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

Qurusu v Sogavare [2025] SBHC 3; HCSI-CC 198 of 2024 (5 February 2025)

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 198 of 2024

BETWEEN

DAVID QURUSU
The Petition

AND:

MANASSEH DAMUKANA SOGAVARE
The Respondent

Hearing: 26 September 2024
Judgment: 5 February 2025

Counsel: Ms Jillian Soaika and Mchesney Ale for the Applicant/Respondent
Counsel: Ms Yvette Samuel and Evan Olofia for the Respondent/ Petitioner
Counsel: Jude Devesi on behalf of the Attorney General (Amicus Curiae)

Palmer CJ:

1. This is an application to strike out an election petition, filed by the Applicant/Respondent on 29 July 2024, and an amended application for strike out filed on 27 August 2024, pursuant to section 111(1) (b) (i) of the Electoral Act 2018, as amended, rule 50 of the Electoral Act Petition Rules (“the Petition Rules”), and rule 9.75 of the Solomon Islands Courts (Civil Procedure) Rules 2007 (“the Civil Procedure Rules”).

Orders Sought

2. The Applicant seeks the following orders:
   • (i) The Petition filed on 29 May 2024 be struck out on the grounds of failure to comply with Court Orders pursuant to rule 4 of the Petition Rules as read with rules 23.1 to 23.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules;
   • (ii) Costs of and incidental to the proceedings on indemnity or increased basis to be borne by the Petitioner; and
   • (iii) Any other orders the Court deems fit.

Summary of the Grounds relied on in support of the Application for Strike Out.

3. The submissions of the Applicant can be summarised as follows.
   1. The Election Petition – The Petitioner seeks to void the election of the Respondent as a Member of Parliament for East Choiseul Constituency and to disqualify him from contesting future elections until the current Parliament dissolves.
   2. Petition is Flawed – Ms. Soaika of Counsel for the Applicant/ Respondent submits that the Petition is inadequately pleaded, lacks clarity, and does not meet legal requirements.
   3. Misinterpretation of Law – The Petitioner relies on proving the Respondent's guilt under Section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018, but election petitions assess election validity, not criminal guilt.
   4. Abuse of Court Process – Ms. Soaika submits that the petition is framed like a criminal prosecution rather than a civil election challenge, making it an abuse of the Court’s jurisdiction.
   5. Allegations of Bribery – The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent or his agents engaged in corrupt and illegal practices, but these allegations are inadequately pleaded, vague, and fail to plead sufficient particulars on agency relationships.
   6. Lack of Particulars – It is submitted that specific bribery allegations are insufficiently detailed, failing to show clear connections between the Respondent and or agent on the alleged acts of bribery.
   7. Failure to Demonstrate Election Influence – The Petitioner has also failed to sufficiently show how the Respondent’s election was procured through corrupt practices.
   8. Misuse of Evidence Act – The Petitioner improperly relies on Section 18 of the Evidence Act 2009 to avoid disclosing evidence, when this provision relates only to questions of corroboration of evidence.
   9. Legal Deficiencies – The petition does not meet the legal threshold for election bribery under the Electoral Act 2018 and the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023, rendering it frivolous and vexatious.
   10. Court's Authority to Strike Out Petition – The Court has the power to strike out petitions that are frivolous, vexatious, or lack sufficient grounds under the Electoral Act 2018 and the Civil Procedure Rules.
   11. Expired Time Limitation – The statutory time limit for amending the petition has passed, meaning defects cannot be rectified.
   12. Failure to Comply with Court Orders – The Petitioner missed multiple deadlines for filing required documents and failed to appear in court, leading to potential contempt of court.
   13. Risk of Petition Dismissal – The Petitioner’s non-compliance with procedural rules and court orders may lead to the petition being struck out.

The Grounds Relied on in the Petition.

4. The Petition raises three primary grounds concerning allegations of corrupt and illegal practices, as well as breaches of the Electoral Act 2018, particularly section 126.
5. The first ground asserts that the Respondent, either personally or through agents, procured or promoted the election through corrupt or illegal practices.
6. The second ground alleges that the Respondent or agents committed the offence of Election Bribery under section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018.
7. The third ground contends that the Respondent's election is invalid and void due to corrupt or illegal practices and breaches of the Electoral Act 2018.

Direction Orders of the Court.

