Sikua v Vokia [2020] SBHC 5; HCSI-CC 265 of 2019 (14 February 2020)

	Home \| Databases \| WorldLII \| Search \| Feedback High Court of Solomon Islands

Case name:	Sikua v Vokia

Citation:

Date of decision:	14 February 2020

Parties:	Derrick David Sikua v Jamie Vokia, Attorney General

Date of hearing:	20-01-2020, 21-01-2020,22-01-2020, 23-01-2020, 5-02-2020

Court file number(s):	265 of 2019

Jurisdiction:	Civil

Place of delivery:

Judge(s):	Kouhota PJ

On appeal from:

Order:	I Declare the election of Jamie Lence Vokia as a Member of Parliament for North East Guadalcanal Constituency is Null and Void Cost is awarded to the Petitioner to be taxed if not agreed A Declaration pursuant to section 111(5) of the Electoral Act 2018 will be made in due course

Representation:	Mr. C Hapa with Konitao D for the Petitioner L Kwaiga with E Olofia for the Respondent
	Ms F Fakari’i for the Second Respondent (AG) (excused)
Catchwords:

Words and phrases:

Legislation cited:	Electoral Act 2018,s108 (1),s126 ,120,127 Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019, s5,6 Criminal Procedure Code, s201 (2)Electoral Act 2018,s111(5),

Cases cited:	Maetia v Dausabea [1993] SBHC 29, Tegavota v Bennet [1983] SILR 34, Ha’apio v Keniasina [2011] SBHC 12, Brown v Dunn [1883] 6R.H, Allied Pastoral Holdings PTY Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1, Lilo v 1 Tanagada [2017] SBHC 31, Airahui v Kenilorea Jr.

ATTORNEY GENERAL
Second Respondent
(Representing the Returning Officer for North Guadalcanal)

Date of Hearing: 20-01-2020, 21-01-2020, 22-01-2020, 23-01-2020, 5-02-2020
Date of Judgment: 14 February 2020

Mr. C Hapa with D Konitao for the Petitioner
Mr. L Kwaiga with E. Olofia for the First Respondent
Ms. F Fakari’i for the Second Respondent (AG) (excused)

The Solomon Islands National General Election was held on 3^rd April 2019 to elect members of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands. The Petitioner and the Respondent together with three other candidates contested the National Parliament seat for North East Guadalcanal Constituency, Guadalcanal Province. This was the first National General Election conducted under the Electoral Act 2018 which came into force on twentieth September 2018.

The Respondent, Mr Jamie Lence Vokia, was declared the winner over the other four candidates having polled 1,835 votes. The Petitioner, Dr Derrick Sikua, the former Member of Parliament for the Constituency, came second with a total of 1,629 votes, 206 votes less than the Respondent.

This Election Petition was filed, pursuant to section 108 (1) of the Electoral Act 2018 as read with sections 5 and 6 of the Electoral Act Petition Rules 2019. The Petitioner says the Respondent was personally and by his agents guilty of corrupt practice and bribery before the said election contrary to section 126 of the Electoral Act (No.6 of 2018). Particulars of bribery allegations are as contained in the schedule, they are as follows;

Originally there were seven allegations but three of the allegations were withdrawn before the commencement of the trial and were abandoned. The Petitioner therefore only pursued four allegations and led evidence to prove them. The four remaining allegations are;

Allegation No.1. that ‘On or about 10^th day of February 2019, at the Respondent residence at Vura 3, East Honiara, one Ethel Vokia, being the wife and agent of the Respondent, gave $150.00 to Charles Manebosa with intend to induce Charles Manebosa to vote for the Respondent.

Allegation No.2 that, on or about 29^th February 2019, at the Respondent’s residence at Vura 3, East Honiara, one Solomon Para an agent of the Respondent gave $100-00 to Judith Balue with intend to induce Judith Balue to vote for the Respondent.

