Maefai v Ghiro [2018] SBHC 83; HCSI-CC 450 of 2014 (2 August 2018)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Case name:	Maefai v Ghiro
Citation:
Date of decision:	2 August 2018
Parties:	Charles Fordan Maefai v Alfred Ghiro
Date of hearing:	17 to 18 January 2018, 19 January 2018, 22 January 2018; 24 January 2018; 25 January 2018; 26 January 2018; 28 May 2018( Final Submission)
Court file number(s):	450 of 2014
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Place of delivery:
Judge(s):	Rex Faukona PJ
On appeal from:
Order:	1) The petition is dismissed in its entirety 2) The Governor General be informed of this judgment immediately. 3) Costs incidental to this proceeding be paid by the Petition to the Respondent
Representation:	Mr. M. Pitakaka for the Petition Mr. C Hapa for the Respondent
Catchwords:
Words and phrases:
Legislation cited:	National Parliament Electoral Provision Act
Cases cited:	John Maetia v Charles Dausabea; Alisae v Salaka; Fred Fono v Jackson Fiulaua; Lilo v Tanagada; Issac Inoke v Namson Tran; DPP v Luff;

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 450 of 2015

CHARLES FORDAN MAEFAI
Claimant

v

HONOURABLE ALFRED GHIRO
Respondent

Date of Hearing: 17 to 18 January 2018, 19 January 2018, 22 January 2018; 24 January 2018; 25 January 2018; 26 January 2018; 28 May 2018(Final Submission)
Date of Judgment: 2 August 2018

Mr. M. Pitakaka for the Petition
Mr. C Hapa for the Respondent

JUDGMENT ON ELECTION PETITION

R. Faukona, PJ: On 19^th November 2014 Solomon Islands went to the polls to elect new Members of the National Parliament. The Petitioner and the Respondent were among the nominated candidates to contest the East Makira Electoral Constituency.

2. After conclusion of counting of votes, the Respondent polled 2,225 votes. He was declared as the winning candidate.
3. The Petitioner was the runner-up candidate. Having aggrieved of the results, he then utilised S.83 (2) of the National Parliament Electoral Provisions Act. He then filed this petition on 24^th December 2014, with further and better particulars filed on 17^th March 2016.
4. The Petitioner by implication in the submissions on his behalf will only pursue three grounds of corrupt and illegal Practices alleged against the Respondent, his agents or campaign managers (supporters). The other grounds after trial has been conceded that there is insufficient evidence to proceed with. The grounds are.
5. 1). On or about 12^th November 2014, Hon. George Gapiara (Provincial Member) for Ward 15 acting as agent and or supporter of the Respondent gave the sum of $1,300.00 to Moses Faerua to induce him to vote for the Respondent at the national general election on 19^th November 2014.
   2. On or about 18^th November 2014, Hon Kevin Haga (Provincial Member) for Ward 19 holding himself out as an agent, supporter and on several occasions campaigned for the Respondent. Whilst campaigning for the Respondent gave the sum of $100.00 each to Mr Joseph Ogagita (Jr) and Jerry Kurare and uttered words to the like effect that they must vote for the Respondent.
   3. On or about 11^th October 2014, the Respondent gave the Anglican Church community building project at Gupana village, certain building materials including roles of sisalation papers, chicken wire and five cartons of nails to induce them to vote for the Respondent at elections on 19^th November 2014.

The Law:

6. Section 5 of National Parliament (Electoral Provisions) Act states; the election of members of National Parliament shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and this Act.
7. S.66 (1) of the Act provides that an election shall not be valid if a corrupt or illegal practice is committed by the candidate or his agent.
8. S.71 defines the offence of bribery and its expanded form of bribery. S.72 defines the offence of treating and S.73 defines the offence of undue influence. S.70 prescribed the penalties for bribery, treating or undue influence.
9. If there is evidence upon which the Respondent or his agent are found guilty on the requisite standard in committing the above offences in those sections, then the election is not valid according to S.66 (1) of the Act.

