Puaria v Lera [2013] PGNC 55; EP 89 of 2012 (8 April 2013)

N5148

PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

E.P. NO. 89 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF THE ORGANIC LAW ON NATIONAL AND LOCAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT ELECTIONS

AND:

IN THE MATTER OF A DISPUTED RETURN FOR THE BOUGAINVILLE PROVINCIAL ELECTORATE

BETWEEN:

KAPEATU PUARIA
Petitioner

AND:

JOE LERA
First Respondent

AND:

ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Second Respondent

Buka: Kariko, J
2013: 3rd, 4th & 8th April

ELECTION PETITION – Objection to competency – Petition alleging bribery and illegal practices – Whether sufficient facts pleaded – Facts must constitute the alleged offences – Facts must cover elements of the offences – Facts must be material and relevant – s.208(a), Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections.

ELECTION PETITION – Objection to competency – Petition alleging bribery by another person – Whether sufficient facts pleaded – Liability of winning candidate - Facts must indicate liability – s. 204, Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections; s.7, Criminal Code.

ELECTION PETITION – Objection to competency – Petition alleging illegal practices – Whether sufficient facts pleaded – Meaning of "illegal practice" – Part XVII, Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections; Part II Division 5 and Part III Division 3, Criminal Code.

ELECTION PETITION – Objection to competency – Attestation - Whether "self-employed" is an occupation - Meaning of "occupation"- s.208(d), Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections.

Facts:

An objection to the competency of the election petition was filed based on s.208(a) and (d) of the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections claiming:

(1) The petition does not set out sufficient facts for the grounds of bribery and illegal practices alleged in the petition as required by s.208(a); and

(2) The term "self-employed" does not come within the meaning of the word "occupation" required to describe an attesting witness under s.208 (d).

Held:

(1) s.103, the Criminal Code provides various types of electoral bribery and the person bribed need not necessarily be an elector depending on the type of bribery charged.

(2) Where it is alleged that the winning candidate is liable for bribery committed by another person, the petitioner must plead that the offence was committed with the knowledge and authority of the winning candidate or that he procured and counselled the offence.

(3) "illegal practices" mean electoral criminal offences.

(4) The term "self-employed" comes within the meaning of "occupation" as contemplated by s.208 (d), Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections.

(5) The petition is dismissed as incompetent as the facts pleaded are insufficient to constitute the grounds relied upon to invalidate the election.

Cases cited:

Delba Biri v Bill Ninkama [1982] PNGLR 342
EP No. 23 of 2012: Tony Puana v Joseph Lelang & Ors (2013) Unreported and Unnumbered Judgement dated 30th January 2013
Application by Agiwa [1993] PNGLR 136
Paru Aihi v Sir Moi Avei (No 2) (2003) SC720
EP No. 75 of 2012: Peter Waieng v Tobias Kulang & Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea (2013) Unreported and Unnumbered Judgement dated 8th March 2013
Sir Barry Holloway v Aita Ivarato and Electoral Commission [988] PNGLR 99
Neville Bourne v Manasseh Voeto (1977) PNGLR 298
Raymond Agonia v Albert Karo & Electoral Commission [1992] PNGLR 463
Charles Luta Miru v David Basua (1997) N1628
Ludger Mond v Jeffrey Nape (2003) N2318
Sir Arnold Amet v Peter Charles Yama (2010) SC 1064
Peter Isoaimo v Paru Aihi & Electoral Commission of PNG (2012) N4921
Roger Tongai Palme v Michael Mel, Ruben Teratere and The Electoral Commission (1989) N808
Ben Micah v Ian Ling-Stuckey and Electoral Commission (1998) N1790
In Re Koroba-Lake Kopiago Open Parliamentary Election [1977] PNGLR 328
Dick Mune v Anderson Agiru & Ors (1998) SC 590

Counsel:

The petitioner in person
Mr G Dawidi, for the first respondent
Mr B Waipek, for the second respondent

RULING

8th April, 2013

1. KARIKO, J: The petitioner Kapeatu Puaria is a losing candidate in the 2012 national general elections for the seat of Bougainville Regional won by the first respondent Joe Lera.
   