8. At the initial hearing, the Respondent's Counsel, Ms. Soaika, argued that the Petition was vague and ambiguous and difficult to understand. The Court accordingly issued directions for a Request for Further and Better Particulars to be filed by the Respondent and Answers to be provided by the Petitioner therewith.
9. While the Respondent complied by filing the request for further and better particulars, the Petitioner failed to provide Answers as required and was ordered to attend the next directions hearing. The Court then issued further direction orders requiring the Petitioner to file Answers. Following submission of the Answers, the Respondent filed an application for strikeout.
10. The Court subsequently directed the filing of sworn statements in support of the Petition. After further delays, five sworn statements were eventually filed on 29 August 2024.

Issues for Determination.

11. The first issue raised by the Applicant is their objection to the approach taken by the Petitioner in citing the offence of Election Bribery pursuant to section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018 as one of the grounds for nullifying the validity of the election of the Respondent. They argue that this is not appropriate in the circumstances.
12. The second issue raised is whether the Petition establishes sufficient grounds to warrant a hearing under section 111(1) (b) (i) of the Electoral Act and or is frivolous and vexatious and should be struck out.

The Offence of Election Bribery.

13. The issue of "election bribery" under section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018 has been addressed in earlier cases^[1] and does not require repetition.
14. Section 108(6) and (7) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023 mandates that an election be declared void if any corrupt or illegal practice is committed by a candidate or their agent.
15. As established in Salopuka v. Panakitasi^[2], citing section 126 to invalidate an election is improper:
    • “It is important to point out from the outset that relying on proof of “guilt” of a candidate under section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018 to invalidate an election is not the right way of going about an election petition. This is not a criminal proceeding, and an election petition is not about proving guilt of a candidate. Section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018 does nothing more than define the offence of bribery as it relates to elections. An election petition therefore can only assert that the election of a candidate was not valid and will do that in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, as opposed to inquiring into the offence of bribery in its criminal jurisdiction.” (Emphasis added).
16. Election petitions are civil proceedings limited to determining election validity.
17. In any event, I am satisfied this error is not fatal to the Petition but can be cured by an amendment.

No Reasonable Cause of Action.

18. Pursuant to the Court's direction order dated 26 June 2024, the Petitioner was required to file Answers to the Respondent’s Request for Further and Better Particulars by 10 July 2024. The Answers were eventually filed on 23 July 2024.
19. On 29 July 2024, the Respondent filed an application for strikeout, arguing that the Petition failed to disclose sufficient grounds for a hearing.
20. Paragraph 4 of the Petition raises six allegations of corrupt and illegal practices. These allegations will be addressed in the order presented.

4.1. On 1 March 2024 at Pangoe Village, Senga Ward, the Respondent through his agent namely McDonell Ranjeer gave the sum of $200 to one Willie Paruku with the intent of influencing the said Willie Paruku to vote for the Respondent contrary to section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018.

21. This allegation of corrupt and illegal practices raises two key issues under Section 126 of the Electoral Act and Sections 108(6) and (7) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023:
    • (1) Whether an agency relationship existed between McDonell Ranjeer (“McDonell”) and the Respondent.
    • (2) Whether there was intent to influence Willie Paruku’s vote in favour of the Respondent.

The issue of Agency.

22. Under Section 108(6) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023, a candidate’s election shall be declared void if a corrupt or illegal practice is committed by the candidate, or an agent acting on his behalf. Therefore, the establishment of an agency relationship is critical to this allegation.
23. To warrant judicial consideration, sufficient particulars must be clearly set out in the pleadings.

Submissions on Agency

24. Ms. Soaika argues that the pleadings lack any specific details or evidence demonstrating an agency relationship between McDonell and the Respondent.
25. She contends that the pleadings fail to establish sufficient facts connecting McDonell’s actions to the Respondent.
26. A request for further and better particulars on this issue was submitted on 27 June 2024, but the response merely stated that such matters pertain to evidence to be examined at trial, rather than at this stage of proceedings.
27. Following the Court’s directive to provide evidence of agency, the sworn statement of Willie Paruku was filed on 29 August 2024.

Evidence Presented

28. In paragraph 14 of his sworn statement, Willie Paruku asserts that McDonell had access to the Respondent due to their "very close connection."
29. In paragraph 17, he claims that McDonell distributed $2,800 at Pangoe Village among those present.
30. In paragraph 18, he states that he personally received $200, along with an additional $200 intended for another individual who lived close by him.
31. In paragraph 19, he says the money was given as a "token" by McDonell to secure their support and ensure they would vote for the Respondent. He was instructed to keep this arrangement "top secret" to prevent damage to the Respondent’s reputation.
32. In paragraph 22, Paruku discloses that despite receiving the money, he ultimately voted for the Petitioner.

