The National Court in Goroka today allowed for the election petition disputing the win of incumbent Kundiawa Gembogl Open MP Hon.Muguwa Dilu to proceed to trial.
Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi dismissed two objections respectively filed by Ray William of the Pacific Legal Group representing the Electoral Commission and Justin Wohinangu of Gileng and Co.Lawyers representing Hon. Muguwa Dilu and ordered for the Election Petition to proceed into trial forthwith.
Earlier this week on November 20, His Honour Kandakasi DCJ heard two Notices of Objections filed by respective lawyers for Hon. Muguwa Dilu and the Electoral Commission and reserved the decision which was handed down today ruling that the matter should proceed to trial.
Amongst the grounds of objections filed by the two respondents were that the petition was not filed within 40 days period as required by section 208(e) of the Organic Law on National and Local-level Government Elections (the Organic Law) and that security fee deposit was paid a day earlier that the date of lodgement of the documents thus breaching section 209 of the Organic Law.
In addition to their objections, both respondents also claimed that the petition did not plead the relevant facts contrary to section 208 (a) of the Organic Law.
Emmanuel Issac of Emmanuel Lawyers represented petitioner and former MP William Gogl Onglo arguing that the objections be dismissed and that the matter should be allowed to proceed to trial.
The respondents lawyers maintained that with respect to objections under section 208 (e), they argued that the petition was filed out of time because it was not sealed on the same day the petition was uploaded on Integrated Electronic Case Management System ( IECMS) even though the petition was uploaded on the IECMS within time.
The respondents lawyers therefore maintained that the word “filed” should be given the definition stated under the Election Petition Rules as a good number of Election Petitions have been dismissed on this ground stating that majority of Courts seem to hold the view that a petition is considered filed when it was sealed and not when it was uploaded on IECMS by the petitioner.
However, the lawyer for the petitioner argued that a petition is filed when it was lodged and not when it was sealed pointing out that the definition of the word filed in section 208 (e) and section 209 of the Organic Law must be same.
Furthermore, Counsel Issac submitted that to say a petition was filed when it was sealed presented 2 problems;
(i) First. Defining the word “filed” as suggested by the respondents would put the petitioner in a difficult situation for purposes of complying with section 209 of the Organic Law because section 209 requires the petitioner to deposit with the Registrar a security fee deposit of K5,000.00 at the time of filing the petition. Since the word “filed” is defined as a process which includes sealing, will the Petitioner wait for the filing process to complete (including sealing) to pay the deposit?
(ii) Previously, prior to the introduction and the use of IECMS, hard copies of petitions were lodged with the Registry and the date of filing was given as at the date of lodgment. Defining the word “filed” as a process (including sealing) imposes on the petitioner an unfair penalty for the administrative processes and cases management systems of the Court Registry as the petitioner has no control over the internal case management system and procedures of the National Court in handling documents lodged to be filed.
Counsel Issac therefore submitted that the word filed should be given its ordinary and natural meaning to dispense justice asking the Court to apply the principles relating to interpretation of Constitutional Law and ignore the meaning given by the rules.
The respondents’ lawyers on the other hand with respect to section 209 of the Organic Law argued that the security deposit must be made on the same date of lodgement of the Petition and not a day or two early.
Counsel Issac disagreed with the respondents’ submissions indicating that the petitioner’s submission was that section 209 of the Organic Law requires that a Petition be lodged with receipt of security deposit and the law does not say it was to be paid on the same day.
“We submitted that past decided case authorities have misinterpreted section 209 of the Organic Law. With respect to section 208 (a), the Respondents submitted that the Petition suffers from defects in pleadings and should therefore be dismissed” maintained Counsel Issac.
He emphasized on the importance of sections 217 and 222 of the Organic Law which clearly demonstrates that the Parliament’s intention for the Petition to be filed by ordinary lay persons as Section 217 urges the Court to be guided by the merits of the case and must avoid technical approaches as Section 222 provides that lawyers can act for parties in Election Petitions only if leave is granted by the Court or the parties consent to legal representation.
Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi upon hearing submissions from all parties concerned then dismissed the two Notice of Objections filed by the Respondents lawyers and fixed December 01, 2023 for trial to commence at the Goroka National Court forthwith.
*Attached is a photo showing petitioner William Gogl Onglo (left) with his lawyer Emmanuel Issac walking out of the Goroka National Court after the court ruled in his favor earlier today.
