community away from attending election campaign to be launched by the Petitioner and CARE on Monday 4th March 2024 in Gizo Town.  Peter Anama gave the $450.00 to the Chairman of the Community, Francis Steve, a man of Rennell and Bellona origin. Joshua Loko gave the money with the intention of influencing the voters in the Mile 3 Community to refrain from voting the Petitioner.”
21. 	The offence of bribery is set out in section 126 of the Electoral Act as follows: 
	“(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a)	the person directly or indirectly promises, offers or gives a benefit to another person; and 
(b)	the person does so with the intention of influencing the other person to:
(i) 	vote or refrain from voting at an election; or
(ii) 	vote in a particular way at an election; or
(iii) 	influence a third person to vote, refrain from voting or vote in a particular way at an election.” 
22. 	The two elements set out for the offence of election bribery are, giving with the specific intention of:
(i)	A promise, offer or benefit to another person; and
(ii)	Influencing the other person to:
(a)	vote or refrain from voting at an election; or 
(b)	vote in a particular way; or 
(c)	influence a third person to vote, refrain from voting or vote in a particular way.
23. 	In an allegation of “election bribery”, it is necessary that sufficient facts are pleaded, which disclose that money was given with the intention to influence the recipient to vote for the Respondent/ Petitioner, or to influence a third person to vote, refrain from voting, or vote in a particular way.
24. 	In this allegation, the facts pleaded disclosed that money was given by an agent, Joshua Loko to Peter Anama, who in turn gave the money to the Chairman of the Community, with the intention of influencing the voters in the Mile 3 Community to refrain from voting the Petitioner.
25. 	Several sworn statements to support the particulars set out in this pleading have been filed, as follows:
(i)	Sworn statement by Peter Anama filed on the 27th May 2024; and
(ii)	Sworn statement by Philip Lidisi filed on the 25th July 2024 
26. 	Both sworn statements did not add any new facts other than to state that money was given for use by the Mile 3 Community to buy food for a gathering so that they will stay back and not attend the launching of the CARE Party campaign on the said date.
27. 	Philip Lidisi’s statement merely says that the money was given to buy food and avoid the CARE Party launch.
28. 	I have perused the defence filed by the Respondent in response to this particular allegation. He states that for his election campaign, there are two committees that have been set up to organise his team of supporters. The first one is the Working Committee, comprised of agents who work directly under his instructions and in accordance with the Campaign Policy.
29. 	The second committee, is the Sub-Committee which consists of local community supporters within specific communities or villages in the Gizo-Kolombangara Constituency. The Sub-Committee is led by a Chairman.
30. 	He states that during the election there is a logistic budget for the smooth administrative work of his committees. When a need arises in a sub-committee, the Chairman will liaise with the duly responsible agent. Any expense incurred to necessitate the need, would be recorded, and included in the Statement of Account mandated by the Electoral Act 2018.
31. 	In his submissions on this allegation, Ms. Soaika, of Counsel for the Applicant points out that the Sworn Statement of Peter Anama filed on 27 May 2024 merely states that he was given a brown envelope and told that it was for those at Mile 3. He further states that it was Francis Steve who said that the money was to be used for the Community to buy food so that they will not attend the launching of the CARE Party meeting.
32. 	Ms. Soaika points out that nothing was stated by the deponent as to what the money was going to be used for, or whether it was used and how it was to be used.
33. 	She also points out that the allegation failed to establish the essential agency relationship between Joshua Loko and the Respondent. It also failed to demonstrate how the alleged sum was given with intent to influence the Community, and how it was intended to corruptly influence Peter Anama and Francis Steve, or Mile 3 Community members to refrain from voting. She submits that this ground is defective and incapable of establishing bribery as alleged.
34. 	The Respondent/ Petitioner on the other hand submits that the purpose for which the money was given to buy food for the Community on that day to prevent them from attending the launching of the CARE Party, has the effect of influencing electors to make their choice a certain way, and so the member of the CARE Coalition will be disadvantaged as a result. Mr. Waleanisia says this is sufficient to establish the elements of election bribery.
