Roger Tongai Palme v Michael Mel, Ruben Teratere and The Electoral Commission (1989) N808

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Judge: Woods J
• Judgment Date: 20 December 1989
• Citation: (1989) N808
• Docket Number: In the Matter of the Organic Law on National Elections and In the Matter of the Disputed Returns for the Anglimp South Wahgi Open Electorate
• Court: National Court
• Year: 1989
• Judgement Number: N808

Full Title: In the Matter of the Organic Law on National Elections and In the Matter of the Disputed Returns for the Anglimp South Wahgi Open Electorate; Roger Tongai Palme v Michael Mel, Ruben Teratere and The Electoral Commission (1989) N808

National Court: Woods J

Judgment Delivered: 20 December 1989

N808

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

M.P. NO. 78 OF 1987

IN THE MATTER OF THE ORGANIC LAW ON NATIONAL ELECTIONS AND IN THE MATTER OF THE DISPUTED RETURNS FOR THE ANGLIMP SOUTH WAHGI OPEN ELECTORATE

ROGER TONGAI PALME

PETITIONER

AND

MICHAEL MEL

FIRST RESPONDENT

AND

RUBEN TERATERE

SECOND RESPONDENT

AND

THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION

THIRD RESPONDENT

Mount Hagen

Woods J

1-4 August 1989

7-9 August 1989

16-17 October 1989

20 November 1989

20 December 1989

PARLIAMENT — Elections — Disputed Election Petition — Bribery and Undue Influence by Supporters and Agents of the candidate — S. 204 and 215 of the Organic Law.

Cases Cited:

Allan Ebu v Roy Evara [1983] PNGLR 201

Holloway v Ivarato [988] SC 348 (Unrep.)

Torato v Balakau [1989] N 694 (Unrep.)

Thompson v Pokasui [1989] (Unrep.)

Counsel:

Mr Sasu for Petitioner

Mr Sleight for First Respondent

Mr Sirigoi for Third Respondent

WOODS J: The Petitioner in this Petition is challenging the return of Michael Mel at the National Elections in 1987 on grounds of bribery to procure electors to vote for him. There are also allegations of errors and omissions by electoral officials.

At the beginning of the case certain preliminary matters were raised. Firstly, it was submitted that certain allegations related to dates prior to 3 months before the polling namely to a period when the respondent was not a candidate. It is submitted that a person is not a candidate until he is nominated for election and therefore any reference to any acts if prior to that time are irrelevant by virtue of section 215 and the ruling of the court in the case of Allan Ebu v Roy Evara [1983] PNGLR 201. It was therefore submitted that any alleged acts of bribery committed prior to 19th of March 1987 should be struck out as they cannot set out the facts relied upon to invalidate an election as required by S.208 of the Organic Law on National Elections. I ruled at the beginning of the case that I adopted the ruling made in the case of Allan Ebu that there can be no candidates earlier than three months before the start of polling and any alleged acts of bribery prior to March 1987 cannot be facts relied upon to invaldate an election. I therefore struck out allegations relating to acts prior to the 19th of March being the date three months prior to the polling and such allegations struck out were allegations 4: (i), 4: (ii), 4: (iii) and 6: (i), 6: (ii) and 6: (iii)

Secondly it was submitted that certain allegations were too vague and therefore cannot be held to set out the facts relied upon under S.208. In this instance, certain allegations do not specify the person alleged to have been bribed and it was submitted that without any identification of who was being bribed there were insufficient facts upon which a challenge can be relied.

Bribery is a criminal offence as well as a statutory offence and it is therefore a serious allegation and as such must be alleged in sufficient particularity to allow parties to fully answer the charge. A person is guilty of bribery if he gives any money or procures any office to or for any voters in order to induce any voters to vote or refrain from voting. Therefore any allegations of bribery must be specific enough to enable the defendant or respondent to know who was offered the bribe or inducement. Therefore such allegations must specify the persons bribed. This is covered by the principle enunciated in the case of Holloway v Ivarato SC 349 July 1988 and reiterated by me in Torato v Balakau N 694 March 1989. Therefore for the above reasons and by virtue of the above authorities I struck out allegations 4: (vii), 4: (viii) & 4: (x).

Mr Sasu also indicated in the beginning of the case that he would not be presenting evidence on grounds 4: (xiii) and 8: (iii).

During the case, a further submission was made on the drafting and relevance of the allegations in Clause 6 & 7 in the petition. The allegation is that if the Petitioner succeeds in proving the facts involved in the allegations 6 & 7 they do not constitute any illegal electoral practice. The allegations involved alleged acts of bribery committed by supporters and agents of the First Respondent with his knowledge and authority and it is alleged that such action should void the election. Bribery and undue influence are defined in the Criminal Code S.103. S.215 of the Organic Law refers to voiding election for illegal practice but makes no reference to the...