Allegation No. 5 that, on or about 30^th March 2019, at the Respondent’s Residence at Vura 3, East Honiara the Respondent gave to Margaret Samu $200-00 with intend to induce Margaret Samu to vote for the Respondent.

Allegation No.7 that on or about 7^th January 2019, at the National Referral Hospital Honiara, Ethel Vokia being the wife and agent of the Respondent gave to Basil Dii $250.00 with intend to induce Basil Dii to vote for the Respondent.

At the outset, I remind myself that the onus of proving the allegations is on the Petitioner and he must do so on the required standard. The standard of proof in petition cases was discussed in a number of previous cases by this court, see Maetia v Dausabea^[1], Tegavota v Bennet^[2] inter alia. I feel it is not necessary to dwell on the issue at length suffice to say that the standard is higher than the civil standard but falls short of the standard of proof in criminal cases. In this regard, I will adopt the words of Chetwynd J in Ha’apio v Keniasina^[3] where his Lordship said,

The Petitioner had filed sworn statements of six witnesses as Evidence in Chief in support of the allegations. Four of the witnesses were called to give oral evidence and made available to be cross-examined by the Respondent. Sworn statements of two other witnesses, Lawrence Kanai and Basil Dii were tendered by consent. These form the Evidence in Chief adduced by the Petitioner in support of the allegations. I now turn to consider the evidence in support and in rebuttal in respect of each allegation.

The first witness for the Petitioner made available for cross-examination and whose sworn statement was tendered as evidence in support of allegation No.1 is Charles Manebosa. Mr Charles Manebosa is from Kuladoku village in North East Guadalcanal. His Evidence in Chief relevant to allegation No.1 was as follows, on or about 8^th February 2019 he accompanied Bobby Sori and John Selea from Ruavatu to Honiara. They left Ruavatu about 4 pm and travel by a B-mobile company Hilux vehicle to Honiara. They were dropped off at Vura 3 bus stop and John Selea led them to Jamie Vokia’s house. This was the first time for Mr Manebosa to go to Jamie Vokia’s house. He stated when they arrive, there were about 30 people at the house at that time, mostly from Samaria, Betikiki, Tatau and Kerekoka villages in North East Guadalcanal. Mr Manebosa, John Selea and Sori Bobby spent the night at Jamie Vokia’s house.

The next morning on or about Saturday 9^th February 2019, after breakfast, the Respondent’s wife and Polycarp Peresini, one of the Respondent’s campaign managers told them to go up upstairs to the Respondent’s office to collect their truck fares. Manebosa and his two friends Sori and John Selea joined the queue and Mrs Vokia gave them $150 each and Mr Polycarp Peresini told them in their dialect “Kamu must votia a Lence Vokia itete na dani ni vote” (you must vote for Lence Vokia during the voting day” After this, they left Vokia’s house to the main market. Whatever happened after that is not relevant to the issues of contentions.

In response to the evidence of Charles Manebosa the Respondent filed sworn statements of four witnesses which contained evidence in rebuttal. These are sworn statements of Mrs Ethel Vokia, John Selea and Bobby Sori and Polycarp Peresini. These four witnesses were also made available for cross-examination by the Petitioner. In their Evidence in Chief and cross-examination, all three witnesses accepted that the three men slept at the Respondent’s house but bluntly denied the allegation that money was given to Charles Manebosa, John Selea and Bobby Sori or anyone else by Mrs Ethel Vokia or Polycarp Peresini.

Counsel for the Respondent did not cross-examine Mr Manebosa about his allegation against Mrs Vokia’s giving money to people and what Manebosa alleged Mr Peresini said to the people queuing to receive money from Mrs Vokia. Is blunt denial without any reasonable explanation worthy of being believed? I don’t believe blunt denials without logical explanations. I also bear in mind that the sworn statements of the four witnesses for the Respondent were made after they were told or have seen or read the content of the sworn statement of Charles Manebosa. While that is a normal practice in civil proceedings and the Respondent produced witnesses to rebut the evidence of Charles Manebosa, he was not cross-examined about the crucial issues of (1) Mrs Ethel Vokia giving money to the people and (2) what Mr Manebosa said Mr Polycarp Peresini told the people who were given money. The evidence and credibility of the witness, therefore, remained unchallenged. I will return to that issue late in the judgment.