Corrupt or illegal practice:

10. Halsbury Laws define corrupt imports intention, does not mean wickedly, immorally or dishonest, or anything of that sort, but doing something knowing it is wrong and doing it with the object and intention of doing that thing which the statute intended to forbid^[1].

The burden of proof:

11. The burden of proof in an election petition is little higher than the ordinary civil standard although falling just short of the criminal standard. The standard is profoundly set out in the case of Maetia V Dausabea^[2] which His Lordship John Muria stated;
    • “I am of the view that the test in Alisae V Salaka is the test to be applied in Solomon Islands when allegations of corrupt practices as bribery, treating or undue influence are raised in the election petition. That required standard of proof is stricter in that the allegation must be proved to the entire satisfaction of the court. The evidence must be clear and equivocal in order to enable the court to be entirely satisfied that the allegation of corrupt practices is made out and not simply on the mere balance of probabilities which is a test that is appropriate to other allegations of breaches of the election laws.”

Law in dealing with the allegations:

12. Justice Goldsborough’s decision in Fred Fono V Jackson Fiulaua in very clear and unambiguous. That S.66 (1) does not suffer the qualification found in S.66 (2) of the Act. The words in subsection (1) are clear and distinct and does not require external assistance in their interpretation. It is the task of the Court to give effect to those words. In fact there is no conjunctive expression between the two subsections. They speak of different subjects. Subsection (1) speaks of what is described as “specific” Corruption, as opposed to subsection 2 which speaks of general corruption. Subsection I confined to actions of the candidate or his agent and subsection 2 is not so qualified.
13. His Lordship further made reference to S.76 to support his view, which described further consequences of a conviction of a corrupt practice. That in addition to other punishment the offender be disqualified for five years for being registered as an elector and from being elected as Member of Parliament, if elected before conviction.
14. His Lordship further refer to S.70, that if consequence of criminal for corrupt practices is to disqualify from retaining one’s seat, then it would be improbable that corresponding provision in relation to the consequence of and election petition based on allegation of corruption would not be similar. Hs Lordship therefore concluded that S.66 (1) is self-confined and need not rely on S.66 (2) to imports its meaning.
15. In conclusion his Lordship finally stated that “where an election can be shown to involve the commission of corrupt on illegal practice by the candidate or his agent, the election cannot be said to have been conducted in accordance with the principles of the Act”.
16. Justice Chetwynd in Tosika V Tran and AG cited with approved the statement of Goldsbrough J in Fono’s case. He further concluded that, in essence, one incidence of corrupt or illegal practice is committed in connection therewith by a candidate elected or any of his agents would be sufficient to render the election void. Those authorities were applied in other domestic election cases, the most recent one is Lilo V Tanagada^[3].
17. Now I will deal with the remaining allegations. The Counsel for Petitioner has withdrawn a good number of allegations after trial. Allegations which he admitted he has no evidence to substantiate on the requisite standard. The three allegations are paraphrased above.

Allegation No. 1:

18. The first allegation alleges that on 12^th November 2014, Honourable George Gapiara, the Provincial Member for Ward 15, supporter of the respondent, acting as his agent, gave $1800.00 to Moses Faerua at Gupuna village to induce him to vote for the Respondent.
19. To substantiate this allegation the Petitioner called the recipient of the money Mr Faerua.
20. The home of the giver, the Provincial Member, is at Gupuna village, Santa Anna. The Provincial Member also had a house at Kirakira. Facts reveal he normally resides at Kirakira and often made visits to his ward and the communities which he represented.
21. As a Provincial Member, no doubt, people in his ward and nearby wards would know him. However, it would be improper to suggest that a member would or expected to know everyone else in another ward. That would possibly the case if a member resides in his home village for the rest of his life. But for those who reside in Provincial Centres or Honiara, could definitely be difficult to know everyone in another ward.
22. Mr George Gapiara denies giving any money to Mr Faerua on the date in question, at Gupuna village, Santa Ana. In fact he stated he did not know him. Mr Faerua is from the nearby islands of Santa Catalina, in a different ward. However, adverse from that was the fact he did not mention in his sworn statement that he was not at Gupuna village on the 12^th November 2014. In any event, inference can be drawn he would have possibly be at Gupuna village on the date in question.
23. However, the striking evidence which was not challenged is that after the Respondent’s campaign team, including Mr Gapiara, been to other villages campaigning on the 9^th and 10^th November 2014, they returned to Kirakira in the morning of 11^th November 2014. Unless Mr Gapiara had returned to Santa Anna in the evening of 11^th November 2014, which could not be possible, because of the distance, or that he returned to Santa Anna on the morning of 12^th November 2014. Hence his presence in the evening on 12^th November 2014 was almost invisibly inevitable.
24. It is not an issue that Mr Gapiara was the supporter of the Respondent. It is not an issue as well that he was present at the lodging of the Respondent’s campaign at Gupuna village on 11^th October 2014 and gave a political speech. It is not an issue that he accompanied the Respondent to some or all of his campaign trips.
25. The question whether Mr Gapiara has present at Gupuna village on 12^th November 2014, or not, is not really the core issue. Of course his presence would make the act of giving possible. For a ghost or a spirit cannot give but human fabrication may convert wrong into right or human into spirit or vice versa.
26. Assuming that Mr Gapiara was present on 12^th November 2014, the question to pause, had he given the money the amount $1,800.00 in an envelope to a stranger he did not know and expect him to deliver to a person intended to. In modern age it would not be possible.
27. The next question is how credible is Mr Faerua’s evidence. In his evidence, after collecting the envelope he went to his Auntie Katie’s house where he intended to spend the night.
28. Chief John Waipua was the husband of Katie. He stated he never saw Mr Faerua in his house in the evening of 12^th November 2012. What transpired during cross examination was that after receiving the envelop Mr Faerua went to the Petitioner’s house and was drinking alcohol with the Petitioner and probably with other friends. It is only hoped the money in the envelope was not spent on alcohol, if it truly was in his possession.
29. Despite being insisted he spend the night with Chief Waipua and wife which was denied. The Chief gave his reasons why. On one occasion in the past the Chief hired Mr Faerua’s canoe to collect his sago palm from the main land. Mr Faerua took the money but did not do what he was supposed to do. On another occasion Mr Faerua finally serve the hire but after a long period of time.
30. From that piece of evidence it cannot be viewed that Mr Faerua is telling the truth in this Court. A dishonest person is a fraudulent person or insincere, (Pocket Oxford Dictionary, 3^rd Edition, Edited by Oxford University Press 2005). In Longman’s Dictionary, dishonesty is defined as tending to cheat or deceive.
31. Can this Court accept Mr Faerua’s evidence from a piece of evidence, which he admitted taking the money without fulfilling the hire. I must resort to no. On that night of the allegation date, both Mr Faerua and the Petitioner were drinking in the Petitioners house. That was affirmed by the evidence of Mr Faerua himself. From that occasion it is accepted that both men were close friend before date of the national general election. What now becomes an issue; in tune of the evidence heard by this Court is nothing but absolute manufacture of allegation made by Mr Faerua and the Petitioner himself. I must dismiss this allegation its entirety for lack of proof on the standard as required.

Allegation No.2 bribing Joseph Ogagita and Jerry Kurare:

32. On or about 18^th November 2014, Hon. Kevin Haga, the Provincial Member for Ward 19, holding himself as agent and supporter of the Respondent. At Marunga village, after conducting an election campaign, on behalf of the Respondent, seemed invited to Joseph Ogagita’s House where he received hospitality and food.
33. At Mr Ogagita’s house, Mr Haga gave him $200.00 so that he could buy scones for them. He denies giving $100.00 to Mr Ogagita. When Mr Kurare was asked during examination in chief he said Mr Haga gave the money and told them to buy scones.
34. From evidence in brief Mr Hega admitted giving $200.00 to Mr Ogagita. The two hundred dollars was probably intended to be shared equally with Mr Kurara. It is not an issue that Mr Haga did campaign on behalf of the Respondent. The purpose of giving the money was for both men to buy for themselves scones. Buying of scones is a fact agreed to and corroborated by both statements of Mr Haga and Mr Kurare, the witness for the Petitioner. Whilst the version by Mr Kuare had met with resistance by the evidence of Mr Ogagita, in terms of the motive, however, both admitted the money received was to induce them to vote for the Respondent.
35. That pause a question, was the giving of $200.00 motivated by bad intention, or that it was succumbed by the motive to induce both electors to vote for the Respondent, thus tantamount to bribery as set out in S.71 (a) of the Act.
36. I have noted by campaigning for the Respondent in public connotes being an agent as define. That a candidate is responsible for deeds of those who to his knowledge for the purpose of promoting election, or such act as may tend to promote his election. Agent covers range of people as campaigner’s committee members and supporters. They are accepted as those who are responsible for their actions even though they may not be appointed as agents as required by the Act. Therefore it is relevant to upheave if there is bad motive on the part of Mr Haga.

