Previous 2 / 9 Next

Cases cited: Malakai Tabar v. Hon. delta Wong cfe Electoral Commission: EP No. 11 of 2017 (Unnumbered & Unreported Judgment of 17* January 2017 per Makail J) Desmond Baira v. Kilroy Genia(1998)SC579 Robert Lakv. Paias Wingti(2003)N2358 Benny Diau v. Mathew Gubag(2003)N2354 Pawa Wai v. Jamie Maxton Graham (2005)N2768 Perry Zeipi v. Gabia Gagarimabu (1999)SCR No.5 of 1999 Labi Amaiu v. Andrew Maid(2008)N3335 Neville Bourne v. Manasseh Voeto [1977]PNGLR 298 Peter Waranaka v. Gabriel Dusava (2009)SC980 Aide Ganasi v. Sali Subam (2013) SC1277 Allan Ebu v. Roy Evara [1983]PNGLR 201 Jerry Singirok v. Ken Fairweather(2014)N5577 Bede Tomokita v. Dougals Tomuriesa & Electoral Commission: EP No 28 of 2017(Unnumbered & Unreported Judgment of 10* January 2018 per Makail J) Bryan Kramer v. Nixon Philip Duban &. Electoral Commission(2013)N5213 Bryan Kramer v. Nixon Philip Duban & Andrew Trawen (No.3)(2013)N5215 Counsel: Mr. J. Holingu, for Petitioner Mr. M. Nale, for First Respondent Mr. L. Okil, for Second Respondent RULING ON NO CASE SUBMISSION IS'" January,2018 1. MAKAIL,J: This is a ruling on a no case submission against a petition disputing the election of the first respondent as member for Gazelle Open electorate in East New Britain Province. 2. On 17* January 2018, ruled that one out of three allegations in the petition was competent and allowed to proceed to trial. It was the allegation of bribery: see Malakai Tabar v. Hon. delta Wong & Electoral Commission: EP No. 11 of 2017(Unnumbered & Unreported Judgment of 17* January 2017 per

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