The second witness for the Petitioner made available for cross-examination and whose sworn statement was tendered as evidence in support of allegation No 2 is Judith Balue. She is from Tenadoe village, North East Guadalcanal Constituency and a kindergarten teacher at Ao Primary School at Kolosulu. Her Evidence in Chief is that on or about the 28^th March 2019 she came to Honiara to check her fortnight salary. I take judicial notice of the fact that 28^th March is a Thursday and was a teacher’s payday. She checked at BSP bank and found her salary was ceased. From the BSP bank, she went straight to the Wesley United Church compound to find transport home. There she met three other women Freda Ghaua, Jocelyn Kidesi and Jeridah Sipu also waiting for transport to Kolosulu.

While waiting, she heard Freda Ghaua called her husband Rodney Kera by mobile phone. Rodney Kera was at Jamie Vokia’s house at that time. After talking to her husband Freda Ghaua told them that her husband did not have money so he will ask Solomon Para one of Jamie Vokia’s campaign Managers. Solomon Para is Judith’s uncle. After that Rodney Kera and Lazarus Vogha arrive in a vehicle she said was an RAV4 and picked them up and drove to Vokia’s house. When they arrived, Mr Vokia was not at home but his wife Ethel Vokia and other people were there including Solomon Para. At about 4 pm the same day Freda Ghaua, Jocelyn Kidesi and Jeridah Sipu together with Rodney and Lazarus Vogha left back to Kolosulu in the same vehicle.

Judith spent the night at Vokia’s house with other people. She decided to stay back because she has been sitting in the boot and was uncomfortable and also because her uncle Solomon Para told her to stay. She said Mr Vokia did not arrive until about 8 or 9 pm. The time given was consistent with the evidence of Rockson Veloa who stated in his evidence that Mr Jamie Vokia arrived about 10 pm, it also confirms that Judith actually spent the night at the Respondent house otherwise she wouldn’t know that Mr Vokia arrived late that night. Judith said she recognised some of the people at Vokia’s house as Rockson Veloa, Samson Leua, David Licks (Hicks) Abel Ngelerongona and John Rex.

The next day she left the house together with Rockson Veloa, Samson Leua, David Licks (Hicks) Abel Ngelerongona and John Rex to town to wait for transport home to Tenadoe and Kolosulu. Before they left, Solomon Para gave $100 each and told them in their dialect “Kamu mas votia Lence, translated to English to mean ‘you must vote for Lence’.

To rebut Judith Balue’s evidence, the Respondent filed sworn statements of eight witnesses. The first witness made available is Polycarp Peresini, he stated at paragraph 51 of his sworn statement filed on 10^th September 2019, that he did not see or talk to Judith Balue at Vokia’s house on 29^th March 2019 or saw Solomon Para gave Judith $100.00. In cross-examination however, he said it was true Judith Balue slept at Vokia’s house on the night of 28^th March 2019. He stated that Rockson Veloa, David Licks and Samson Leua were not at Vokia’s house on the morning of 29^th March 2019. This contradicts Mr. Veloa’s evidence who said Vokia arrived at the house about 10 pm, proof that he was at the house that night.

The second witness made available is Rockson Veloa. He said he came to Vokia’s house with David Licks on the evening of 28^th March 2019. Rockson Veloa said he did not see Judith Balue or Solomon Para at Vokia’s house on 28 or 29 March 2019. He said Mr Vokia arrived at about 10 pm. He also did not see John Rex, Samson Leua or Abel Ngelerongona.