Decision on Agency.

33. Allegations of agency require the pleadings to explicitly set out the facts supporting such a relationship^[3].
34. The Petitioner bears the responsibility of establishing a factual basis for the alleged agency relationship between McDonell and the Respondent in this instance.
35. Vague assertions, such as describing someone as a "strong supporter”, “key supporter”^[4], or having a "very close connection”, are insufficient to establish agency in the context of corrupt or illegal practices.
36. The pleadings must contain concrete evidence demonstrating a direct nexus between the Respondent and the alleged agent, particularly demonstrating that the Respondent was aware of or authorized the purported act of bribery^[5].
37. The sworn statements of the Respondent, filed on 29 July 2024, 27 August 2024, and 20 September 2024, explicitly deny any knowledge of McDonell’s actions or any agency relationship between them.
38. I am satisfied the purported evidence adduced in support of this allegation, fails to meet the threshold required to substantiate an agency relationship between McDonell and the Respondent.
39. Additionally, significant portions of the statement rely on hearsay evidence, rendering them inadmissible.

Conclusion on Agency.

40. The necessary factual link establishing McDonell as an agent of the Respondent has not been sufficiently pleaded or evidence provided. Consequently, the claim that McDonell acted on behalf of the Respondent in committing acts of bribery and corruption remains unsubstantiated, falling short of the legal requirements necessary to support this allegation and to warrant a hearing.

4.1.2. Intent to Influence for a Corrupt Purpose or Bribery

41. I now turn to the allegation of a corrupt payment. As previously mentioned, since the claim of agency has failed, this allegation must also fall. The petition seeks to void the election based on the actions of an agent, as outlined in section 108(6) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023. Without a valid agency relationship, the claim cannot stand.
42. Nonetheless, I will briefly address the allegation. It is claimed that McDonell sought to influence Paruku to vote for the Respondent by distributing $200, allegedly stating that the payment was to secure their support and ensure their vote. It is further alleged that McDonell described the payment as “top secret” to avoid damaging the Respondent’s reputation.
43. Beyond this assertion, no additional evidence has been presented to substantiate the claim. In contrast, the Respondent has outright denied any connection to McDonell, the alleged payment of $2,800 to him, and the $200 distribution. Given the lack of supporting material, the evidence provided falls far short of the standard required to justify a hearing on this matter.
44. Furthermore, as noted earlier in this judgment, Paruku’s statement consists of hearsay and is therefore inadmissible. On this basis alone, the allegation must be dismissed.
45. Even if the claim contained sufficient particulars to proceed to a hearing, a single allegation of corrupt payment would not be enough to prove that corrupt practices were so widespread that they affected the election outcome. As required by section 108(7) (a) and (b) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act, a material impact on the election must be demonstrated—particularly in light of the 259-vote margin in this case.
46. Accordingly, this ground should be dismissed for failing to establish a reasonable case of corrupt or illegal practice.

4.2 On 1 April 2024 at Vanoqo Village, Kerepangara Ward, the Respondent gave the sum of $500 to Simon Taqoveke in the presence of one George Matava to which the said Simon Taqoveke then gave a sum of $100 to the said George Matava with the intent of influencing the said George Matava to vote for the Respondent contrary to Section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018.

47. This allegation of corrupt and illegal practice is based on the claim that the Respondent made a direct payment to Matava to secure his vote. That is, payment was made with intent to influence him (Matava) to vote for the Respondent.
48. Matava's sworn statement was filed on 29 August 2024, to support this claim.
49. However, Ms. Soaika submits that the Petitioner's pleadings and Matava's sworn statement fail to substantiate an allegation of bribery.
50. Having reviewed Matava’s statement and the Respondent’s sworn responses, I concur that the claim does not meet the basic legal threshold for corrupt or illegal practice.
51. This is not a case of agency but a purported claim of direct bribery against the Respondent. However, the evidence presented falls far short of establishing that claim.
52. The only evidence cited against the Respondent’s actions is Matava’s account in paragraphs 24 and 25 of his statement:
    • "24. I say that when we reached Sogavare’s boat, Sogavare pulled out some money from his trousers pocket and gave it to Simon Taqoveke, who was in front and directly in line with Sogavare.
    • "25. I say that when Sogavare gave the money to Simon Taqoveke, he said the following, which I remember clearly: ‘dis wan slen blo ufala faifala fo pem veri.’ After that, Sogavare’s boat took off for the centre.”
53. This statement alone does not provide a sufficient basis to infer the Respondent’s intent to influence Matava’s vote.
54. The pleadings and evidence presented to establish bribery are vague, ambiguous, and lacking a clear connection to the alleged corrupt act. The allegation rests on speculation and assumption rather than concrete proof. Accordingly, I find no sufficient grounds to warrant a hearing, and the claim is dismissed.