Decision on Allegation 1.
35. 	The issue for determination on this allegation is whether the pleadings and particulars, and the sworn statements filed, have established sufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the Petition, or deficient and inadequate, or insufficient, and therefore ought to be struck out as being frivolous or vexatious, and or, having no reasonable cause of action, or insufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition.
36. 	Assuming that what has been alleged under this ground can be proven, does the Petitioner have a sustainable or reasonable cause of action? Could the Petition succeed with those facts pleaded? If the answer is yes, then the Petition must be allowed to proceed to trial.
37. 	Having carefully considered the elements of the allegation of bribery and all supporting documents that have been filed including those in opposition and in support of the application for strike out, I am not satisfied that the pleadings and particulars, together with the sworn statements filed in support, satisfactorily set out sufficient grounds to show that the allegation, even if proved, is sufficient to support the elements of election bribery.
38. 	The first issue is that of the claim of Agency. Ms. Soaika in her submissions point out that the Petition has failed to set out sufficient facts that establish an agency relationship between Joshua Loko and the Respondent.
39. 	In the case of Alfred Solomon Sasako v. Stanley Festus Sofu and the Attorney-General and Another, (“Sasako’s Case”) this Court had set out some important guidelines in the pleadings that should be included, when an issue of Agency is raised in the Petition.
40. 	At paragraphs 29 – 31 of that judgment, this Court pointed out that making a bare assertion of Agency, as has been done in this case, will not be enough. I quote:
	“… On the question of agency, once the allegation has been dismissed, the issue of agency automatically falls apart.  But even, if the evidence somehow should bear up, which is denied, the pleadings on agency, also do not match up. All it makes is a bare assertion, that Mr. Belo is a strong supporter or an agent of the First Respondent, nothing more.
	30. It is bad pleading to allege merely that a right, or a duty, or a liability exists; the facts must be set out, which give rise to such right or create such duty or liability. In this instance, the Petitioner is obliged to set out the facts and circumstances, on which he relies on as creating that agency. By failing to set out the material facts on the allegation of agency, it is not open to the Petitioner, to rely on evidence at trial to prove agency, where the facts had not been pleaded or set out.
	31. I am not satisfied accordingly, that the evidence adduced is sufficient to support the allegation agency. It falls well short of the threshold of proof of agency.”
41. 	The submission of insufficient facts being pleaded to support this allegation of Agency by Ms. Soaika has not been contradicted. The most that was provided in the facts, as set out in the sworn statement of Philip Lidisi filed on 25 July 2024, at paragraph 5, states that Joshua Loko is a “key supporter” of the Applicant/ Respondent.
42. 	In Sasako’s case, a bare assertion of a “strong supporter” without more is inadequate. The Petitioner is obliged when alleging that a relationship of Agency exists, to set out the “facts and circumstances”, on which he relies on as establishing that relationship of agency. That has not been done in this case and so that particular aspect of the pleadings should be dismissed.
43. 	On that ground alone, the rest of this allegation should be struck out.  But even if an Agency relationship should be established, on the issue of sufficiency, whether no reasonable cause of action is disclosed or there are insufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition, I am not satisfied as well that sufficient facts have been pleaded to support the allegation that the money was “corruptly given”, to influence voters of Mile 3 Community to refrain from voting the Petitioner.
44. 	The pleadings I find to be vague, ambiguous and dis-connected. There is an over-generalisation of assertions with conjectures that because money was given to the Chairman of the Community, that it has been corruptly given with the intention to influence the members of the Community to vote in a certain way. Insufficient facts have been pleaded to support this assertion.
45. 	The identity of those who were influenced for instance, is more a matter of conjecture than anything else, and this court cannot assume that an election bribery has been committed by Joshua Loko, even if he is an agent of the Respondent. The connection or link between him and the Community and the purported outcome of corruptly influencing voters is simply non-existent.
