Previous 4 / 9 Next

Evidence 9. The evidence to prove the allegation came from six witnesses called by the petitioner. They were Peter Rauka Oa, Thecla Warpin, Joseph Topimg, August Punion, Lawrence Gogome and Heniy Minalom. Mrs. Warpin ace oral evidence and was cross-examined. The others tendered their sworn affidavits and were cross-examined. 9. Mr. Rauka Oa produced a copy of the Common Roll for Gazelle Open electorate contained in four bound volumes. He also produced a copy of Form 23 which is a nomination form of the first respondent. It is dated 24^^ April 2017 as date of its receipt by the Returning Officer. Grounds of No Case Submission 10. The grounds of no case submission are: 10.1. The first respondent was not a candidate when the alleged offence of bribery was committed. 10.2. The person bribed was not an elector. 10.3. Lack of evidence on purpose for giving of money. Candidate 11. The issue is whether the first respondent was a candidate when the alleged offence of bribery was committed within the meaning of Section 215 of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections("Organic Law"). 12. There are two aspects to this issue. First is the meaning of candidate and second is date when the first respondent became a candidate. 13. For the first aspect, parties put forward two propositions. The respondents submitted that a person is a candidate when he has nominated:

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