2. On 7th September 2012 Mr Puaria filed this election petition pursuant to the Organic Law on National and Local Level Government Elections (the Organic Law) disputing the validity of the election and return of Mr Lera for the Bougainville Regional Electorate.
   

The petition

3. The petition alleges four grounds of bribery committed by Mr Lera and a ground of illegal practices by officials of the Electoral Commission based on which the petitioner seeks to have the election and return of Mr Lera declared void in accordance with s.215(1) of the Organic Law.
   
4. One of the allegations of bribery (Ground 2) was withdrawn before the trial. The remaining claims of bribery concern certain events that occurred after the issue of the writ for the election for the Bougainville Provincial Electorate, and these took place:
   
   • (1) on 8th June 2012 at Maluatu village, Buin District;
     
   • (2) On 21st June 2012 at Toitoi village, Siwai District; and
     
   • (3) On 21st June 2012 at Siroi village, Siwai District.
     
5. The allegations of illegal practices are levelled against the Electoral Commission in relation to the counting of votes.
   

Objections to competency

6. The respondents filed separate notices of objection to competency of the election petition. Basically, the respondents argue that the petition does not meet the strict requirements of s.208 of the Organic Law.
   
7. In summary, the grounds for objection are:
   
   • (3) The petition does not satisfy the requirements of s.208(a) of the Organic Law because the bribery allegations do not set out sufficient facts:
     
     • (a) that constitute the elements of the offence of bribery; and
       
     • (b) that show Mr Lera's complicity in the bribes.
       
   • (4) The petition fails to comply with the requirements of s.208 (a) of the Organic Law by not setting out facts or sufficient facts that constitute the ground of illegal practices claimed against the officials of the Electoral Commission nor are those illegal practices specified.
     
   • (5) The petition does not comply with the requirements of s.208(d) of the Organic Law because the term "self-employed" does not come within the definition of the word "occupation" necessary to describe an attesting witness.
     
8. The respondents through these objections seek to have the petition dismissed as incompetent pursuant to s.210 of the Organic Law.
   

The issues

9. The issues for my determination are:
   
   • (1) Has the petitioner pleaded sufficient facts as required by s.208 (a) of the Organic Law in support of the grounds of bribery and illegal practices?
     
   • (2) Is the term "self-employed" an occupation as contemplated under s.208 (d) of the Organic Law?
     

The Law re: competency

10. In discussing the question of competency of an election petition, the relevant provisions of the Organic Law to refer to are:
    

208. REQUISITES OF PETITION.

A petition shall –

(a) set out the facts relied on to invalidate the election or return; and

.....................; and

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

210. NO PROCEEDING UNLESS REQUISITES COMPLIED WITH.

Proceedings shall not be heard on a petition unless the requirements of s.208 and 209 are complied with.

11. The law is clearly stated in many case authorities since Delba Biri v Bill Ninkama [1982] PNGLR 342 that pursuant to s.210 of the Organic Law an election petition cannot proceed to trial and must be dismissed where a petitioner fails to strictly comply with the mandatory requirements of s.208 and s.209 of the Organic Law. A petitioner must set out facts which he relies on to invalidate the election or return, as failure to do so will render his petition incompetent.
    
12. Although Mr Puaria in submissions made references to compounding of the law since that case and expressed a caution against reliance on obiter dicta in case authorities, he did not dispute the established principles of law.
    
13. I now deal with the grounds of the petition starting with what I consider to be the easier of the issues to address, and this is in relation to attestation of the petition.
    

Attestation

14. As noted earlier, an election petition must be attested to by two witnesses who must state their addresses and occupation. The two witnesses to the present petition state their occupations as "self-employed".
    
15. Counsel for the Electoral Commission argued that "self-employed" is not an occupation and therefore the petition does not meet the requirements of s.208 (d) of the Organic Law. Reliance was placed on the recent decision of Mogish, J in EP No. 23 of 2012: Tony Puana v Joseph Lelang & Ors (2013) Unreported and Unnumbered Judgement dated 30th January 2013 where His Honour held that the term "self-employed" does not come within the meaning of "occupation" required under s.208(d).
    
16. The same issue came before the Supreme Court much earlier in Application by Agiwa [1993] PNGLR 136 but the Court, without trying to define the term "occupation", considered the question a minor point.
    