46. 	While there are facts pleaded of money being given for a particular purpose by Joshua Loko to Peter Anama, and money given to the Chairman of the Mile 3 Community for a party, nothing is pleaded as to what happened thereafter other than an assumption, that it corruptly influenced members of that Community to refrain from voting. No facts however have been pleaded on this crucial issue, while the Court instead is being urged to draw an inference, which is not open to the Court to do so in the absence of sufficient particulars and facts to support such serious allegation. The holdings of meetings, gatherings, parties etc. where food and drinks are shared and money expended for such purposes are common events during campaign period and there must be more that needs to be pleaded to establish or show that a payment or gift has been done with a corrupt intention to influence a voter in terms of his freedom to choose who he/she will vote for during such time.
47. 	It is not clear in this instance too, if the Chairman of this particular Community is one of the supporters of the Applicant, or not. Further, the allegation goes only in so far as alleging that the payment was to purchase food with the intention of holding a party for the Community to prevent them from attending the launch of the CARE Party being convened on the next day. It is one thing to attend a launching meeting, as opposed to a payment being made to influence another person or a third person, to vote or refrain from voting at an election.
48. 	The nexus (link) between the voting and attending a launching meeting while related, are distinct and separate events, and adequate and further facts need to be pleaded, to meet the threshold of election bribery, which in this instance I am not satisfied has been done.
49. 	I am satisfied accordingly this ground should be dismissed as raising “insufficient grounds to warrant a hearing” or showing “no reasonable cause of action” being disclosed.
50. 	On the issue of whether an amendment will cure the defect, in my view that will not make any difference on the facts and matters pleaded in relation to this allegation.
The 2nd Allegation of bribery: Particulars of bribing Lower Lire Community.
51. 	The particulars alleged are set out as follows:
	“On Sunday 3rd March 2024, an Agent of the Respondent, Ms. Lodu, gave $850.00 to one Pastor Gideon Solo to be handed to the lower Lire Community for the purpose of buying food and to prevent the voters in the Community away from attending election campaign to be launched by the Petitioner and CARE on Monday 4th March 2024 in Gizo Town. Ms. Lodu gave the money with the intention of influencing the voters in the lower Lire Community to refrain from voting the Petitioner.”
52. 	The particulars relied on in relation to this second bribery allegation are the same as the first ground that a sum of money was given to buy food for the lower Lire Community and to prevent them from going to attend the launching of the CARE Party on the next day 4th March 2024. The allegation of corruption arises from the assertion that the money was given with the intention of influencing the voters in the lower Lire Community as well to refrain from voting the Petitioner.
53. 	Apart from the particulars pleaded, the sworn statement of Pastor Gideon Solo filed on the 28th May 2024 in support of this allegation, states that after church service on Sunday 3rd March 2024, as they returned to their village, they were met by Ms. Lodu who stopped them and gave him a brown envelope containing the sum of $850.00.
54. 	He states inter alia that the money was given to buy food for the Community for a get together on the next day, to keep everyone from attending the launch of the CARE Party meeting that day.
Decision on this 2nd Allegation.
55. 	For the same reasons set out in the 1st Allegation, this ground should be dismissed as well for the very basic failures to provide sufficient particulars on the assertion of Agency of Ms. Lodu and whether or not the money was given with the corrupt intention to cause the members of the lower Lire Community to vote in a certain way or to refrain from voting.
56. 	Apart from the bare assertions set out in the allegations pleaded, all that Pastor Solo said about Ms. Lodu is that she is a “Coordinator” of Jimson Tana, and nothing more. I reiterate what is stated under the first ground (paragraph 42), that a bare assertion of a “strong supporter”, and in this case, “a Co-ordinator” of Jimson Tana, without more is equally inadequate. The Petitioner is obliged when asserting that a relationship of Agency exists, to set out the “facts and circumstances”, on which he relies as establishing the agency relationship. That has not been done in this case and so that particular aspect of the pleadings in this ground too should be dismissed.