4.3 On 1 April 2024 at Kakalokasa Village, Kerepangara Ward, the Respondent gave the sum of $1,200 to one Renvah Seama with the intent of influencing the said Renvah Seama to vote for the Respondent contrary to section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018.

55. This allegation concerns a purported corrupt payment of $1,200 by the Respondent to Renvah Seama to secure her vote.
56. In her statement filed on 29 August 2024, Ms. Seama recounted that during the Respondent’s campaign in Kakalokasa Village, she greeted him and thanked him for previously donating a Bluetooth speaker for a church program. She mentioned the need for a mobile phone to use with the speaker. Without saying anything, the Respondent handed her a bundle of cash, which she later counted to be $1,200.
57. In her submissions, Ms. Soaika argued that no evidence suggests the money was given as a condition for Ms. Seama’s vote. There is no indication that it was intended to influence her voting behaviour.
58. The Respondent explained in his sworn statements, that the money was for food preparation, a customary obligation during campaign periods. He stated that this expenditure was recorded in his Election Expenses Report, submitted to the Chief Electoral Officer under Section 69 of the Electoral Act 2018. A copy of the report, attached as Exhibit “MDS-1” to his sworn statement filed on September 20, 2024, lists this expense in Appendix G, item 8, under "Kakalokasa Village – $1,200." He further clarified that similar contributions were made in 18 other villages and stations in East Choiseul. The money, he stated, was entrusted to Ms. Seama in her capacity as an elder responsible for food arrangements.
59. I find this allegation lacks sufficient grounds for a hearing and should be dismissed.

4.4 On 7 April 2024 at Paranui Village, the Respondent through his agent namely one McDonell Ranjeer gave the sum of $200 to one Pauline Hopa with the intent of influencing the said Pauline Hopa to vote for the Respondent contrary to Section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018.

60. Ms. Soaika argues that this allegation should be dismissed as it is poorly drafted, vague, and ambiguous. It lacks a supporting sworn statement and fails to establish an agency relationship or intent to influence the recipient’s vote.
61. When asked to provide further and better particulars in support of the petition, the response was that such matters pertain to evidence, which should be addressed at trial, not at this stage of the proceeding.
62. I fully agree with Counsel Ms. Soaika. This Court has already emphasized the necessity of sufficient pleadings in cases involving agency and allegations of corrupt payments intended to influence votes.
63. The evidence provided is insufficient to justify a hearing, and the allegation is therefore dismissed.

4.5 On 14 April 2024 at Gagara Village, Kerepangara Ward, the Respondent through his agent namely one Salote Rupaseko gave the sum of $100 to one Elizabeth Biliki with the intent of influencing the said Elizabeth Biliki to vote for the Respondent contrary to Section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018.

64. This ground should be dismissed. Aside from the assertion of agency, no supporting particulars are provided beyond stating that she is a "strong supporter" of the Respondent. Merely labeling someone as a “strong”^[6] or “key”^[7] supporter, without more, is insufficient to establish corrupt or illegal conduct. Allegations of this nature are serious and require clear, cogent evidence detailing the relationship. The Petitioner must present specific facts and circumstances substantiating the alleged corrupt relationship.
65. I also agree with Ms. Soaika’s submission that the pleadings fail to meet the threshold for establishing an agency relationship—particularly when the Respondent has expressly denied both the relationship and any knowledge of the individuals named in this allegation.
66. Furthermore, the allegation relies on hearsay, making it inadmissible and warranting dismissal.
67. The bribery claim should also be dismissed on the same basis. Apart from Elizabeth Biliki’s allegation, no additional evidence has been presented in support.