Motive for giving:

37. Mr Haga is accepted as an agent or supporter. It is also accepted he gave $200.00 to two electors. Did he possess intention to induce them to vote for the Respondent a candidate he supported whom he represented and advocated for.
38. The Counsel for the respondent, on the issue of motive, refer to the case of Issac Inoke V Namson Tran^[4], which his Lordship quoted from a Samoa Case Vui V Ah Chang, where the Court held;

In Rogers on Elections 20^th Ed. The learned authored says at p-270;

“Where there are two motives, e.g. One kindness or charity and the other corruption, the question is which was the governing motive; see Salisbury (1883) 4 O’M & It 28; St-George (1896) 5 O’M & H at 95; King’s V Lynn (1911) 6 O’M & H at 182; Kingston-upon- Hull (1911) ibid 378; and East Nothingham (1911) 6 O’M H at 302”.

39. The Chief Justice of Samoa then refer to another case King’s V Lynn ^[5] WSSC 16”,
    • “It would be sufficient for the purpose of establishing the intent required for bribery and treating in terms of the Act, if one of the motives which accompanied the presentation of money or food was to induce electors to vote for the respondent, see judgment by Donno CJ in the High Court of Cook Islands in Re Mitiaro Election Petition (1970) 1 NSLR SI. at S.12.

That view is the view favored by English Court and Sapolu CJ cites Lord Dip[lock’s comments in the Criminal case of DPP V Luft^[6] which stated;

• “To speak of a dominant intentions suggests, that a desire to achieve one particular purpose can alone be causative of human actions, whereas so many human actions are prompted by a desire to kill two birds with one stone”.