57. 	On that basis alone as well, this allegation should be dismissed.  In any event, as to the same issue of sufficiency, whether no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, or there are insufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition, I am also not satisfied sufficient facts have been pleaded to support that allegation that the money was “corruptly given”, to influence voters of lower Lire Community to refrain from voting the Petitioner.
58. 	In the sworn statement of Ps. Solo, he states at paragraphs 9 – 10 of his statement as follows:
	“9.0 After my findings and checking the data calculated, I invited the two leaders of the two mentioned communities to come over and see me. They arrived and I showed them the total amount of money which is $850. I showed them also the data given by Ms. Lodu which confirmed each member should receive $25.00 each.
	10.0 We then all agreed to share the amount of money as stated in the given data as outlined in my above statements.  Our reasons for sharing the money are as follows.
I	To allow members to freely move around on 4th March 2024.
II	Since we were scattered in our blocks of land, it was hard to come together as required and expected by Jimson Tana and his group.
III	Our Choice was already made and we could not all follow the instruction given.”
59. 	His sworn statement merely confirms in plain terms that no one in the community was corruptly influenced in any way by the payment or gift of that money. For the same reasons given under the first allegation and without having to repeat what is said, I am not satisfied sufficient facts have been pleaded to warrant the hearing of this ground and it should also be dismissed herewith.
60. 	I am also satisfied no amendment would cure the defect in the allegations as pleaded.
The 3rd Allegation of Bribery: Particulars of bribing upper Lire Community.
61. 	The particulars alleged are set out as follows:
	“On Sunday 3rd March 2024, an Agent of the Respondent, Ms. Lodu, gave $550.00 cash to Patricia Waena to be handed to the members of the upper Lire Community for the purpose of buying food and to prevent the voters in the Community from attending election campaign to be launched by the Petitioner and CARE on Monday 4th March 2024 in Gizo Town. Ms. Lodu gave the money with the intention of influencing the voters in the upper Lire Community to refrain from voting the Petitioner.”
62. 	The particulars set out under the third allegation are the same save as to the amount and person it was given to. In this instance, it was Patricia Waena and the amount given was $550.00.
63. 	The sworn statement filed in support of this third allegation is that of Samantha Vaene Sebala (“Ms. Sebala”) filed 28 May 2024.
64. 	She again makes the assertion that Ms. Lodu is a “strong supporter” of the Applicant/ Respondent. 
65. 	She makes the same statement to the effect that a yellow envelope was given to Patricia Waena and words to the effect that it is to buy food and to play games and keep them busy so that they will not attend the launching of the CARE Party meeting on the 4th March 2024.
Decision on the 3rd Allegation of bribery.
66. 	For the same reasons set out in the 1st and 2nd Allegations, this ground should also be dismissed as well for the very basic failures to provide sufficient particulars on the assertion of Agency of Ms. Lodu and whether or not the money was given with the corrupt intention to cause the members of the upper Lire Community to vote in a certain way or to refrain from voting.
67. 	Apart from the bare assertion of Agency, Ms. Sebala in her sworn statement describes Ms. Lodu as a “strong supporter” of the Applicant/ Respondent, and nothing more. I reiterate what is stated in paragraph 42, that a bare assertion of a “strong supporter” without more is inadequate. The Petitioner is obliged when asserting that a relationship of Agency exists, to set out the “facts and circumstances”, on which he relies as establishing the agency relationship. That again has not been done in this case and accordingly that part of the pleadings should be dismissed.
68. 	But even if the issue of Agency can be established, this ground should also be dismissed on the question whether sufficient grounds to warrant a hearing had been established or a reasonable cause of action is disclosed. 
69. 	I am not satisfied sufficient facts have been pleaded to support the allegation that the money was “corruptly given”, to influence voters also of upper Lire Community to refrain from voting the Petitioner.
