In the Matter of The Organic Law on National and Local-Level Government Elections, Aihi v Avei [2003] PGNC 141; N2330 (17 February 2003)

N2330

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

EP No. 17 of 2002

IN THE MATTER OF THE ORGANIC LAW ON
NATIONAL AND LOCAL-LEVEL GOVERNMENT
ELECTION AND IN THE MATTER OF THE
DISPUTED RETURNS FOR THE KAIRIKU-HIRI

Between:

PARU AIHI
-Petitioner-

And:

SIR MOI AVEI
-First Respondent-

REUBEN KAIULO,
- Electoral Commissioner of Papua New Guinea -
-Second Respondent--

WAIGANI: SALIKA J.
17 February, 2003

ELECTION PETITION – Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections – Sections 208 (d) of the Organic Law – to state "villager" as an occupation is not complying with s. 208 (d) of the Organic Law – "villager" not an occupation..

Counsel:
Mr J. Yagi for petitioner
Mr B. Andrew for First Respondent
Mr D. Kombagle for Second Respondent

SALIKA J: An objection has been raised that the two attesting witnesses of the petitioner did not comply with s. 208 (d) of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Election on the basis that the two witness put themselves up as "villagers" as their occupation. Section 208 (d) of the Organic Law on National Local Level Government Election says:

"208: Requisites of petition

A Petition shall –

(d) be attested by two witnesses whose occupations and addresses are stated"

Strictly speaking a "villager" is not on occupation. A "villager" simply means someone who lives in a village. An occupation is what one does usually. In PNG a "villager" does so many things. A villager maybe a subsistence gardener or a fisherman. That is he does gardening most of the time or goes fishing most of the time. If he does that then "gardening" becomes his occupation.

Is the word "villager" sufficient for the purposes of s. 208 (d) of the Organic Law. If the two witnesses are gardeners then they must write "gardener" as their occupation.

If they are fisherman in the village and spend most of the time in that activity then they must write "fisherman" as their occupation. If they hunt or spend most of their time hunting then they must write "hunter" as their occupation.

I am aware of what we Papua New Guineans think of a villager. When a person in PNG says he is a villager, we normally presume him to do his own things like gardening, fishing, running a small trade store at his own time. He is a master of his time. A "villager" is usually referred to as someone like that. So what does s. 208 (d) require. In my view s. 208 (d) requires an attesting witness to state what he does even if that person is a villager.

I am mindful of what the Supreme Court said in the matter of HEROWA AGIWA. I am mindful of what s. 208 (d) requires. Section 210 is also clear and specific that where a petitioner does not comply with s. 208 and s. 209 there is no petition. This is important in my view.

I appreciate that the purpose for which the attesting witnesses state their addresses and their occupations are is so that if they were asked to be located they will be there. I appreciate that but those persons must state what they do.

To state that they are villagers in my view is not complying with s. 208 (d) of the Organic Law. A "villager" in my view is not sitting ones to occupation.

I have tried to read s. 208 (d) and give a liberal PNG meaning but as I have done that I have decided that what the villager does most of the time he must state that as his occupation and not simply a villager. We tend to assume that because a villager is not in the formal workforce he should be excluded from stating his occupation. I think that is wrong. A villager must state his occupation that is state what he does for a living.

In the end I rule that "villager" is not an occupation as required under s. 208 (d) of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government elections.

The petition is dismissed with costs.
________________________________________________________________________
Lawyers for the petitioner : Yagi Lawyers
Lawyers for the first respondent: Madaldina Lawyers
Lawyer for the second respondent: Parua Lawyers