Supreme Court

Speaker & AG join in VONC matter

The Supreme Court on June 13th ordered the Speaker and Attorney General to file a submission to intervene in the Supreme Court reference filed by the Opposition on Monday, June 10th seeking the court’s interpretation on various sections of the constitution that deals with the Motion on the Vote of No Confidence.

Dilu to apply for a review

Dilu’s counsel then applied for a review of this decision and was pending until the 7th of June the application came before the Supreme Court where submissions were made and the decision handed down yesterday

Justice Derek Hartshorn made this decision because of the errors on the point of law under sections 208 (e) and 209  of the Organic Law that the petition was filed out of time through the Integrated Electronic Case Management System (IECMS)  and so the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

Dilu seeks review at the Supreme Court

The outcome of this case will also determine the next cause of action to be taken by Dilu’s counsel.

Applying for a stay order against the court’s decision is top on the agenda.

Court clears Isoaimo

Isoaimo filed an application on the 3rd of November 2023 seeking the Supreme Court to review the decision of the National Court made on June 29th 2023 in the matter of the election petition by Paru Aihi against him and the Electoral Commissioner.

Isoaimo’s win was challenged by Aihi on the grounds of bribery and the National Court in his decision ruled that there were sufficient evidence and ordered for a b- election.

Court grants Paraka’s leave application

Presided over by Justice David Cannings as a single judge, Cannings has granted the application based on the strong conviction from Paraka after he presented valid arguments before the court.

Some of his convictions are due to lack of evidence, and the constitutional right he has to review the decision of the National Court to the Supreme Court, which was a breach because the judge who made the ruling did not take these approaches before sentencing Paraka.

O’Neill respects Court decision

The Court ruled that while there were breaches of the Constitution in the last election, they have ultimately ruled not to intervene in the Parliamentary election of the Prime Minister.

“Of course, I am disappointed that the decision did not go our way and that the serious breaches of our Constitution occurred, but I will respect the ruling of the Supreme Court made this morning in Waigani.”

O’Neill's case dismissed

The case was presided over by a five-men bench Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice Gibbs Salika,  Deputy Chief Justice Ambeng Kandakasi, Justices Panuel Mogish, Justices David Cannings and Justice Ere Kariko, ruled that the application by O’Neil question the appointment of Prime Minister in 2022 election is incompetent with the constitution and the organic law

Paraka’s leave application adjourned

Presided over by Justice David Cannings as single judge, Cannings has adjourned the matter giving sufficient time for the lawyer to prepare his documents after Paraka informed the court of an additional document that was presented to him over the weekend to support his leave application.

Representing himself in court, Paraka said the additional document which is required to support his leave application was filed yesterday morning therefore, he has asked the court to adjourn the matter to next week to prepare the documents before he makes submissions.

Former Auditor General cleared off corruption charges

The prosecution stemmed from allegations that Mr Nauga, whilst the Auditor-General around 2013, fraudulently awarded two contracts to an accounting firm, Frank Benabo and Associates, to audit the DSIP funds of two districts.

Mr Nauga was criminally prosecuted around March 2013, two days before his contract of employment as the Auditor-General of Papua New Guinea expired.

He was slapped with four charges which included abuse of office, official corruption, conspiracy to defraud and misappropriation.

Court summons convicts

On May 31, 2022, the Supreme Court in its interpretation of Section 103 (3) (e) of the Constitution, settled the legal position that a person cannot contest the National General Elections and be qualified to be a member of Parliament if he/she is convicted of an indictable offence that carries a sentence of imprisonment for more than 9 months, effective from June 25 2002.

The only two exceptions to this interpretation are unless the conviction and sentence has been quashed by the Supreme Court or the convicted person has been pardoned under section 151 of the Constitution.