Minister makes a valid point

 WORKS Minister Francis Awesa has raised a valid point about a downside in the country’s legal processes that caters for what he describes as “habitual or nuisance petitioners”.

He claims this category of losing candidates of general elections will continue to take advantage of the legal processes to pursue their “unwarranted and baseless” petitions unless the laws and processes are amended to prevent them from doing so.

He has called on the Electoral Commission and the Law Reform Commission to review and propose necessary amendments to the laws and processes governing election petitions.

Awesa has just survived another election petition by long-time rival Pila Ninigi, a candidate for the Imbonggu Open electorate in the 2012 general election, who had applied to the Supreme Court to review a National Court decision last year which dismissed his initial petition on the grounds of incompetency.

The National Court had initially dismissed Ninigi’s petition on Jan 18, 2013, but Ninigi disputed Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia’s decision and applied to the Supreme Court for a review. Ninigi claimed that Sir Salamo had erred in law and fact, misapprehended and misapplied the law, and conducted a mini trial.

In upholding the National Court’s decision, Justice Salatiel Lenalia, sitting as a one-man Supreme Court bench in Kokopo last Wednesday, agreed that the election petition lacked competency and therefore he refused the whole application for leave to review.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court application was heard in the East New Britain provincial capital following concerns about possible violence between supporters of Awesa and Ninigi if the case was heard in Mt Hagen or another Highlands centre.

Awesa said such challenges of election results were time-consuming and an unnecessary burden on the courts and respondents like him. Incidentally, this was not the first time that Ninigi had challenged Awesa’s election victory for the Imbonggu seat. And the sitting MP is adamant that it will be the last time because he intends to ensure that Ninigi pays all his legal costs ordered by the Supreme Court, which has amounted to about K1 million.

“I urge the Electoral Commission and the Law Reform Commission to review our current election laws to stop habitual petitioners from wasting the time and resources of the courts and respondents in these cases,” a relieved but equally irate Awesa said after the decision was handed down. Such petitioners are well aware that they do not have valid grounds to challenge election results but continue to be a nuisance to the courts and respondents.”

Despite the fact that election petitioners have no right of appeal under Section 220 of the Organic Law on National and Local-Level Government Elections, we agree with Awesa that habitual and nuisance petitioners will continue to exploit the legal process to challenge final decisions by the Court of Disputed Returns.

Election petitions are an essential part of our election processes as they provide the necessary checks and balance for “free and fair” elections in the country.

The trend in PNG is that candidates who dispute election results are either genuine losers, bad losers or habitual losers.  

Genuine losing candidates will only dispute results if they feel their particular election had not been conducted in a lawful and transparent manner and that they have a very good case of convincing the Court of Disputed Returns to reject the results and subsequently order a by-election. Some of them can afford to pay the legal costs, while others struggle to find money for their court petitions. Many bad losers are candidates who are public servants, executives or businessmen and women who have lost touch with their home provinces and the electorates they contest. They dispute election results mainly because they can afford the legal costs.

Habitual losers are candidates who have the tendency to contest every election and dispute the results regardless of whether they have valid cases and whether they can afford the legal fees.

Indeed, these are the candidates whose bad habits warrant changes to our laws and legal processes that govern national and local-level government elections.