Previous 3 / 9 Next

Makail J). 3. After the close of the petitioner's case, the first respondent supported by the second respondent made a no cases submission. Principles of No Case Submission 4. There is no contested that the no case submission was based on case precedents where it was held that the defence may invite the Court to exercise its discretion to stop the case after the close ofthe petitioner's case, 5. That invitation is made in a case where there is no evidence on a material aspect of the petitioner's case: Desmond Baira v. Kilroy Genia (1998) SC579; Robert Lakv. Paias Wingti(2003)N2358; Benny Diau v. Mathew Guhag(2003) N2354; Pawa Wai v. Jamie Maxton Graham (2005) N2768 and Perry Zeipi v. Gabia Gagarimabu (1999)SCR No. 5 of 1999 and Labi Amain v. Andrew Maid (2008)N3335. Bribery 6. The allegation of bribery is that on Saturday 22"^ April 2017 at about 9:00 am at Tagitagi No. 1 Village, Toma, Vunadirdir Local Level Government, Gazelle District, East New Britain Province at the late Balsius Midir's house, the first respondent gave K100.00 to a voter, one August Punion. 7 When he gave the money, he told Mr. Punion that "yupla baim kaikai na putim mi namba wan"(In English 'Buyfoodfor yourselves and give me your primary vote"). Present at that time were Henry Minalom and Lawrence Gogome. Onus of proof 8. I will apply the standard of proof applied in Neville Bourne v. Manasseh Voeto [1977] PNGLR 298 adopted in Peter Waranaka v. Gabriel Dusava (2009) SC980 and Aide Ganasi v. Sali Subam (2013) SC1277. That is, the petitioner must prove the allegation to the entire satisfaction of the Court.

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