Negints v Karali [1997] PGNC 75; N1652 (21 June 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1652

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

OS NO. (MISC ) OF 1997
BETWEEN: THOMAS NEGINTS
APPLICANT
AND: JACK KARALI - RETURNING OFFICER
FIRST RESPONDENT
AND: REUBEN KAIULO - ELECTORAL COMMISSIONER
SECOND RESPONDENT
AND: DOUGLAS TINGAWA - RETURNING OFFICER FOR TAMBUL/NEBILYER ELECTORATE
THIRD RESPONDENT

Mount Hagen

Injia J
21 June 1997

ELECTION - Parliament - Counting of votes - Application to suspend - Production of election returns by Electoral Commission to scrutineers - Whether National Court has jurisdiction to order - Organic Laws on National and Local-Level Government, Ss. 126 (6), 218.

[Application for order to suspend counting of votes for Tambul/Nebilyer open electorate and to order Returning Officer to produce election returns for each polling place in the electorate.]

Counsel

P. Dowa for the Applicant

N>No appearance fo Respondents

21 June 1997

INJIA J: Having heard Mr Dowa on this application, one of the important issue to determintainsurisdiction of thof this Court to entertain this applicatiocation. This court is not a Court of disputed returns which will deal with the very same issues raised in this application in the event that the loosing candidate or candidates, including the Applicant in this case, if the looses for election, wish to file an election petition. If the error is found to be material by the Court of disputed returns, then it may have the effect of ivitiating the election: S. 218 of Organic Law on National and Provincial and Local Level Government Elections, No. 3 of 1997. As I said recently in the case of Philip Kapal -v- Electoral Commission, it would be pre-mature, super-fluos and duplicatory of the process of judicial review of elections by the Court of Disputed Returns, for this Court to entertain this kind of application.

In any case, I am also not persuaded by the Applicant’s counsel that the Returning Officer for this particular electorate is in breach of his statutory duties under the said Organic Law to warrant this Court’s interference in the conduct of scrutiny or counting of votes which is scheduled to continue at 6 pm today. The Applicant’s lawyer produced an extract of some practice manual prepared by the Electoral Commission to guide its officers, to base his application. But I am precluded by S. 126(6) Constitution from issuing any orders, directions, etc. which has the effect of directing or controlling the Commission in the performance of its administrative functions. Section 126(6) is in mandatory terms: “The Commission is not subject to direction or control by any person or authority”

For these reasons, I dismiss the application.

Lawyer for the Applicant: PAULUS DOWA Lawyers

Lawyer for the Respondents: No appearance for the Respondents