He left for Henderson on the morning of 29^th March 2019 and did not travel with Abel and John Rex or Samson Leua. The other witnesses who were in the vehicle with Judith when they went to Vokia’s house all stated that Judith Balue went back with them in the vehicle to Kolosulu. The evidence of Rodney Kera, Rockson Veloa, Freda Ghaua, Ethel Vokia and Jerida Sipu were inconsistent with the evidence of Polycarp Peresini who said it was true Judith slept at Vokia’s house on the night of 28^th March 2019.

Counsel for the Respondent submits that the evidence of Judith Balue did not support the allegation made by the Petitioner because the date of the alleged offence was 29^th February 2019 but the evidence points to 29^th March 2019. Under cross-examination Judith did correct her allegation and said the correct date was 29^th March 2019 and not 29^th February 2019.

Counsel for the Respondent, however, submits that no step was taken by the Petitioner to amend the allegation, therefore, the evidence does not support the alleged offence thus he submits the court must reject the evidence of Judith Balue.

All the witnesses were cross-examined in regard to 29th March 2019. No issue was taken by both counsel on the issue of date hence I take it that both counsels accepted the date they were talking about was 29th March 2019 rather than 29^th February 2019, which obviously does not exist in the 2019 calendar.

There is no provision in the Electoral Act 2018, the Election Petition Rules 2019 or Civil Procedure Rules 2007 which deals with a situation where there is variance between the charge or allegation and evidence adduced in support of the charge or allegation. I am, however, aware there is such a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code dealing with such situations.

In a criminal trial section 201 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code states that, ‘variance between the charge and evidence adduced in support of it with respect to the day upon which the alleged offence was committed is not material and the charge need not be amended for such variance if it proved that the proceedings were in fact instituted within the time limit (if any) limited by law for institution thereof’.

While this not a criminal trial I think the principle can be adopted. I am of the view that in an Election petition trial on allegations of bribery, date is not of essence as it is not an essential element of the offence of bribery. In this respect, I reject counsel for the Respondent submission to dismiss the evidence of Judith Balue and the allegation.

While the Respondent provides nine witnesses to rebut her evidence, their evidence were just blunt denials from which no reasonable inferences could be drawn. Getting many people to say the same thing does not mean what they say is true. Unlike in Parliament where the number matters, in a trial before the court it is not a question of majority but of credibility. I am satisfied, Judith Balue is a credible witness and accepts her evidence as true and correct. I did not believe the evidence of the Respondent witnesses in regard to allegation No. 2. Their evidence were just blunt denials and inconsistencies without any logical explanations.

The third witness for Petitioner whose sworn statement was tendered as evidence in support of allegation No.3 and made available by the Petitioner to be cross-examined by the Respondent is Margaret Samu. Margaret Samu made an amended sworn statement which was filed on 11/10/2019 to correct some of the particulars in her original sworn statement filed on 26/8/2019. Margaret Samu is a registered voter in North East Guadalcanal Constituency but was originally from Wahere Village, Marau Sound, East Guadalcanal. Her Evidence in Chief were as follows;

On or about 28^th March 2019 she traveled from Marau on MV Maetalau to Honiara. Also traveling on the same ship at that time were three other women namely Madam Loraine Hove Barnabas, Vesma Panda and Madam Janet Gogoni, all from the North East Guadalcanal Constituency. They were all coming to vote in the National General election. Margaret said she came purposely to vote for the Petitioner Derick Sikua. MV Maetalau arrived at Honiara wharf about 6 am on Thursday 28^th March 2019. As the ship was approaching the wharf, she sensed that the women wanted to tell her something so she asked them in pidgin “hao na ia, iu fala who na by you fala votim ia, mi kam for vote tu ia Vesma Panda replied in pidgin and said Mifala ia kam, bae man ia bae waitem mifala lo wharf nao ia. Bae refundim fare blo mifala”.