70. 	In her statement, Ms. Sebala states that when the announcement was made in the Lire Community Church Hall, some members disagreed because they formed the view that it interfered with their freedom and right.
71. 	There were some who worked at Gizo during that time and so would be in Gizo in any event for the launching. In respect of Ms. Sebala she stated that she attended the launching and made up her mind not to vote for the Applicant/ Respondent. Accordingly she was not influenced in any way about her individual right to vote.
72. 	For the same reasons given in ground 1 of the Allegations of bribery, I am equally satisfied insufficient facts have been pleaded to show that the money given for the purpose of holding a party as a means of preventing people from attending the CARE Party launch, to be over-generalised, ambiguous and vague.
73. 	The identity of those who were adversely affected by the payment and thereby corruptly influenced not to vote for the Respondent/ Petitioner is simply too remote and vague and what is being sought more in this instance is for the Court to make an inference, that because of such payment, the members of the Community had been influenced.
74. 	The relevant nexus between being influenced to vote a certain way, as opposed to attending another party’s meeting has not been adequately established on the facts to support the allegation of an election bribery.
75. 	I am satisfied accordingly this ground should also be dismissed as raising “insufficient grounds to warrant a hearing” or showing “no reasonable cause of action” being disclosed and that no amendment will cure the defect.
4th Allegation of Bribery: Particulars of bribing Tamure Group from Nusa Baruku.
76. 	The facts as pleaded read as follows:
	“On 27th March 2024, the Respondent and his Campaign Team together with a Tamure Dance Group from Nusa Baruku travelled together to Kolombangara Island. Their campaign program started at Poitete, then at Jack Harbour and ended at Kuzi village. The following events occurred at each venue-
(i)	After campaign, the Tamure Group would do entertainment to raise funds for themselves. The Respondent did most of the donations.
(ii)	On their return, the Respondent by himself gave $100.00 each to people travelling in his boat including Everlyn Iramai Tepea of the Tamure Group.
(iii)	The Respondent by himself also distributed monies to people in other boats, including Veronica Solo who received $300.00.
(iv)	When giving the monies, the Respondent told the persons in the boats not to tell anyone about the money that he gave the monies because they were his own people.
	The Respondent gave the monies with the intention of influencing the people travelling in the boats to vote for him and to refrain from voting another candidate.”
77. 	The facts pleaded in respect of this allegation assert that while travelling to do campaigns with a tamure dance group, the Applicant/ Respondent gave moneys to Everlyn Iramai Tepea (“Iramai”) and Veronica Solo with the corrupt intention of influencing them and others to vote for him and no one else.
78. 	In the sworn statement of Iramai filed 28 May 2024, she deposed that an Agent and a strong supporter of the Applicant/ Respondent, Tamisia Teiona gave them each $100.00, including 8 other persons in the boat with them.
Decision on the 4th Allegation of Bribery.
79. 	This fourth allegation can be shortly disposed of as being inadequate and insufficient to constitute the very basics of the elements of bribery.
80. 	The pleadings as set out fall short of the threshold of establishing the elements of a corrupt intention in the payment of money made to influence the recipients to vote or not vote in a certain way.
81. 	In terms of what was deposed to in the sworn statement of Iramai with regards to the question of Agency, all that mentioned was that Tamisia Teiona, was an Agent and “strong supporter” of the Applicant/ Respondent.
82. 	Again a mere statement that one is a strong supporter or an agent is insufficient without more particulars being set out. I am satisfied any assertions of Agency in this allegation must be dismissed as insufficient.
83. 	In terms of the question whether there are insufficient grounds to warrant a hearing had been established or no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, I am not satisfied sufficient particulars or facts have been pleaded to support the threshold argument that money had been corruptly given or offered to influence Iramei or others to vote or not vote in a certain way.
84. 	In the sworn statement of Iramai relied on in support of this allegation, apart from the fact of being given $100.00 each, there is literally nothing else to suggest that an electoral offence had been committed.
