IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU
(Civil Jurisdiction)	Election Petition
Case No. 20/910 SC/EP	
IN THE MATTER OF:	THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1983 AND ITS AMENDMENTS	
AND:	IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL GENERAL ELECTION FOR PARLIAMENT FOR SANTO  CONSTITUENCY HELD ON 19TH OF MARCH 2020	
 	                          BETWEEN:	Livo Mele
Petitioner	
	AND:	Principal Electoral Officer
First Respondent 	
AND:	The Electoral Commission
Second Respondent 	
AND:	Lulu Sakaes
Third Respondent	
AND:	Joshua Leonard Pikioune
Fourth Respondent 	
AND:	Samsen Samson
Fifth Respondent 	
AND:	Alfred Maoh
Sixth Respondent 	
AND:	Fabiano Stevens
Seventh Respondent 	
AND:	Gaetan Pikioune
Eighth Respondent 	
AND:	Rick Tchamacko Mahe
Ninth Respondent	
Date of Hearing:
Date of Decision:	4th June 2020
12th June 2020	
Before:	Justice Oliver.A.Saksak	
In Attendance:	Mr John Malcolm and Stephanie Mahuk for Petitioner
Mr Frederick Gilu, Solicitor General for First and Second Respondents.
 Mr Daniel Yawha for Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents
Mr Nigel Morrison  for Fifth Respondent 
Mr James Tari for Sixth Respondent 
Mr Justin Ngwele for Fourth Respondent

	
DECISION 

1.	The application to strike out the petitioner’s petition filed by the Third, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Respondents on 20th May 2020 and by the First and Second Respondents filed on 26th May 2020 are misconceived and premature, and are accordingly dismissed.

2.	The reasons are simple. The First is that disclosure process is still ongoing and incomplete making the applications premature at this stage. The second is that the 704 proxy votes obtained by the petitioner from the Sanma Provincial Council were validly obtained. The petitioner sought permission from the President of the Sanma Provincial Council and it was granted. Section 59 (4) of the Act is irrelevant.

3.	On the evidence thus far presented or made available by the petitioner, the Court is satisfied he has made out a prima facie case against the First and Second Respondents to warrant a full hearing of the petition.

4.	Whether his evidence is enough to show the First and Second Respondents are guilty of such non-compliance with the provisions of the Act that their conduct of polling affected the result of the election, is a substantive issue that can only be determined after all the evidence have been filed and a full hearing conducted.

5.	 The applications are therefore premature and misconceived. They are dismissed for those reasons.

DATED at Port Vila this 12th day of June 2020
BY THE COURT

OLIVER.A.SAKSAK
Judge