A witness in the ongoing hearing of the New Patriotic Party’s Parliamentary Dispute at Walewale has testified that he was threatened to sign a protest letter claiming he did not participate in the voting process.

Gafaru Wuni, who was subpoenaed and testified as the ninth witness for the defendant, told the High Court in Tamale that he was coerced.

On August 27, 2024, during the hearing presided over by Justice Richard Marc Kogyapawah, the witness alleged that the plaintiff’s agents had threatened him to force his brother, Nasiru Abdul-Salam, to sign a protest letter. He stated that this act was to claim that he (the witness) did not participate in the voting process or authorize a proxy vote on his behalf in the constituency.

Wuni’s appearance in court came after the first defendant, Dr. Kabiru Tia Mahama, requested his testimony. Wuni had initially refused, citing threats from the plaintiff and their agents within the constituency.

The alleged phone threats were brought to the court’s attention after audio and video exhibits were submitted by the first defendant’s counsel, Samson Lardy Anyenini (ESQ), as part of the defense.

Anyenini informed the court that his witnesses had been threatened via phone calls by the plaintiff, Haija Lariba Abudu, and the agent, Braimah Tahiru, in the Walewale constituency, warning them not to testify for the first defendant. The counsel then filed a subpoena for five more witnesses for the defendant.

While being led by Samson Lardy Anyenini, the lawyer representing the first defendant, to give his evidence-in-chief, the witness said he voted for the plaintiff despite an initial objection to the question.

Objection

The plaintiff’s lawyer, Sylvester Isang, objected to the question, arguing that voting by law is secret and the witness cannot be asked to disclose that publicly. He cited election rules to support his objection.

However, counsel for the first defendant, Samson Lardy Anyenini (ESQ), argued that the right to secrecy of the vote is exercised by the voter, and the voter has the right to disclose the person they voted for, as there is no law barring that.

He referred to the election instrument in Ghana, adding that if allegations of malpractices are proven by the plaintiff, it was the plaintiff who actively procured the illegal voters to vote for her. Counsel added that the plaintiff now wants to rely on the same to annul the results, which equity must forbid her.

The presiding judge, after listening to the parties, overruled the objection, stating that the question was valid and the witness had the right to answer or disclose the one he voted for.

Package for votes

The witness (Gafaru) then told the court that he voted for the plaintiff because she was the only aspirant who gave him any package for his vote. He said, “Yes, I voted for her.” Mr. Anyenini asked him what acceptance he got from the plaintiff that made him vote for her. Gafaru told the court that he was given money and other items.

Cross-examination

During the plaintiff’s counsel’s cross-examination, Sylvester Isang (ESQ) asked the witness who Nasiru Abdul-Salam was.

The witness stated that Nasiru was his older brother and had the opportunity to join the police service. When asked about his voting in the 27th primary of the NPP, he admitted to voting on behalf of his brother, Nasiru Abdul-Salam, by proxy since his name was not on the voter registration.

Regarding the January 27, 2024, election and his voting process, the witness explained that he was denied entry to the voting center due to a lack of accreditation. He mentioned that he sought help from the regional secretary, Yidana Wuni, who intervened and rectified the issue with his accreditation.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Sylvester Isang (ESQ), pressed on why an individual showed no interest in signing a letter but later did. Gafaru explained to the court that his brother was threatened by the plaintiff directly through a phone call as well as his agents.

“My Lord, Nasiru told me that the plaintiff, Haija Lariba Abudu, called him and threatened him to sign the letter or he would lose his appointment to the Ghana Police Service,” the witness told the court.

Gafaru Wuni further revealed to the court that a copy of his brother’s appointment letter was in the possession of the plaintiff, and the continuous threats from the agent, Braimah Tahiru, forced him to sign the written letter denying his participation in the election.

When asked if he had any evidence of these threats, he stated that he had recorded Tahiru Braimah when he called him and could present it as evidence.

Threat allegation

On the allegation that the plaintiff had threatened Nasiru to sign the letter, the witness told the court that Nasiru also recorded the threats of the plaintiff. “My Lord, this is why we recorded every conversation with the plaintiff, Haija Lariba Abudu, and agent, Braimah Tahiru. I have my recording here, and the court can order Nasiru to bring his recording with the plaintiff to court if necessary,” the witness told the court. The court admitted audio evidence.

According to Gafaru Wuni, his brother’s enlistment in the Ghana Police Service created a vacancy at the Takorayiri polling station. He was subsequently selected to represent his brother as the secretary for the Takorayiri polling station, but his name was never captured in the NPP parliamentary primaries election album as a delegate for the disputed election.

I Voted freely

During the cross-examination, the plaintiff’s counsel enquired whether he (the witness) was coerced or influenced to vote for the plaintiff, as he claims to have also been appointed by the party as a polling agent.

“My Lord, I voted out of my free will. I was selected as the secretary for the polling station. This selection came after Nasiru had joined the police service.”

The lawyer, Sylvester Isang, suggested to the witness, Gafaru, that he had not spoken to the plaintiff or her agent, Tahiru, after the election. The plaintiff’s agent, Tahiru, informed the court that he did not know Gafaru Wuni. In response, Gafaru vehemently disagreed, asserting that Braimah Tahiru is not just an acquaintance but a brother.

He adamantly claimed to have spoken with Tahiru on the phone and met him in person at his residence. “My Lord, I have met Mr. Tahiru Braimah in person, and I have spoken to him. So it is not true that Tahiru does not know me.”

The plaintiff’s lawyer asked the witness, Gafaru, if he was the same person famously called “Degree.” The witness confirmed with confidence and added that it was possible that his real name might not be known by people, but he firmly disagreed, asserting that he did have a real name. The plaintiff’s lawyer again suggested to the witness that he did not know Tahiru as he claimed.

The witness insisted that he knew Tahiru and considered him to be like a brother. However, when he was challenged to mention Tahiru’s full name, the witness initially stated “Tia Tahiru.” When it was pointed out that he seemingly didn’t know Tahiru well enough to provide the correct full name, the witness admitted to an earlier mistake and clarified that Tahiru’s full name was Tahiru Braimah. He further explained that he had attended school with Tahiru’s younger brother.

When asked where Tahiru stays when he visits the constituency, the witness mentioned Bugya Pala as his village residence, as well as Walewale.

Accusations

Regarding the claim that he met Tahiru after the election, Gafaru was asked if he had any witnesses. “I went to Tahiru’s house alone. I met him, his wife, and his children upon arrival, but I did not know their names,” he told the court.

The lawyers insisted that the witness was speaking for the first defendant, Dr. Kabiru, and not the court. The witness disagreed, stating that he was never invited by the first defendant to court. “My Lord, I was ordered by the court, but that order did not mention Dr. Kabiru’s name,” Gafaru stated.

The plaintiff’s counsel pressed the witness about coming to court in the car of the first defendant, Dr. Kabiru, to which the witness confirmed that he was indeed picked up by Dr. Kabiru upon arrival in Tamale.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Sylvester Isang, then accused the witness, Gafaru, of being hired by the first defendant to come and tell lies that he voted for the plaintiff, Hajia Lariba. However, the witness firmly denied the allegations and stated, “We are actually supporters of the plaintiff, but in the interest of truth and party, I had to speak to events as I knew them.”

The witness was pressed about speaking with the first defendant after receiving the court subpoena, which Gafaru confirmed as true. He has since been discharged after his cross-examination by counsel for the plaintiff.