Three petitions against Powi

THE court of disputed returns only deals with validity of declarations from electoral process and it does not have the power to interpret Constitutional provisions, Judge Joseph Yagi says.
The judge made the comment in Waigani on Friday after going through the draft orders presented by Southern Highlands Provincial candidate Peter Nupiri’s lawyer Greg Sheppard.
This is in relation to an election petition against Governor William Powi and the Electoral Commission (EC).
Judge Yagi told Sheppard to re-word certain items in the draft directions which asked the court for interpretation of a Constitutional provision on the special circumstance declaration of Powi.
He said certain words in the items in the draft consent order questioned the jurisdiction of the court of disputed returns.
Judge Yagi suggested if Nupiri could re-word the draft orders and proceed to trial. Also, for Nupiri to withdraw the petition and pursue the matter in a different court to review or seek interpretation of constitutional provisions in special circumstance declarations.
The matter returns on Thursday for Sheppard to hand up documents and also decide whether to proceed with the matter in the court of disputed returns.
There are total of three election petitions challenging the special circumstances declaration of Powi General Elections 2022 (GE22).
Meanwhile, in the case of former Kainantu MP Johnson Tuke against the newly elected William Hagahuno and the EC, the court was satisfied with the draft orders and was endorsed.
The matter returns on Dec 7 for pre-trial conference.
In the case of Pomio candidate Fr Benedict Tati against Elias Kapavore and the EC, the court was advised that the matter was delayed due to the issue of legal representation which was resolved last week.
Tati’s lawyer Gerthrude Kubak said a draft order had been circulated to other parties and were yet to receive a response from them.
The court fixed Nov 7 for the matter to return for direction hearing and ordered Kapavore and the EC to consider the draft orders and respond with their comments.
Parties were ordered to hand up a copy of the consented draft orders for the court to endorse when the matter returns.