17. In Tony Puana v Joseph Lelang & Ors (supra) Mogish, J after disagreeing with the opinion of the Supreme Court in Agiwa's case that the issue was minor, found favour with the minority (Sakora, J's) decision in Paru Aihi v Sir Moi Avei (No 2) (2003) SC720 where the issue whether the term "villager" was an "occupation" for the purpose of s.208 (d) was discussed. In that case, Sakora, J held that the term "villager" is descriptive only rather than an occupation. Similarly, Mogish, J found the term "self-employed" also to be descriptive and not an occupation.
    
18. However that decision was not followed by Batari, J in EP No. 75 of 2012: Peter Waieng v Tobias Kulang & Electoral Commission of Papua New Guinea (2013) Unreported and Unnumbered Judgement dated 8th March 2013, where His Honour relied on the observations of the majority of the Supreme Court in Paru Aihi v Sir Moi Avei (No 2) (supra) where in particular it was noted that:
    
    • (1) the purpose of the requirements in s.208(d), as with the other requirements is to retain the genuineness or veracity of an election petition, and that the occupation of a witness attaches the witness' capacity to verify the petition; and
      
    • (2) the term "occupation" in the context of s. 208(d) simply means one's trade, profession, business or calling; things or activities done for a living,
      

and also the explanation by Sheehan J in Raymond Agonia v Albert Karo & Electoral Commission [1992] PNGLR 463 at p 465 that "The whole purpose of requiring that an attesting witness supplies name, occupation and address is so that the witness is readily identified and able to be located."

19. His Honour Batari, J then concluded that "... the use of "self-employed" to describe one's occupation for the purpose of s. 208(d) is of no real consequence, if that description is correct, unambiguous and on the whole of the information given.."
    
20. I too agree with the statement by Sheehan, J and the views of the majority in Paru Aihi v Sir Moi Avei (No 2) (supra). Applying the definition of "occupation" given by the Supreme Court, I hold that the term "self-employed" which simply means earning a living by engaging in one's own activity or activities meets that definition.
    
21. Accordingly, I dismiss the objection concerning the attestation of the petition.
    

Bribery

22. The parties agree that the law is well-settled as to what are "the facts" contemplated by s.208(a) of the Organic Law. The following description of the requirements of s.208(a) by Kapi, DCJ in Sir Barry Holloway v Aita Ivarato and Electoral Commission [988] PNGLR 99 at 101 has been approved and applied in many subsequent cases:
    

The facts which must be set out under s. 208(a) of the Organic Law are material or relevant facts which would constitute a ground or grounds upon which an election return maybe invalidated. In setting out the facts, they must be sufficient so as to indicate or constitute a ground upon which an election may be invalidated. What are sufficient facts depends on the facts alleged and the grounds those facts seek to establish. Anything falling short of that would defeat the whole purpose of pleading, that is, to indicate clearly the issues upon which the opposing party may prepare his case and to enable the Court to be clear about the issues involved. (My emphasis)

23. A large body of case authorities have also stressed that where illegal practices (electoral and Criminal Code offences, and that includes bribery) are alleged, all the constituent elements of the offences must be pleaded in the grounds of a petition to meet the requirements of s.208(a) of the Organic Law. See for example, Neville Bourne v Manasseh Voeto [1977] PNGLR 298; Raymond Agonia v Albert Karo & Electoral Commission (supra); Charles Luta Miru v David Basua (1997) N1628; Ludger Mond v Jeffrey Nape (2003) N2318; and Sir Arnold Amet v Peter Charles Yama (2010) SC 1064.
    
24. Bribery as a ground for invalidating an election is a reference to the criminal offence of bribery found under s.103 of the Criminal Code which reads:
    

A person who—

(a) gives, confers or procures, or promises or offers to give or confer, or to procure or attempt to procure, to, on, or for, any person any property or benefit of any kind—

(i) on account of anything done or omitted to be done, or to be done or omitted to be done, by an elector at an election in the capacity of an elector; or

(ii) on account of any person acting or joining in a procession during an election; or

(iii) in order to induce any person to endeavour to procure the return of any person at an election, or the vote of any elector at an election; or

(b) being an elector, asks, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit for himself or any other person on account of anything done or omitted to be done, or to be done or omitted to be done, by him at an election in the capacity of an elector; or

