Previous 8 / 9 Next

40. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that there is evidence to prove that August Punion is an elector. Purpose 41. As to the purpose of giving the money, the respondents tried to show a case of inconsistencies and contradiction in the evidence of the petitioner's witnesses, August Punion, Lawrence Gogome and Henry Minalom where the latter two witnesses said that the money was given to purchase food for a campaign gathering rather than to buy votes. 42. As I said earlier, all I have to do at this stage is to consider whether there is evidence to support the element of inducement in a bribery case. So far there is evidence from August Pimion that it was given by the first respondent to induce him to vote for him. 43. In my view, whether that evidence conflicts or contradicts the evidence of the other two witnesses is a matter to be decided after close of all evidence. 44. I am not satisfied that there is no evidence proving the purpose to which the money was given. Conclusion 45. Notwithstanding the finding^n favour of the petitioner, a crucial material fact of the allegation of bribery in the context of a General election is lacking or missing. The petitioner has failed to prove that August Punion is an elector within the meaning of Section 3 of the Organic Law and it would be pointless to allow the case to proceed further. 46. It must be stopped here. Order 47. The orders are:

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Tabar v. Wong

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the petitioner met the evidentiary burden for a electoral bribery claim?

Alleged Acts: The petitioner in this case alleges that on April 22, 2017, the respondent attempted to bribe a voter when he gave him money and said “buy food for yourselves and give me your primary vote.” The statement was made before two witnesses.

Procedural history: On January 17, 2018 the court determined that the petition as to the bribery claim was sufficient to proceed to trial.

Summary: The court stated that three evidentiary findings are necessary in this case. First, whether the respondent was a candidate. Second, whether the object of the bribe was an elector. Third, what purpose the funds sought to accomplish. Under the first evidentiary hurdle, the court determined that there was sufficient evidence to deem the respondent a candidate because the date of nomination. However, the petitioner and respondent set forth conflicting nomination dates of April 24th and April 21st. The court determined that there was sufficient evidence based on this element, but it was to be heard when/if the case proceeded. Under the second evidentiary hurdle, the court found that there was not sufficient evidence that object of the bribe was an elector because the legal name of the person was not on the voter rolls. Although he stated he went by another name, he could not explain that he was permitted to vote under that alternative name. Under the final evidentiary burden, the court determined that statements by the object of the bribery was sufficient permit the case to proceed.

Conclusion: The court ultimately determined that there was a crucial missing element to the claim, the elector status of the individual the respondent allegedly sought to bribe. Thus, the case is dismissed.

Legal Issue(s)

Criminal Procedure
Electoral Integrity

Applicable Law(s): Organic Law sec. 3.

Region: Asia-Pacific

Country: Papua New Guinea

Language of Decision

English

Court: Electoral Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Jan 18, 2018

Geolocation

Latitude: -9.347049290883419

Longitude: 147.58881822998177

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

Tabar v. Wong.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Tabar v. Wong

Primary Documents

Notifications