85. 	In his submissions in support of this allegation, Mr. Waleanisia submits that there were suggestions to the effect that the giving of monies were to be kept a secret.
86. 	Secondly, that in the context and timing of the message and the occasion, there is a political angle which favoured the Applicant in this instant.
87. 	Thirdly, he submits that there is a probable argument that the pleadings were adequate for purposes of satisfying the intent to influence element and to trigger the duty for the Applicant/ Respondent to respond.
88. 	In her submissions on this allegation however, Ms. Soaika again reiterates the point that it fails to establish the elements of election bribery. Secondly, it fails to establish agency relationship and fails to demonstrate that the payments of $100 to Iramai and others on the boat was given corruptly with intent to influence them to vote or refrain from voting in a particular way at the election. She submits that this allegation should accordingly be dismissed as well.
89. 	In his draft Defence filed as Annexure JFT-2, in the sworn statement of the Applicant filed on 1st July 2024, he states the following:
	“5.4.1 The Tamure Group of Nusa Baruku was part of the Respondent’s team who provided entertainment throughout the two days campaign in Kolobangara, Poitete and Jack Harbour;
	5.4.2 The dancers did not accompany the Respondent to raise funds for themselves, rather they were hired at a fee of $1500 to provide entertainment.  When hired to accompany the Respondent on 2 days campaign, the Respondent ensure to provide breakfast, lunch and dinner as he did to all his team members;
	5.4.3 The Tamure dancers were also supporters of the Respondent;” 
90. 	Having an entertainment group to perform during campaign period is not unusual. Sometimes, musicians, singers, dance groups, even church groups are asked and invited to attend such launch meetings or campaigns and it is not unusual in those circumstances as is the case here, for their expenses or costs to be paid.
91. 	Having carefully considered the matters raised, I am satisfied the facts pleaded in support of this allegation fall drastically short of the threshold requirement to overcome the requirement to establish a reasonable cause of action and sufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition. This allegation should also be dismissed. I am also satisfied no amendment would cure the defect in this allegation.
5th Allegation of Bribery: Particulars of bribing at Point Cruz Wharf.
92. 	The particulars are set out as follows:
	“On 9th April 2024, an Agent of the Respondent, namely Patteson Kevu, gave 7 sea fare tickets for travelling on MV Fair Glory to one Peter Eme, at Point Cruz Wharf, to be shared amongst his Wantoks from Malaita registered to vote at Poitete Polling Station. At the same time, the said Patteson Kevu gave $1,000.00 to the said Peter Eme for his own personal use and for arranging place and food. When giving the tickets and the $1,000.00, the said Patteson Kevu uttered that the favour was from the Respondent and that they must not tell anyone that the tickets and money were given by the Respondent. Patteson Kevu the tickets and money with the intention of influencing the people travelling on the ship to vote for the Respondent and not to vote another candidate.”
93. 	The allegation asserts that Patteson Kevu is an Agent of the Applicant/ Respondent. Secondly that tickets and the sum of $1,000 given to Peter Eme at the Point Cruz Wharf were given with the specific intention of corruptly influencing Peter Eme and his relatives to vote for the Respondent and no one else.
94. 	The sworn statement of Peter Eme filed on the 27th May 2024, states that he was planning to travel to vote in the Gizo Kolombangara Constituency but was struggling to secure boat fares when a person by the name of Bresford Sulcliff offered to help by getting funds from the Applicant/ Respondent to pay for their fares etc.
95. 	He was then told to get in touch with an Agent of the Applicant, Patteson Kevu who thereafter not only arranged to pay for their boat fares but also arranged for accommodation for them at Poitete in Kolombangara during their stay there. Their daily needs and costs were also provided for from funds by another Agent, Areta Qorataru (“Areta”) of the Applicant.