When Margaret asked who that person is Vesma Panda replied that Jamie Vokia is waiting for them at the wharf to refund their traveling expenses. They told her that Jamie Vokia will be refunding their fares since they will be voting for him and insist that she should follow them to meet Mr Jaimie Vokia. She followed them and were standing together at the wharf when they saw Jamie Vokia’s vehicle at the car park. The women asked her to follow them to get their refund. They all walked to Vokia’s vehicle and Vesma Panda said to him “woman ia tu bae iu refundim fare blo hem”. Jamie Vokia agreed and advised Margaret Samu to meet him at his residence at Vura 3 and explained the location of his house to her.

After that, she went to her aunt’s house at Vura and stayed there until Friday 29^th March 2019. On 29^th March 2019 at about 7 am, she went to Vokia’s house. When she got to the house, she saw many people at the house. She managed to recognize one of his Vurango (father-in-law) by the name of Polycarp Peresini. Peresini saw her and greeted her saying, “ae tabu gud na you kam. Kam iumi joinim kaikai nao”, so she joined them for breakfast. After breakfast, she looked around but did not see Loraine Howe Barnabas or Janet Gogoni. She was told that they had been dropped at their homes on Thursday afternoon. After that Jamie Vokia’s wife called her up the stairs and gave her $200.00 and said, “ia refund blo iu”. She said after receiving the money, she completely changes her mind from voting for Derrick Sikua but to vote for Mr Vokia.

The allegation, however, specifically named the Respondent as the person who gave $200 to Margaret. Margaret’s evidence is that it was Mrs Vokia that gave her the $200. In a charge for any offence the identity of the offender is an essential element of the offence. There is no evidence to prove that the Respondent personally gave any money to Margaret Samu. It is not open to the court to infer that Mrs Vokia gave the money on behalf of the Respondent as that was not part of the allegation as pleaded. Allegation 5 must be dismissed as there was no evidence to support the allegation. The evidence of Margaret Samu of Mrs Vokia giving money, however, remains part of the overall evidence and goes to show that money was used by the Respondent as a campaign strategy and carried out on his behalf by his agents.

The fourth witness for the Petitioner is Walter Sale. Walter Sale gave evidence in support of allegation No.7. His Evidence in Chief was that on Monday 7^th January 2019 at about 11 am, he was at the National Referral Hospital (NRH) Medical Ward with his mum and Basil Dii when his cousin sister Rose Tala and Mrs Vokia unexpectedly arrived at the hospital. Mrs Vokia told them that before she left her house at Vura 3 she suddenly remembers what Mr. Leua told her and her husband at Lengalau village the previous day 6^th January 2019 about his mum and Basil been admitted at the National Referral Hospital (NRH).

Mrs Vokia told them that Mr Leua explains to her and her husband that Walter’s mum Hilda is a registered voter from Tasimboko and was admitted to hospital (NRH) with her grandson Basil. He said Mrs Vokia explained that since she never met his mum before she has to get Rose to come along with her to identify Hilda. After being with them for about 15 minutes, Mrs Vokia gave $250 to Basil and said the money was for food and their upkeep while at the hospital. Walter said he and his mum witnessed this. After this, Rose and Mrs Vokia left the hospital.

Walter said they started wondering whether the $250 was given as genuine assistance to Basil and his mum or whether Mrs Vokia carried it out on the instruction of Mr Vokia’s campaign manager, Mr Leua and Rose, to influence his mum and his siblings to vote for Mr Vokia during the 2019 National General Election.

The second witness for the Petitioner in support of this allegation is Basil Dii. He did not give oral evidence but his sworn statement was tendered by consent of the parties. In any event, it is evidence all the same and the court can rely on it but bearing in mind his evidence was not subject to cross-examination. The evidence of Basil Dii confirm and corroborate the evidence of Walter Sale. I am satisfied that Walter Sale and Basil are truthful witnesses. There is no evidence that they were supporters of the Petitioner or they have any motive to make up this story to lie to the court.

