Supreme Court to hear Yama’s substantive appeal

After a long delay, the full hearing of the substantive appeal over the Madang Provincial seat will proceed in the Supreme Court at Waigani on November 27, 2025.

The appeal is pursued by former Madang Governor Sir Peter Charles Yama, seeking to overturn a National Court decision that dismissed his election petition challenging the results of the 2022 national election for the Madang Provincial seat. The incumbent Ramsey Pariwa is named as first respondent, with the Electoral Commission as second respondent.

Yama initially filed the election petition after the 2022 polls, alleging improper conduct and undue influences during the counting that swung votes to Pariwa.

However, the National Court dismissed Sir Peter’s petition on October 23, 2023, on the basis that Yama’s key witness’s evidence was inconsistent and lacked necessary corroboration.

The court found that Sir Peter’s key witness gave evidences that were not supported by other witnesses and that the evidences were not credible.

This prompted Sir Peter to further appeal the dismissal in the Supreme Court, seeking leave to review the National Court’s decision.

Following the grant of leave, the incumbent Mr Pariwa filed a number of applications to dismissed the review application.

Recently, a Supreme Court bench allowed Sir Peter to press his review to a substantive hearing by dismissing objections from Pariwa that sought to halt the progress of the petition and granting Sir Peter the opportunity to have the case heard by a full bench.

In the substantive hearing, the Supreme Court is expected to determine a grey area of law relating to arguments on whether corroboration was required in an election petition trial.

Sir Peter contents that the trial judge had erred in fact and law when his (Sir Peter’s) witness in chief gave direct evidences during the trial and those evidences were not refuted or countered by Pariwa’s witnesses.

He also argues that corroboration was not required in an election petition case as it was a provision of its own according to law, and that the trial judge had erred in finding otherwise.

If the Supreme Court rule in favor of Sir Peter, this would set a new precedent for future election petition cases.