96. 	As a result of that assistance, Peter Eme deposed that he felt obliged to vote for the Applicant.
97. 	A second statement however from this same person by way of a Statutory Declaration made on the 4th June 2024, some 8 days later, attached as “Exhibit JFT-2” to the sworn statement of Jimson Tanangada filed on the 1st July 2024, basically denies the contents of his earlier sworn statement, stating that he was a supporter of the Applicant and that arrangements in Poitete station were by pre-arrangement with the relatives of the Applicant. In essence his subsequent declaration has the effect of recanting on what he had earlier stated and explaining that the earlier statement was made without his full knowledge and interest.
Decision on the 5th Allegation of Bribery.
98. 	Again on this allegation, there are essentially two issues for determination. First, the question of Agency, in respect of Patteson Kevu and Areta, and secondly the same questions whether a reasonable cause of action or sufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition have been made out.
99. 	On the issue of Agency, without having to be repetitive, I find that this threshold has not been established and that issue should be dismissed.
100. 	On the issue of sufficiency, while the particulars and the earlier sworn statement seem to suggest that Peter Eme had been corruptly influenced, that is as far as it goes without more. There is simply no facts pleaded to suggest that any of the others with him were in the same position as he was. This simply means that with the effect of the issue of Agency having been dismissed, and with an act of bribery alleged in relation to him alone, the new amendment pursuant to section 108 (7) (a) and (b) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023, would hardly have any impact on the overall result of the election results. But even if the other seven persons with him were included, that would not have had any impact on the final result.
101. 	Note, section 108 (7) (a) and (b) provides as follows:
	“(7) Where in an election petition it is shown that: 
(a) 	corrupt or illegal practices or illegal payments, employments or hirings were committed in reference to the elections for the purposes of promoting or procuring the election of a candidate; and 
(b) 	the corrupt or illegal actions or illegal payments, employments or hirings in paragraph (a) so extensively prevailed that they may be reasonably supposed to have affected the result;”
102. 	The effect of this amendment meant that even if bribery had been proven in this instance, which is denied, as relating to Peter Eme, it would not have made any difference to the final result.
103. 	In the case of Jimmy Lusibae v. Senley Levi Filualea and Attorney-General, his Lordship Higgins J. also dealt with a similar situation where an allegation of bribery was raised on more stronger or specific terms. I quote:
	“The allegations of bribery in this case are supported by the evidence of Lloyd Wanefalea. He asserts that one Ashley Kona gave him a ticket to return to Auki to vote. He urged him to vote for the donor of the ticket but did not say who that was.”
104. 	In dismissing that allegation of bribery, his Lordship found:
	“No doubt because of a later incident next day he took that to refer to the 1st Respondent.
	In my view, even accepting this evidence it does not enable an adverse inference to be drawn against the 1st Respondent.
	That is for two reasons, first it is not impermissible to pay a voter’s expenses to attend to vote. Thus the payment for the ticket is not a bribe.
	Second, there is no evidence that the 1st Respondent in any way knew of or authorised this transaction.”
105. 	For those similar reasons, I am not satisfied the offence of election bribery has been established in the circumstances of this case as well.
106. 	There is however a further twist to this case by the issue of a second statement by this person which has the effect in essence of virtually derailing the credibility and veracity of his earlier sworn statement. Even if this matter is allowed to proceed to trial, his evidence would be gravely tainted and rendered unreliable.
107. 	On this ground as well, I am not satisfied this ground is also made out in terms of the threshold requirement of sufficiency, that is, to establish a reasonable cause of action or sufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition and therefore this allegation should also be dismissed herewith.
6th Allegation of Bribery: Particulars of bribing at Piu Village. 
108. 	The sixth and final allegation reads as follows:
	“On 13th April 2024, after a meeting at Piu Village, the Respondent shared monies to John Zama, Rilaeni Bulupala, Willie Lega, Hivapai, Aloi Benson, Agnes Julius, Zinihite Wayne, Sonfa’alnia Stephen, Judah Oge, Brian Simata and Kennedy Augustine. Next day (14th April 2024) John Zama, an Agent of the Respondent, gave $50.00 to Walter Taki and $50.00 to Walter Taki’s wife. The Respondent gave the money with the intention of giving benefits to the recipients, including Walter Taki and his wife, so as to influence them to vote for the Respondent and to refrain from voting for another candidate, including the Petitioner.”