40. Further, Brown J refers to a quotation from Rogers in his judgment in Ha’apio which states;
    • “The intention of a person charged with bribery must be gathered from his acts. Mellor J in Lanceston (1874) 2 O’M & H 133 said, “I can’t go into any intention of the respondent, I must be governed by what he said and what he did, and by the inferences I ought to draw there-from. And this was followed in Kingston-Upon-Hull (1911) 6 O’M & H 389, per Bushnill J. “You cannot allow a man to say, I did not intend to do that which amounted to bribery if when you look at all the things which he did there is only one conclusion to draw and that is that he has done that which he said he did not intend to do”.
41. The giving of two hundred dollars in this allegation has been admitted. Whether the money was given once to Mr Ogagita or $100.00 was given to each of the witnesses after short interval, is a non-issue. The fact is that $200.00 was given by Mr Haga on that occasion at Marunga village.
42. By observing the act of giving itself Counsel for Petitioner submitted that the allegation of bribing both witnesses is therefore established on the standard pursuant to S. 66 (1) of the Act. Therefore the election is not valid.
43. To accept the act of giving in the manner it was, and branded it as falling within the act of bribery, is a casual approach. To confine to such is addressing the issue superficially and narrowly. The proper course, in my respectable view, is to go round and solicit an expedition aiming at discovering what was the rational for giving the $200.00. Was the giving appropriate and relevant on the circumstances? Or was it prompted under some kind of obligation which one has to perform to reciprocate.
44. My personal view of the entire occasion, first and fore most is to note that Mr Ogagita and Mr Kurare were related to Mr Haga that is a non-issue. Both men live at Marunga village which is within Mr Haga’s ward. The question whether that relationship is close or a distance away is not challenged.
45. The challenging part of the episode is the act of giving and the words uttered at the time of the giving. Mr Haga said he gave $200.00 to Mr Ogagita. Both witnesses said they were given $100.00 separately. Upon receipt both stated that Mr Haga told them to vote for the Respondent. In examination in Chief Mr Kurare add that Mr Haga also told them to buy scones a fact Mr Ogagita denies.
46. It would appear from the evidence related to the occasion Mr Ogagita was initially supporting the Respondent. If he had supported another candidate he would not have led Mr Hag to his house and fed him with food and water. Mr Kurare would be perceived by way of inference the same. If he was not supporting the Respondent he would not have followed Mr Haga and Mr Ogaita to Mr Ogagita house.
47. Giving food and water and led the campaigner to his private home fairly indicated Mr Ogagita had supported the campaign. If by his conduct alluded support, then by giving of $100.00 did not amount to inducement because the receiver had already show support to the candidate Mr Haga was campaigning on his behalf. In such circumstances the money was not purposely used to induce Mr Ogagita to change support. The act of companionship and provisions he provided precluded the candidate he might cast vote for.
48. The advent of Mr. Kurare at Mr Ogagita’s house some minutes later were clearly a manifestation that he had finalised his choice. The strengthening of that fact emerged by accepting $100.00 and for the second reason to buy scones. This is seen as corroborating to Mr Haga’s evidence.
49. In an attempt to corroborate the words uttered, on one hand, both witnesses affirmed the giving was purposely for inducement but, even so, why Mr Kurare also affirms it was also to buy scores. Therefore he is contradicting himself and the evidence of Mr Ogagita as well. In a way it supports Mr Haga’s evidence on the second reason.
50. With the above reasons, I do not think Mr Ogagita and Mr Kurare are telling the truth. They supported Mr Haga’s campaign initially. Both men were present with Mr Haga at Mr Ogagita’s house by themselves. That conduct pre-supposes their choice had been finalised. It is out of good reasoning and logic that a person who already made a choice by implication of conduct, be induced by money, or any valuables, to vote for the same candidate they have supported. If it is accepted as a form of inducement, I for good reason decide that is a misconception of the logic. The giving of the $200.00 for two men was purposely to buy scores for them and not to induce then to vote for the Respondent.

Custom obligation:

51. The second reason alluded to by the Respondent for giving of the $200.00 premise on custom obligation of reciprocity as an accepted principle in Solomon Islands society.
52. Mr Pitakaka in his submissions says by admitting giving the two hundred dollars to both men because Mr Ogagita had asked for, amount to Mr Hag admitted what he did. Therefore his further evidence that he gave because of cultural obligation cannot be accepted.
53. The issue about Mr Ogagita asking money for scones was denied by him, but was admitted by Mr Kurare (other Petitioner’s witness) and Mr Haga himself. That left Mr Ogagita’s evidence at stake which stands-out without support and corroboration. On that issue alone one reason for giving the money was because Mr Ogagita asked for it and that must be accepted on the balance. The scale definitely tilts towards the Respondent’s case which I accept it as one of the reasons for giving the money.
54. The other reason concerns the fact that Mr Ogagita, after campaign led Mr Haga to his house. Not only that, but Ogagita entertained him by providing food and water. In Melanesian community in Solomon Islands, providing provisions impacted liability under cultural obligation? The principle of reciprocity is very much alive and is widely adopted and accepted in this country.
55. Mr Haga informed the Court that he could not take the plate to back to his village at Parego and then returned the plate with some food in it to Mr Ogagita. Feeling obliged under cultural obligation he resort to valuables available within his reach at that time and gave the money to Mr Ogagita. He knew the difficulties of returning because of the distance between each village. In doing what he did at that moment in time gad relieved from cultural obligation. Culturally what Mr Haga did was in accordance to Melanesian culture. The amount may attract consideration because it could provide facts to draw inference as to the motive of giving. $200.00 in modern age is a small amount and is capable of matching in value the provisions which Mr Ogagita provided though he may not expect but they include hospitality, food and drink, and kindness shown.
56. The Counsel for the Respondent refers to the case of John Maetia V Charles Dausabea^[7]. In that case his Lordship Sir Muria CJ pointed out that the law clearly intended to preserve some of the customs of the people relating to assistance in making payments in various areas as cultural obligations. They are statements open to be construed as capable of having election results overturn. Equally they are statements showing that in custom he would oblige to help.
57. I noted the final sentence in the paragraph quoted from page (3) of the case, which stated;
    • “Such instances cannot be neatly clarified as falling under corrupt practices”
58. To balance out assistance that tantamount to corrupt practice and assistance in cultural obligation, there are many facts to be considered. That the situation has provided no other options available and the question of necessity prevails over all other. Words said at the time of providing the assistance, the value of assistance must not to be too excessive that will render suspicion as probable inducement, and whether the assistance is of reciprocal in nature. Further whether assistance was given close to the election date, before, during or immediately after.
59. The act of giving by Mr. Haga was indeed a reciprocate in accordance to cultural obligation. As neatly as it is, does not fall under corrupt practice to induce an elector, hence, I must dismiss this allegation accordingly on the balance as required.