(c) asks, receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit for himself or any other person, on account of a promise made by him or any other person to endeavour to procure the return of any person at an election, or the vote of any person at an election; or

(d) advances or pays any money to or to the use of any other person with the intent that the money will be applied for any of the purposes referred to in Paragraph (a), (b) or (c) or in discharge or repayment of money wholly or in part applied for any such purpose; or

(e) corruptly transfers or pays any property or money to any person for the purpose of enabling that person to be registered as an elector, and so influencing the vote of that person at a future election; or

(f) is privy to the transfer or payment referred to in Paragraph (e) that is made for his benefit; or

(g) being a candidate at an election, convenes or holds a meeting of electors or of his committee in a house licensed for the sale of fermented or spirituous liquors,

is guilty of a misdemeanour.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K400.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

(Underlining to highlight relevant offences alleged in this petition)

25. I set out the provision in full to show that it describes different types of bribery in relation to elections. Recently in Peter Isoaimo v Paru Aihi & Electoral Commission of PNG (2012) N4921, Cannings J also pointed out that s.103 provides a number of circumstances that amount to bribery, while Sheehan, J in Raymond Agonia v Albert Karo & Electoral Commission (supra) acknowledged that:
    

s.103 of the Criminal Code is a large and extensive section, incorporating a range of corrupt practices of unlawful inducement, which in the several circumstances set out in the section, may make out the charge of bribery.

26. His Honour Sheehan, J further observed of the various offences of bribery under s.103:
    

Without analyzing this section exhaustively, it is clearly a section that is designed to prohibit improper inducements to persons, to electors, or candidates in an election. Whether those inducements are made to an elector – defined as any person entitled to vote at any election – or other persons, the corrupt practices aimed at are those inducements offered or sought, with the intention of interfering with the lawful process of an election.

It is also clear that there is in s.103 no general definition of bribery standing apart from the specific instances set out, which does not include an intention to induce a course of action of corrupt practice. It is clear, therefore, that intention is an integral part of the offence. Such phrases as offering gifts, benefits, or inducements on "account of", or "in order to induce", or "with the intent that", are all phrases that show that the purpose of offering the inducement is an element of the offence. .....

(My emphasis)

27. I agree with the statement that inducements may be made to persons other than electors. Offences under ss.103(a)(iii) and 103(d) for instance could be committed in the following ways:
    
    • (1) Candidate "A" gives money to person "B" (who is not an elector but is a widely-respected community leader) so that person "B" may use his influence to persuade electors in the community to vote for "A"; or
      
    • (2) Candidate "A" gives money to person "B" (who is not an elector) to distribute to electors so that they vote for "A".
      
28. In the above examples person "B" may also be an elector to constitute the offences. Depending then on the particular bribery alleged under s.103, it is not a necessary element that the person bribed must be an elector.
    
29. In respect of pleading bribery, Sheehan, J stated in Agonia v Karo & Electoral Commission (supra):
    

In the case of bribery, as well as the specifics of the particular allegation, such as names, numbers, dates, place, there must be allegation that this money, that property, or that gift was offered by the successful candidate, and that the reason that it was given or offered was to get a named person to vote, or not to vote, or to interfere unlawfully, as the case maybe, in the free voting of an election.

30. In the present petition, it is alleged that Mr Lera committed bribery pursuant to ss.103(a)(iii) and 103(d) of the Criminal Code. I agree with Cannings, J's identification of the elements for these offences in Peter Isoaimo v Paru Aihi & Electoral Commission of PNG (supra) but for the purposes of the present petition I only note the relevant elements. In respect of s.103(a)(iii) the elements are:
    
    • (1) gave to any person;
      
    • (2) any property or benefit of any kind;
      
    • (3) in order to induce any person to endeavour to procure the return of any person (the first respondent) at an election or the vote of any elector at an election.
      

And in relation to s.103(d):

(1) paid any money to any other person;
(2) with the intent that the money will be applied for any of the purposes referred to in Paragraph (a) (that is the money must be applied for the purpose of endeavouring to procure the return of any person (the first respondent) at an election or the vote of any elector at an election).

