Changing petition rules may solve issues

AS a senior lawyer of many years standing before entering Parliament, Sinasina Yongomugl MP Kerenga Kua makes compelling arguments, whatever issue he takes up.
His latest, pertaining to the arson and hooliganism in Mendi, Southern Highlands, is one case in point.
Kua argues that a change in Supreme Court election rules is the culprit in the Mendi troubles, not that violence of that sort is new to the particular locality. There is a hair trigger on violence in these parts but Kua’s point has merit.
He hints that the nation could have seen many more such displays of frustration-turned-to-violent anger because many cases are dismissed before the substance of the disputes are heard.
Kua maintains that traditionally, all parties were allowed before the courts with the minimal of delay after satisfying some necessary preliminary prerequisite. In most case, the substance of the matters constituting a petition were heard out in court.
Since the change of rules which affected the 2012 and 2017 election petitions, 50 per cent of all petitions have been dismissed through objections on competency, Kua asserts.
That is to say the substance of the cases constituting election petitions have never been heard as the matters are struck out on technicality alone.
“The rules of court does not go down to the heart and soul of the complaint,” Kua said.
Election petitions cost a lot of money.
Petitioners have to deposit a lot of money with their lawyers and with the national court registry to register their complaints.
They have 40 days to compile their case and in most cases presenting evidence immediately after national elections is a dicey and most dangerous business and coming up with the money after a hard fought election is difficult.
Many legitimate petitions die at this stage either because it is too expensive or too risky.
Those that do survive these tests and become registered must, at the very least, be tested for the veracity of the facts or evidences contained in a petition by a competent authority, in this case the court of disputed returns, for these matters to be “really settled” in the minds of the people.
A court arbitrated dispute is normally accepted far more than if left of simmer.
It is common knowledge that elections in PNG, at whatever level, are fraught with problems of ballot rigging, of vote buying, of double and under-age voting, and so many other foul schemes so as to defy belief.
The Court of Disputed Returns is, therefore, a very important check and a last measure to correct heinous actions and grave injustices.
We equally appreciate the upside of the court rules.
With the number of election candidates increasing each election, there is a corresponding increase in the number of election petitions after each elections.
Many of the petitions are mere nuisances and in themselves made up tales and paid-for testimonies by conniving candidates, who, having failed to get in the front door using dirty tactics, try to dash in the back door using the same tactics.
These are a waste of the court’s time and with few justices to attend to the heavy routine judiciary workload, it is understandable that some measures be instituted to remove nuisance petitions at the earliest.
The problem is: How does one differentiate the legitimate ones from the nuisance ones?
It is a good one for the legal eagles to mull over.
Our own suggestion would be to have a vetting committee or board at the point of registering of the petition. Such a board would comprise senior lawyers, academics and retired judges to look at the actual complaints contained in each petition.
At that point, many nonsense petitions should be spotted and recommended for dismissal.
For now, we further agree with Kua’s recommendation for the current court rules pertaining to election petitions to be reviewed.