I do not believe the evidence of Mrs Ethel Vokia and Rose Tala about this incident. The evidence of the other witness Hellen Sale is mostly hearsay hence the court cannot rely on it. The three witnesses Ethel Vokia, Rose Tala and Ezekiel Leua are not independent witnesses. Rose Tala in her evidence said she is a personal friend of Vokia family and was one of the people who nominated Mr Jamie Vokia as a candidate for North East Guadalcanal constituency, Ethel Vokia is the wife of Respondent and Ezekiel Leua become one of the campaign managers for the Respondent.

The evidence of Mrs Vokia and Rose Tala is more a fabrication and collaboration rather than corroboration. Their demeanor in the witness box was unimpressive. For these reasons, I do not believe in their evidence. I also reject the evidence of Ezekiel Leua. He was evasive and unimpressive in the witness box. He made blunt denials such as he did not know Hilda Vuturua or her husband although they are from the same village. His answers to court examination later, however, revealed that he actually knew them.

Counsel for the Petitioner raised during the trial that Respondent counsel did not sufficiently cross-examine all the witnesses for Petitioner on the allegations of bribery made by the witnesses to allow them to respond and also to respond to the evidence adduced by the witnesses for the Respondent. The modus operandi of the Respondent was to produce his own witnesses to rebut each allegation. The rule in Brown v Dunn obliged a party to put a particular matter to a witness if he is going to bring evidence to rebut that particular matter.

Thus in the present case if the Respondent is going to bring evidence to rebut evidence of opposing witnesses even if he has filed sworn statements of his witnesses which rebut the evidence of the opposing witnesses he must still cross-examine them on their own evidence so they have the opportunity to respond to any inconsistencies raised about their evidence. Producing your own witnesses to rebut the evidence of the opposing party does not give the opportunity to the opposing party’s witnesses to respond. This is essential in a case like this where the witnesses for the Petitioner did not file replies to the sworn statements in a rebuttal filed by the witnesses for the Respondent. How the Respondent conducts his case does not give the witnesses for Petitioner the opportunity to respond to the evidence of the Respondent in rebuttal because by that time Respondent witnesses came in to give evidence, the Petitioners witnesses have already given their evidence and gone. This is a breach of the rule in Brown v Dunn formulated in Brown v Dunn [1883] 6 R.H. The rule entails that a cross-examiner cannot rely on evidence that is contradictory to the testimony of the witness without putting the evidence to the witness in order to allow them to attempt to justify the contradiction. The rule is best described in the judgment of Hunter J in Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation ^[4] where he observed;

Having considered the manner in which the Respondent conducted his case I reject the submission of counsel for the Respondent that the rule in Brown and Dunn does apply in this proceeding because he said the pleading of issues clearly shows the issues and answers to the issues. I am afraid I must disagree, the witnesses for the Petitioner did not file any sworn statements in reply to sworn statements of the Respondent file in rebuttal. Cross-examination is essential in a case like this where the witnesses for the Petitioner did not file replies to the sworn statements in a rebuttal filed by the witnesses for the Respondent. The breach of this rule, therefore, prevents the Respondent to rely on his own witness’s evidence in rebuttal.

I noticed that the Respondent’s modus operandi was to bring in more witnesses than the Petitioners witnesses to rebut the evidence of each witness for the Petitioner rather than attempt to discredit their evidence by cross-examination. The consequence of this is that the evidence of the witness for Petitioners and their credibility remains untested. Bringing in more witnesses than the other side to say the same thing is no proof that what they say is true, their evidence may well be fabrication especially in a case like this where they had seen and read or knew what was in the sworn statements of the witnesses for the other side.

The next question now is whether it is proven that the Respondent, Mrs Vokia and Solomon Para are guilty of bribery as alleged. There is no evidence that the Respondent personally gave money to any person to influence them to vote for him or vote in any particular way. There is, however, evidence that Mrs Vokia gave money to Basil Dii, and Solomon Para gave money to Judith Balue.