31. I now discuss the specific grounds of bribery alleged in the petition.
    

Bribery at Maluatu

32. In respect of the first ground of bribery (based on s.103(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code), it is alleged that on 8th June 2012 at Maluatu village, Buin District, South Bougainville:
    
    • (1) The then member for South Bougainville Mr Steven Pirika Kama, gave K500 in cash to the Chairman of the Maluatu School Board in the presence of a gathering.
      
    • (2) Mr Kama directed the people gathered then to vote for him for the South Bougainville Open seat and for Mr Lera for the Bougainville provincial seat.
      
    • (3) Many of the people gathered were electors, including one Francis Ponitoo who was also a member of the School Board.
      
    • (4) The people present were aware that both Mr Kama and Mr Lera had been campaigning together in South Bougainville.
      
    • (5) The cash was given to induce the electors present to procure their votes in favour of Messrs Kama and Lera.
      
33. Even if I accept that the above facts establish the elements of bribery, they only indicate bribery committed by Mr Kama. But this petition is not against Mr Kama, who it is understood is Member of Parliament for South Bougainville. Rather it is against Mr Lera as the elected member for the Bougainville Provincial constituency.
    
34. The petitioner's case is that what Mr Kama did at Maluatu village was done with Mr Lera's consent and authority. Reliance was placed on s.204 of the Organic Law which states that a candidate is liable for illegal practices and offences under Part XVII- Offences of the Organic Law committed by other persons with his consent and authority. In Roger Tongai Palme v Michael Mel, Ruben Teratere and The Electoral Commission (1989) N808, Woods, J held that s.204 does not apply to the offences of bribery and undue influence and suggested that where liability is alleged in relation to bribery and undue influence committed by another person (not the winning candidate) a petitioner could plead "a nexus by procuring or counselling". I assume that since bribery and undue influence are criminal offences, His Honour had in mind s.7 of the Criminal Code which provides that a person who counsels or procures the commission of an offence is equally culpable for that offence as the actual perpetrator. Kirriwom, J appears to have considered as much in Ben Micah v Ian Ling-Stuckey and Electoral Commission (1998) N1790. I too would agree with the suggested pleading on the basis of s.7 of the Criminal Code.
    
35. However with respect, I am not sure whether His Honour Woods J's interpretation in relation to s.204 is correct. The reference in s.215(3)(b) of the Organic Law to "an illegal practice other than bribery or undue influence" has been held to mean, by necessary implication, that bribery and undue influence are "illegal practices", and "illegal practices" mean electoral criminal offences (under Part XVII of the Organic Law in addition to the election-related offences created by the Criminal Code: Part III Division 3 - Corrupt and Improper Practices at Elections, s.98-s.116, Part II Division 5 - Offences Against Political Liberty, s.79); In Re Koroba-Lake Kopiago Open Parliamentary Election [1977] PNGLR 328; Dick Mune v Anderson Agiru & Ors (1998) SC 590 per Injia, J (as he then was). I agree with the definition given in those cases.
    
36. It would then seem logical to conclude that the reference to "illegal practice" under s.204 should also be accorded the same meaning. But I need not make a determination on that issue now as the matter was not fully argued and in any case, my decision does not rest on what may be the correct interpretation.
    
37. Whether s.204 applies or whether a petitioner ought to allege "a nexus by procuring or counselling" in relation to a ground of bribery, the petitioner in the present case has not pleaded either. That is, no facts have been pleaded to support the claim that the acts of Mr Kama were done with Mr Lera's knowledge and authority, or that Mr Lera counselled and procured the acts committed by Mr Kama. The only fact pleaded that connects Mr Kama and Mr Lera is that "People who witnessed the event were aware that Stephen Pirika Kama had been campaigning together with Mr Joe Lera in many places in South Bougainville". This is insufficient to show the liability of Mr Lera for the acts of Mr Kama, and therefore does not meet the requirements of s.208(a) of the Organic Law.
    
38. Mr Puaria hinted that evidence at the trial would show the nexus or connection between Mr Kama and Mr Lera but such a submission must be rejected. As stressed by Kandakasi, J in Ludger Mond v Jeffrey Nape (supra) when discussing the need to properly plead facts:
    

... without the pleadings, no evidence can be led. After all, pleadings drive the evidence.