109. 	Again two main issues are raised in this allegation, that of the agency of John Zama and the issue that no reasonable cause of action is disclosed or insufficient grounds have been pleaded to warrant the hearing of the petition.
110. 	With regards to the issue of agency, Walter Taki in his sworn statement filed 28th May 2024, makes the assertion at paragraph 3, that John Zama was an Agent of the Applicant/ Respondent. At paragraph 6, he says money was shared among the leaders which included John Zama. At paragraph 10, he says he was given $50 by John Zama, and his wife given $50 by John Zama’s wife.
111. 	Another sworn statement relied in support of this allegation is that of Rigley Jack filed on the 23 July 2024. At paragraph 9, he says that Walter Taki told him that the Applicant’s group had given him money. At paragraphs 10 and 11 he says that this person asked him to help him so that he can give his statement about this and so assisted him to travel to Gizo to do that.
112. 	Another sworn statement filed was that of Silas Pio dated 16 July 2024 annexed to the sworn statement of Peter Soqoilo filed 16 July 2024 in which he stated that Walter Taki told them that he had been given $50.00.
113. 	It is pertinent to note however, that in respect of Walter Taki’s sworn statement, he subsequently filed a Statutory Declaration dated 30 May 2024 (only 4 days later) to recant on his earlier statement, denying any suggestions of being corruptly given any money and stating that he has all along been a “strong supporter” of the Applicant/ Respondent.
Decision on the Sixth Allegation of Bribery.
114. 	On the issue of Agency, without having to be repetitive, I find that this threshold has not been established and that issue should be dismissed. The only particulars pleaded made a bare assertion of agency without more.
115. 	In terms of the issue of sufficiency, whether no reasonable cause of action is disclosed or there are insufficient grounds to warrant the hearing of the petition, I am also not satisfied that sufficient facts have been pleaded to support the allegation that money was corruptly given to Walter Taki to influence him to vote for the Applicant or to refrain from voting the Petitioner.
116. 	Even if the substance of the sworn statement of Walter Taki (“Walter”) is considered, the most that can be gleaned from it is that money was given or distributed, but nothing more to suggest that it was made or given to influence him. At paragraph 11 of his sworn statement, he states that he assumed the money was given to him as a voter. An inference seems to be more of what is sought to be drawn from that gift than anything else to reflect the corrupt payment of money to influence him to vote or not to vote in a certain way, but he himself is uncertain about its effect on him.
117. 	Apart from that there is insufficient particulars to establish the basic elements of an election bribery offence.
118. 	The subsequent making of a statutory declaration denying any form of election bribery had been committed, removes any further suggestion of any corrupt payment in relation to the monies received by him.
119. 	His credibility would have been gravely tainted by the subsequent declaration issued by him.
120. 	I note it appears a police complaint has been lodged with the Police. It is important to note that is a separate process and has little impact in terms of the question of sufficiency of particulars and pleadings that are required to warrant the Petition to proceed to the next stage of hearing in this election Petition.
121. 	For the same reasons that have been articulated in this judgment this allegation should also be dismissed.
122. 	The Petition accordingly should be struck out and I order costs accordingly in favour of the Applicant to be taxed, if not agreed.
ORDERS OF THE COURT:
1.	Grant application for strike out herewith with costs to be taxed if not agreed.
2.	Direct that a Certificate of this Court’s Order or dismissal be issued herewith, confirming that the Applicant/ Respondent is the duly elected Member of Parliament for the Gizo/ Kolombangara Constituency, to the Electoral Commission, His Excellency the Governor-General of Solomon Islands, and the Speaker of Parliament.
The Court.