The next question to ask is whether Mrs Ethel Vokia and Solomon Para were agents of the Respondent. Under the Electoral Act 2018, the only agent referred to in the Act is a polling agent. In this respect, my view is, in other situation where reference is made to agent or agents, the natural and ordinary meaning of the words must be given. The advanced English dictionary defined the word agent as “a representative who acts on behalf of other person or organizations”. The Electoral Act 2018 does not require that an agent must be formally appointed by a candidate so prove of a person doing something on behalf of a candidate would suffice.

Whether the wife of the Respondent and his campaign managers are agents of the Respondent, the answer really depends on their relationship and the actives they were doing at a particular time. In the present case, the main issue at that particular time was the National General Election and Election Campaigns. From my experience and observation, I can take judicial notice of the fact in most cases most of the indenting candidates would be known or make known their intentions to contest in the election well before the proclamation of the Election Day by the Governor-General. The proclamation of the date for the 2019 General Election was made on 5^th February 2019.

On the question of whether the wife of the Respondent was his agent, I am of the view that a wife, because of the special relationship between her and her husband, would be regarded as an agent for the purposes section of 120, 126 or 127 of the Act. She would no doubt because of the special relationship knew of her husband’s intentions and no doubt would have discussed the issue as a husband and wife. This is a normal human behaviour. I also consider that a campaign manager is an agent for a candidate because he carries out activities on behalf of the candidate. Because of these special relationships, anything they do will be considered as been done with the authority of the candidate^[5]

In the present case, I am satisfied Mrs Vokia was an agent of the Respondent when she gave $250.00 to Basil Dii to influence him and his mother Hilda Vuturua to vote in a particular way at 3^rd April 2019 National General Election i.e. vote for the Respondent. The evidence shows that she and Solomon Para gave money to Charles Manebosa, Judith Balue, and Margaret in the period between 8^th February to 28^th March and 30^th March 2019, some of the incidents just 3 to 5 days before the day of the Election. In the absence of any evidence to show any other reasons for giving money so close to Election Day, the only reasonable inference that could be drawn is that the money was given to influence the recipients to vote for the Respondent or to vote in a particular way. I am satisfied this is vote-buying and bribery.

After considering the evidence I accepted the evidence of Charles Manebosa, Judith Balue and Walter Sale in regard to allegations 1, 5 and 7 respectively. Unlike the witnesses for the Respondent who were mostly his supporters, there is no evidence that they are supporters of the Petitioner or that they have an interest in the outcome of the election so that they should lie to the court.

The four remaining allegations considered at this trial are allegations of bribery. Section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018 states as follows,

I take into account the submission of counsel for the Respondent in regard to the two limbs of section 126. Under the first limb he submits, for the Respondent to be held liable he must involve in person with the other person. The Respondent cannot be held liable for an act of a third party or someone else.

Counsel submits Limb 2 applies where there are three parties/persons involved in the commission of the offence of bribery and the Respondent must be named as a party in the offence and he must be linked directly to the commission of the offence to be held liable for the offence.

In the present case, the three remaining allegations stated that Mrs Ethel Vokia and Solomon Para are agents for the Respondent. In this respect the Respondent was named as a party to the offences thus he was involved in the commission of the offences under both limbs.

This issue was considered by Palmer CJ in James Airahui and others v Kenilorea Jnr and others, ^[6] where Palmer CJ states,

After considering the evidence and the submissions of counsels, I am satisfied and convinced that bribery has been proven on part of Mrs Vokia and Solomon Para with regard to allegations 1, 2 and 7. I am also satisfied that Mrs Vokia and Solomon Para are agents of the Respondent acting on his behalf. In that respect, the Respondent is as liable as his agents.

I declare the election of Jamie Lence Vokia as Member of Parliament for North East Guadalcanal Constituency is Null and Void.

A declaration pursuant to section 111(5) of the Electoral Act 2018 will be made in due course.

High Court of Solomon Islands

Sikua v Vokia [2020] SBHC 5; HCSI-CC 265 of 2019 (14 February 2020)