39. This ground of the petition must therefore be struck out.
    

Bribery at Toitoi

40. The second ground of bribery (based on s.103(d) of the Criminal Code) alleges that on 21st June 2012 at Toitoi village, Siwai District, South Bougainville:
    
    • (1) Mr Kama gave K1,000 cash to one Bernard Korike to distribute to the people of Toitoi village.
      
    • (2) The money was distributed accordingly and one of the recipients was a Nicholas Potai, who received K11.
      
    • (3) The money was given to induce the recipients to endeavour to procure the return of Messrs Kama and Lera or get the electors' votes for Messrs Kama and Lera.
      
41. For the same reasons that I struck out the first ground of bribery, this ground is also struck out. No facts have been pleaded to support the claim that the acts of Mr Kama were done with Mr Lera's knowledge and authority, or that Mr Lera counselled and procured Mr Kama to so act.
    

Bribery at Siroi

42. The final bribery claim (based on ss.103(a)(iii) and 103(d) of the Criminal Code) is that on 21st June 2012 at Siroi village, Siwai District, South Bougainville:
    
    • (1) Mr Kama gave K1,000 cash to one Mr Hang, a chieftain of Siroi village in response to earlier campaigns by others.
      
    • (2) Mr Kama told the people that the money was to make them happy and that they should vote for him for the South Bougainville Open seat and for Mr Lera for the Bougainville Provincial seat.
      
    • (3) Mr Kama did this to induce the people gathered then, mostly electors, to endeavour to procure their votes or to ensure the return of both Messrs Kama and Lera, at the elections.
      
43. Again, I strike out this ground for the same reasons as with the other two grounds of bribery. None of the facts pleaded support the claim that the acts of Mr Kama were done with Mr Lera's knowledge and authority, or that Mr Lera counselled and procured the acts.
    

Illegal practices

44. As noted earlier, the petitioner also alleges illegal practices by officials of the Electoral Commission. The facts pleaded in support of the allegation essentially state that:
    
    • (1) The counting of votes from the South Bougainville ballot boxes commenced on 9th July 2012 and was suspended at 4am the next day after Box 15 was counted.
      
    • (2) During the counting, the Returning Officer for South Bougainville and his assistants only posted the progressive results for the Open seat but not for Bougainville Provincial electorate unlike in the counting for the Central Bougainville where the officers posted both the Open and Provincial progressive tallies.
      
    • (3) Later that evening when counting resumed, there were long delays after the counting of the next 3 ballot boxes.
      
    • (4) The progressive results for the Bougainville Provincial electorate from counting of the South Bougainville votes were only posted late on the night of 10th July 2012 after a three minutes blackout and after the counting of the votes from the 19th ballot box started, and showed a sudden surge in the tallies for Mr Kama and Mr Lera.
      
    • (5) There were incidents of ballot papers being placed in the wrong candidate's tray.
      
    • (6) The end result was discrepancies between the total votes for each of the Open electorates and the corresponding total for the Provincial electorate from the respective Open electorates, suggesting impropriety in the counting process.
      
45. When asked by the Court to specify what was alleged as the illegal practices and who committed them, Mr Puaria responded that there was fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud by the Returning Officer for South Bougainville and his assistants reflected by the discrepancies in the total of the votes between the Open electorates and the Provincial electorate.
    
46. There are several points to note about this submission. Firstly, fraud and conspiracy are not pleaded in the petition. Secondly, the allegations set out in the petition are in vague and general terms, and this includes the figures tabled as purporting to show the discrepancies in the total of votes. It is not easy to make sense of the figures and this is largely due to facts not being pleaded as to how these figures are arrived at. Thirdly the facts do not indicate any "illegal practice", meaning any electoral criminal offence.
    
47. This ground of the petition is really based on speculation and must also be struck out as not complying with s.208(a) of the Organic Law.
    

Conclusion

Having struck out all the grounds of the petition as having failed to meet the requirements of s.208(a) of the Organic Law, it follows that this election petition cannot proceed to trial by virtue of s.210 of the Organic Law.

Orders

48. Accordingly this Court orders that:
    
    • (1) The respondents' objections to competency are upheld.
      
    • (2) This election petition is dismissed.
      
    • (3) Parties shall address on the matter of costs.
      

________________________________________________________

Petitioner in-person
Fairfax Legal: Lawyers for the First Respondent
Kimbu & Associates: Lawyers for the Second Respondent