Questions arise in Arore petition, court told

 By ADRIAN MATHIAS

THE National Court yesterday refused an application for summary determination against sidelined Higher Education Minister David Arore on the question of whether the petition was properly before the court.

Firstly, the court noted from submissions by Arore that the petitioner served the petition two days after the required 14 days had expired on Sept 10, 2012.

Arore was declared MP for Ijivitari in Northern on July 20, 2012.

Petitioner John Warison filed the petition on Aug 28, 2012 and served it on Arore on Sept 12, 2012 but Justice Colin Makail found he was two days late. 

Makail, the judge administrator of the 2012 national election petitions, also refused the application on the grounds that one of the petitioner’s witnesses, Austin Sawae, did not correctly state his occupation under section 208 (d) of the Organic Law.

“Given this, I am satisfied there is a serious issue raised in relation to whether the petitioner is in breach of Rule 6 (1) and ultimately whether the petition is properly before the court,” he said.

Sawae stated his occupation as self-employed. 

The judge said he was satisfied with Arore’s argument that self-employed was not an occupation within the meaning of occupation under section 208 (d) of the organic law on national and LLG elections.

“I am satisfied that there are serious questions of fact and law raised by the first respondent (Arore) in relation to the lack of and late service of the petition and the attestation of the petition,” Makail said.

Warison’s application for summary judgment was on the grounds that Arore failed to participate in the directions hearing and status conference, which he said was a failure to comply with the court directions.

He also alleged that Arore did not file and serve affidavits in response to his petition constituting the grounds of bribery allegations.

He also claimed there was no evidence that the sidelined higher education minister refuted bribery allegations against him.

Makail said summary judgment could be entered against the defaulting respondent only in a clear case.

“For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the application for summary judgment should be granted,” he said.

The case has been adjourned to May 24.