23/08/2026
Election petitions at a crossroads: has Papua New Guinea delayed justice?
Archives news report | PNG journalism commentary
Port Moresby: Four years after the 2022 National General Election, Papua New Guinea is facing a difficult question about the administration of election petitions: has the country allowed electoral justice to become too slow?
The question deserves national attention because an election petition is not simply another court case. It concerns the legitimacy of a parliamentary seat, the mandate of thousands of voters and the credibility of the electoral process itself.
In 2022, the courts were dealing with a huge workload of election petitions. The National Court reported 84 petitions by September that year, while the number later reached 99. At the time, Justice Joseph Yagi was undertaking the administrative process of sorting and allocating the petitions to judges.
Four years on, however, the country is still seeing 2022 petitions moving through the courts.
The official election petition database provides some striking examples. EP 25/2022, concerning Ambunti-Drekikir, was lodged in September 2022, had a status conference in March 2023 and a trial in 2024, with the record still showing further proceedings in 2026. Another 2022 petition, EP 40/2022 concerning Wapenamanda Open, went through directions and status conferences before ultimately being dismissed on objections in December 2024.
These cases demonstrate that the system is not simply sitting idle. Judges are making decisions, petitions are being dismissed, trials are taking place and some matters are succeeding.
But the bigger question remains: is the process moving quickly enough?
The Yagi question
Justice Joseph Yagi has been closely associated with the administration of election petitions since the 2022 election.
The criticism now being heard in political and public circles is that the administration of election petitions has become too slow, too complicated and too distant from ordinary citizens.
Some critics are calling for Justice Yagi to step down from the administrative responsibility for election petitions and for his performance in that role to be independently investigated.
That demand must be approached carefully.
There is a fundamental difference between criticising judicial administration and alleging judicial misconduct.
There is presently no basis to declare as fact that Justice Yagi has committed misconduct. If allegations are made, they should be investigated through the proper constitutional and legal mechanisms.
But that does not mean the public cannot ask questions.
If a senior judicial officer is responsible for administering a major category of cases, the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the system is functioning efficiently.
Justice delayed is justice denied
The judiciary itself has repeatedly recognised the importance of timely justice.
The principle is simple: justice delayed is justice denied.
If that principle applies to ordinary citizens seeking justice, it must also apply to voters waiting for the final determination of an election dispute.
A petitioner should not have to spend years waiting merely to discover whether allegations surrounding an election will be tested.
At the same time, an elected member should not be left for years under an unresolved legal cloud.
And the voters should not have to wonder whether their parliamentary representative holds a legitimate mandate.
That is why election petitions require urgency.
Salika and Injia: a comparison of judicial eras
The debate has inevitably brought back comparisons between Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and his predecessor, former Chief Justice Sir Salamo Injia.
The criticism from some observers is that during the Injia era there was a stronger perception that important matters were pushed through the courts with urgency.
Injia was seen by his supporters as a Chief Justice who understood that major constitutional and electoral disputes could not be allowed to drift indefinitely.
The Salika era has produced a different perception.
Critics argue that the judiciary under Chief Justice Salika has not shown the same urgency in dealing with election petitions and that the administration has allowed the process to become too slow.
That criticism must be tested against evidence rather than political rhetoric.
The official judiciary currently identifies Sir Gibbs Salika as Chief Justice and Justice Joseph Yagi as one of the serving judges of the National and Supreme Courts. The judiciary also operates an Election Petitions Track within its court structure.
The Chief Justice does not personally decide every election petition. Individual judges hear and determine cases, while lawyers, litigants, evidence and procedural applications can also affect the speed of proceedings.
Nevertheless, the Chief Justice carries institutional responsibility for the administration and efficiency of the judiciary.
That makes the question legitimate:
Has the judicial administration under Chief Justice Salika done enough to ensure election petitions are dealt with promptly?
The status of election petitions
The picture is more complicated than simply saying that all election petitions have failed.
Some petitions have been dismissed.
Some have proceeded to trial.
Some have succeeded.
For example, EP 23/2022 concerning Aitape-Lumi was ultimately upheld, the election was declared void and a by-election was ordered. The official record shows the decision was made in January 2024.
There have also been important developments in the Supreme Court concerning technical issues that affected 2022 petitions.
In June 2026, NBC reported that the Supreme Court clarified what it means for an election petition to be “filed”, ruling that filing occurs when the petition is lodged in the registry, rather than when it is subsequently sealed and numbered. The decision reinstated a Wapenamanda petition that had previously been dismissed on the filing issue.
That decision is significant because it shows that the election petition system has itself been undergoing legal correction.
It also raises another question:
How many election disputes have been lost through technical processes before their substantive allegations could be properly tested?
Ordinary people are asking questions
For many Papua New Guineans, the court system remains complicated and intimidating.
A candidate may understand the legal process through lawyers, but ordinary voters often do not know where to go when they believe their election dispute has taken too long.
That communication gap needs attention.
The judiciary should make the status of election petitions easier for the public to understand.
Citizens should be able to see which petitions remain pending, which have gone to trial, which have been dismissed, which have succeeded and why significant delays have occurred.
Transparency would not weaken judicial independence.
It could strengthen public confidence.
Step down, investigate and reform?
The strongest call being made by critics is for Justice Yagi to step down from election petition administration and for an independent investigation into the management of the post-2022 election petition workload.
That investigation should not begin with a predetermined conclusion.
It should examine the facts.
How many petitions remain outstanding?
How long has each matter taken?
What caused the delay?
Was the delay caused by the court, lawyers, litigants, procedural applications or other circumstances?
Were adequate judges and registry resources provided?
Were administrative deadlines properly monitored?
Were the Election Petition Rules applied consistently?
The 2022 Election Petition Rules were formally amended under the authority of Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika and came into force in May 2022.
Four years later, the country has every right to ask whether those rules have delivered the efficiency expected of them.
The 2027 warning
The next National General Election is approaching.
Papua New Guinea cannot afford to carry the same weaknesses into another election cycle.
The lesson from 2022 should be clear: election petitions must be handled with urgency from the moment they enter the court registry.
The country needs an election justice system that is fast, transparent, accessible and fair.
If Justice Yagi has performed his administrative responsibilities effectively, the record should demonstrate it.
If there have been administrative failures, they should be identified.
If the problem lies elsewhere — with lawyers, litigants, procedural rules, court resources or the broader system — that too should be made clear.
The final question
This is therefore bigger than Justice Yagi.
It is bigger than Chief Justice Salika.
And it is bigger than the comparison with Chief Justice Injia.
It is about whether Papua New Guinea's justice system is capable of delivering timely answers to disputes over the people's votes.
Critics may demand that Justice Yagi be sidelined, investigated or removed from the administrative role. But such action must follow evidence and due process, not political pressure.
The same principle must apply to criticism of Chief Justice Salika.
The judiciary must remain independent.
But judicial independence cannot mean freedom from legitimate public scrutiny.
If justice delayed is justice denied, then Papua New Guinea must seriously examine whether prolonged election petition proceedings have denied justice to some voters, petitioners and elected members since 2022.
The country does not need another election petition system that leaves people waiting in uncertainty.
It needs a system that delivers the answer — quickly, fairly and finally.
Because democracy does not end when the votes are counted. It ends when every legitimate electoral dispute has received justice.
