Atiyafa free to deliver after court rules in his favour

By TREVOR WAHUNE
Deputy Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika has dismissed an election petition against Henganofi MP MP Robert Atiyafa after finding four versions of the petition.
The petitioner was candidate Ferao Orimyo.
Sir Gibbs on Friday, said: “This is unusual, I have never seen so many versions of a petition all signed and sealed, but each so very much different in its own way.”
Sir Gibbs found that the first version of the petition was the original file, number one.
“This is the same version annexed to Atiyafa’s affidavit dated and filed on Oct 5, 2017.
“The second version is attached to the affidavit of the petitioner’s lawyer Lyons Putupen, filed Sept 28, 2017.
Sir Gibbs said the petition contained only pages one, two, eight, and nine. On page nine there were pen-written words that described an attesting witness Jonathan Haveo’s occupation as “surveyor by profession”, signed on Sept 4, 2017.
“The third version was a totally new document,” he said. “This was attached on pages two and three of Atifyafa’s affidavit annexure B.”
Sir Gibbs found that in the third version, Haveo still had no occupation written beside his name.
The court found that the fourth version was attached as annexure A in Putupen’s affidavit, filed Dec 19, 2017.
“This version now has the second attesting witness’ occupation written in pen.”
When the court asked Putupen which version he relied on, Putupen said the fourth version.
Sir Gibbs held that although the fourth version had substantial amendments to the original file, it did not show when the amendments were made.
“There is no registry entry on the court file cover to show that amendments were made,” he said. “This petition has been riddled with so much patching and tempering.
Sir Gibbs said the court had a practice that had all court files scanned and stored electronically.
“I checked the system to see if the original petition and the amended copy was saved in it, but the only petition saved was the original one, and had nothing about the amended version.
“There was no records of any amendments made to the petition.
“Therefore I am confused which petition is before the court.
“I find each and every version of the petition incompetent and therefore is dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.”