Allegation of bribery at Gupuna village, Santa Ana:

60. This allegation is in respect of giving of certain building materials to Anglican Church Building project at Gupuna village by the Respondent. The allegation is that the act of giving was purposely to induce members of Anglican Church at Gupuna village to vote the Respondent at November General Elections.
61. On 11^th October 2014, the Anglican Church Community at Gupuna village, Santa Ana, received building materials including roles of sisalation papers, chicken wires and five cartons of nails. The materials were delivered by the ship MV Takana at Gupuna village. They were for Anglican Church Building project.
62. Whether it was a coincidence, or a motive to induce, that the day 11^th October 2014, when the MV Takana delivered the materials, that day as well was when the Respondent lodged his campaign at Gupuna village.
63. There is no dispute that MV Takana delivered the building materials to Anglican Church Community at Gupina village on 11^th October 2014. There is no dispute the named materials were received and stored at Mr Siota’s house.
64. The issue is whether upon delivery and received the materials were intended to lure and induce voters to vote for the Respondent when election is just a month away?
65. The Counsel for Petitioner argues, at that time of delivery of materials, the Respondent was no longer a member of East Makira Constituency. This is because Parliament dissolved on or about 5^th September 2014. Therefore the conduct of the Respondent or Constituency Development Officer (CDO) is corrupt or illegal. In a sense it was a gift which forbid by S.71 (f) of the Act.
66. On the other hand the Respondent’s case is that the Respondent was first elected in 2010, the Anglican Church Community conveyed their request for him to assist with building materials for the construction of their new Church which they had started in 2005.
67. In August 2012, the Respondent purchased 120 sheets of iron roofing, 300 bags of gravel collected by Anglican Church members in Honiara, and send them to Gupuna village via MV Ocean Grace.
68. The materials that were received, subject to his petition, were part of the ongoing assistance committed by the Respondent as the result of the request made – see sworn statement of Mr Henry Siota filed on 25^th August 2017.
69. During Cross examinations the Respondent made clear that funds allocated for each Constituency was paid quarterly. It would appear the last quarter for 2014 was paid in September 2014. There is no evidence to verify whether it was paid before or after Parliament was dissolved on 5^th September 2014.
70. The question whether the last tranche was paid before or after 5^th September 2014 is in my view, the responsibility of the administrators who administered the funds. Of course from other prospection it may be used for other purposes and one is to secure a sitting member regaining his seat.
71. This issue is crucial, a policy pundit will view it as a universal issue which the government and policy makers ought to address and administer Members’ funds entitlement so as not to be misused for campaign; in particular when it comes closer to the next general elections. The question to pause is, should outgoing MPs continue receiving funds for that quarter which is close to election date, by weeks or month, or should it be retained for the next MP elect.
72. The fact is that the Ministry responsible for administration in terms of disbursement and retirement of the funds are not made public. The question whether there is transparency and accountability is anybody’s guess. There is no public scrutiny in order to promote sense of responsibility to avoid misappropriation and misuse of funds for other purposes, other than the purpose it meant for.
73. In this case the entitlements were dispersed in the eleven hour. Will those funds used for funding projects and whatever in the constituency? The Respondent may have been ceased being a Member of Parliament on the occasion when Parliament was dissolved before the disbursement of funds.
74. I noted the Constituency Development Officer (CDO) is a Public Officer who was still at post at that time. According to the Respondent’s evidence, since the funds were still available for ongoing projects, the CDO will still continue administered the funds. I would agree for the reason that the funds belong to the constituency and must be used for the benefit of the constituency.
