THE Court of Disputed Returns in Waigani is expected to rule on an application by NCD Governor Powes Parkop in his defence against two election petitions challenging the validity of his election victory in the 2022 national general election.
The petitions filed by runner-up Andy Bawa (EP 100) and Michael Kandiu (EP 102) were both heard this week before National Court judge, Justice Oagile Dingake.
Amongst other grounds raised by the petitoners, both have raised allegations of bribery in their respective petitions.
During the hearing, Parkop moved his application to seek leave to amend his notices of objection to competency filed against both election petitions.
In his submissions, Parkop through his lawyer, submitted that the new grounds for objections as to the competency of the petitions were straightforward as they related to the timing of filing of the petitions and the payment of security deposit required by the Organic Law.
The lawyers for Bawa and Kandiu opposed the application and argued that the application by Parkop was a delayed application and seeking leave to amend the notices of objections to competency to add new grounds go against the spirit and the intention of the election petition rules which provide for expedited hearing and conclusion of election petition proceedings given that the term of office of a Member of Parliament is limited (5 years).
Bawa’s lawyer argued that whilst Parkop relies on the election petition rules, which provides for the court to dispense with the requirements of the rules to seek leave to amend his notice of objection to competency, the grant of leave was not automatic.
That it is a matter of exercise of judicial discretion applying well established principles of law. Such considerations include an explanation for the delaying in seeking leave. That such application must be made promptly. That such application must not prejudice the other party from progressing the petition to trial in a timely manner.
It was also argued that Parkop did not explain why he was making a delayed application on the eve of trial, causing much delay and that the application should be refused.
Justice Dingake after hearing the submissions, fixed December 8, 2023 for a ruling. However, the judge indicated that he may deliver his ruling before the scheduled date.
