Court grants petitioner leave to review decision

The National National

By ZEDAIAH KANAU
ELECTION petitioner William Hagahuno was granted leave by the Waigani Supreme Court to review a National Court decision to dismiss his election petition regarding the Kainantu Open seat held by Johnson Tuke.
Justice David Cannings, sitting as a single judge on Friday, upheld two of the three proposed grounds of review raised by Hagahuno.
Hagahuno sought review under section 155(2)(b) of the Constitution which allows the Supreme Court to review National Court decisions on election petitions.
Hagahuno argued that the trial judge erred in law in each of the three respects in which objections to competency were upheld.
The three arguments for review were:

  • THE attesting witness ground of the petition;
  • THE requisites of nomination ground of the petition; and,
  • THE seven instances of bribery ground of the petition.

Cannings upheld the first ground which the trial judge erred in law in finding the description of the occupation of the attesting witness as “self-employed” inadequate.
He said that there was no Supreme Court decision on the issue and that Hagahuno had raised an important point of law that was without merit.
Cannings refused the second ground in relation to non-compliance with requirements of nominations.
Hagahuno argued that Tuke had failed to pay his K1,000 nomination fee on time.
Cannings refused that argument, stating that it as a formal defect in the nomination, which was neutralised by the acceptance of the nomination by the returning officer.
However, Cannings upheld the third argument on bribery allegations which stated that the trial judge erred in law in finding that the allegations were confusing, ambiguous and lacking particularity.
Hagahuno argued that the finding was in conflict with judgements of other Supreme Court cases.
Cannings said there were conflicting lines of Supreme Court authority on the issues pertaining to facts in a petition particularly regarding allegations of bribery, undue influence and illegal practices.
“I agree that the applicant has raised important points of law that are not without merit. I grant leave to prosecute as grounds for review the argument raised under bribery allegations,” Cannings said.