In the Matter of The Election for The Lufa Open Electorate; Komane Asano Wasege v Mathias Karani and Electoral Commission of PNG

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Woods J
• Judgment Date: 30 September 1997
• Citation: (1997) N1617
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1997
• Judgement Number: N1617

National Court: Woods J

Judgment Delivered: 30 September 1997

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 is a Petition disputing the validity of the Election for the Lufa Open seat in the Eastern Highlands Province in the 1997 National Elections. The Respondents have moved the Court to strike out the Petition on the basis 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 facts are required 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 principles outlined 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 Court in acting under 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 have aired their dissatisfaction the Court sifts the complaints 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 Returns has the dut of hearing and determining only those petitions which challenge an election by specific charges that, if proved, will result in an election being set aside. As the Supreme Court said:

The Organic Law on National Elections has clearly stated its intentions that a petition must strictly comply with S. 208. It is not difficult to see why. An election petition is not an ordinary cause. It is a very serious thing. It is basic and fundamental that elections are decided by the voters who have a free and fair opportunity of electing the candidate that the majority prefer. This is a sacred right and the legislature has accordingly laid down very strict provisions before there can be any challenge to the...