4.6 On 15 April 2024 at Pangoe Village, Senga Ward, the Respondent through his agent namely Armstrong Ponge promised to give a benefit namely money to one Anniedenwer Kote if the said Anniedenwer Kote told or informed twenty (20) electors to vote for the Respondent contrary to section 126 of the Electoral Act 2018.

68. This allegation involves two key elements: agency and bribery allegedly committed by Armstrong Ponge.
69. Ms. Soaika argues that this claim should be dismissed, as it is based on opinions, misinterpretations, and superficial judgments.
70. The only sworn statement supporting the allegation is from Anniedenwer Kote, filed on 29 August 2024.
71. After reviewing the statement and the facts presented, I concur with Ms. Soaika’s submission and conclusion.
72. The evidence provided lacks sufficient detail to establish an agency relationship or an act of bribery by the Respondent.
73. The claim of agency, is based on opinion rather than fact. In paragraph 11, Ms. Kote states:
    • “I say that during the course of our discussions about the elections, he told me that any candidate who wanted to defeat the Respondent would need to have a lot of money because the Respondent uses money in his campaigns. I gathered from his sentiments that he was a strong supporter of the Respondent.”
74. This statement is purely speculative, based on hearsay, and is inadmissible.
75. Regarding the bribery allegation, Ms. Kote states in paragraphs 12-15:
    • “12. I say further that during the course of our discussions about the elections, he expressed to me that if I found 20 people, there was a reward for me in his bag.
    • 13. I say that I looked into a black bag which he was carrying at that time and noticed bundles of cash in denominations of $100.00 but I never confirmed the total amount in the bag.
    • 14. I say that he did not expressly state that the 20 people he requested for me to find would vote for the Respondent, but I could tell from his actions that since he saw me wearing green to support the Petitioner, he was trying to influence me to do favours for the Respondent.
    • 15. I say that I told him that as a Police Officer, he should not partake in and encourage such practices but he just laughed at me and told me for the second time that if I found 20 people, there was a reward for me in his bag.”
76. I agree with Ms. Soaika’s submission that this claim is based on Kote’s assumption that Ponge was attempting to influence her. This is insufficient to substantiate a bribery allegation.
77. Furthermore, the claim relies on hearsay and remains inadmissible. Even if accepted, it fails to meet the legal standard for bribery. Ms. Kote acknowledged that no explicit promise was made to reward her for securing votes, no specific amount was mentioned, and her conclusion was based on personal interpretation rather than direct evidence.
78. Additionally, even if sufficient particulars existed to justify a hearing, this single allegation would not meet the threshold required under Section 108(7) (a) and (b) of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2023, which demands proof that corrupt practices were so widespread they affected the election outcome. The margin of votes in this case is 259.
79. I am satisfied that the allegation of corrupt and illegal practice lacks merit and does not warrant a hearing.

DECISION.

80. I am satisfied the Petition has failed to make out a case that warrants a hearing herewith and accordingly should be struck out with costs to be taxed, if not agreed.

ORDERS OF THE COURT:

1. Grant the application for strike out herewith with costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
2. Direct that a Certificate of this Court’s Order for dismissal of this Petition confirming that the Applicant/ Respondent is the duly elected Member of Parliament for the East Choiseul Constituency, be issued to:
   • (i) the Electoral Commission,
   • (ii) His Excellency the Governor-General of Solomon Islands, and
   • (iii) The Speaker of Parliament.

The Court.

^[1] Salopuka v. Panakitasi [2020] SBHC 72; HCSI-CC 280 of 2019 (1 May 2020); Sasako v. Sofu [2020] SBHC 7; HCSI-CC 277 of 2019 (17 February 2020); and Airahui v. Kenilorea [2020] SBHC 14; HCSI-CC 279 of 2019 (23 March 2020).
^[2] (ibid)
^[3] Alfred Solomon Sasako v. Stanley Festus Sofu and the Attorney-General and Another, HCSI-CC 277 of 2019, (17 February 2019)
^[4] Peter Soqoilo v. Jimson Tanagada cc 185 of 2024, (25 September 2024).
^[5] Airahui v. Kenilorea [2020] SBHC 14; HCSI-CC 279 of 2019 (23 March 2020).
^[6] Alfred Solomon Sasako v. Stanley Festus Sofu and the Attorney-General and Another, HCSI-CC 277 of 2019, (17 February 2019)
^[7] Peter Soqoilo v. Jimson Tanagada cc 185 of 2024, (25 September 2024).