75. One of the projects incomplete, which required further funding, is the Anglican Church construction at Gupuna village. Deliverance of the materials on 11^th October 2014 was part of the ongoing funding approved by the Respondent. In 2012 materials as cement and gravel were also shipped to the village for the same Church construction.
76. The crucial question is, will the funds which were paid as final tranche to the Respondent constituency should not be administered by him, premise on the fact he ceased to be a Member of Parliament, and the funds might probably was received immediately prior or after the pronouncement.
77. My opinion is that since it will take two months, from the date the funds were dispersed, until next election, the former member must still administer the funds to its good use. If nothing was done to it, it is likely the funds will be misappropriated and disappeared
78. In this case what was best was to put into good use of the funds. My reading of Exh. AG attached to the Respondents sworn statement filed on 13^th December 2017, is that, the exhibit contain cash sales invoice No. 054622 and tax invoice No. 00133515 dated 19^th September 2014 and were issued by Solomon Sheet Steel Limited. The invoices contain the building materials being the subject of this petition. The cash sales invoice also showed the date of collection of the materials which was 6^th October 2014.
79. There is unchallenged evidence that the materials were paid for utilising constituency third tranche funds dispersed to East Makira Constituency in 2014. It would appear those funds were not demanded, or authorities being unduly influenced to disperse them to Members of Parliament. In fact it has been common practice in the past. Such funds been dispersed immediately before or on the day the Parliament dissolves.
80. If for good reasons this practice ought to be reviewed, then that would entirely depend on the authorities which administer the funds; so that they would not be used during election campaign.
81. The purchase, shipment and recipient of the materials on the day of lodgement of the Respondent’s campaign had raised eye-brows. But there was nothing sinister about it. There is evidence that the materials were part and partial of continuous assistance to the Church building project which was started in 2012. That must be accepted as reasonable.
82. In conclusion the Respondent virtually and practically utilising the funds allocated to assist Anglican Church building construction in his constituency, which he stated in 2012. From the exposition of what was done were putting the funds into its proper and legitimate use for what it meant to be. In deed it was public fund and must go back to the people who deserve to receive it for their projects.
83. The circumstance of this case is different from the case of Lilo V Tanagada, where money was paid out from the agent’s pocket, it’s a private transaction. It is in that circumstance impacted the recipient, even without a word spoken, is inducement which falls under bribery as alluded to.
84. In my view the action taken by the Respondent or his CDO was putting the funds to its use for the purpose it deserves. The funds are for the Constituency and must be returned to the constituency. I do not think that tantamount to induce voters to vote for the Respondent. The funds are public money from the Respondent’s last tranche allocation and must be dispersed to the people in the constituency. Therefore there is no evidence to proof any wrong doing or inducement to vote for the Respondent, on the required standard, hence I must dismissed this ground accordingly.
85. On the entire case I find the allegations are not proved to my satisfaction, on the standard as required. I therefore adjudge that the election of the Respondent was valid and which was conducted in accordance with the Constitution and the National Elections (General Provisions) Act.

Orders:

1. The petition is hereby dismissed in its entirety.
2. The Governor General be informed of this judgment immediately.
3. Costs incidental to this proceeding be paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent.

THE COURT
......................
HON.REX FAUKONA
PUISNE JUDGE

---

^[1] Halsbury Laws, Vol.15, Page 419, cited in Maina V Maga.
^[2] CC No. 266 of 1993, 11^th November 1993.
^[3] HC CC No. 451 of 2014.
^[4] Civil Case 340 of 2010
^[5] (2001) WSSC 16
^[6] (1979) 2 All ER 569.
^[7] CC No: 266 of 1993.