The trial of the New Patriotic Party Parliamentary Primaries election dispute in the Walewale constituency involved the cross-examination of seven key witnesses. Their witness statements were admitted as evidence in chief by both counsels.

The Tamale High Court of Justice, presided over by Justice Richard Marc Kogyapwah, asked counsels to raise objections if any regarding the trial checklist presented by both defense counsels. The 1st defendant’s counsel, Samson Lardy Anyenini (ESQ), objected to some exhibits presented by the plaintiff’s counsel, Sylvester Isang (ESQ) because they did not prove death, except for a medical death certificate signed by a medical doctor. The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendant’s objections were baseless and misplaced, asserting that the witnesses were relevant to the case.

Ruling

In a recent ruling, Lordship Justice Richard Marc Kogyapwah, a Justice of the Court of Appeal sitting as an additional High Court Judge, decided that all evidence presented by counsel should be considered as evidence in chief by the court and not to delay the court process with arguments. The request to submit a supplementary witness statement was approved.

Witness cross-examination

The plaintiff’s first witness, Mumini Yidana, who is also the second defendant (Secretary for the region), testified that the photo album used for the election was created in 2022 and utilized in the 2023 presidential primaries. During questioning by Samson Lardy (ESQ), concerns were raised about why the second defendant’s election did not adhere to the guidelines, particularly regarding two individuals who were allowed to vote despite their names not being captured.

Yidana explained that it was a mistake and clarified that the individuals in question were chairmen, and the duplication was noticed, so they unanimously agreed and ticked one for those who did not have their names on the album.

Tahiru Braimah, whose witness statement was not opposed by counsel for the first defendant, expressed his dissatisfaction with the election conducted by the second and third defendants. He stated that he requested a recount at the polling station when discrepancies arose. “Your Honor, upon noticing inconsistencies in the numbers, I requested a recount, only to be told by the second defendant’s agent to take the matter to court.”

Additionally, he maintained, “Your Honor, I reaffirm my earlier witness statement that 17 deceased delegates participated in the voting. However, upon reviewing the records, I observed that six deceased delegates were recorded as having voted.”

The third witness, Seidu Saaka, told the court that he had applied for a death certificate because he needed it to make a policy claim for his deceased brother’s children. “My brother passed away, but before that, I had applied for a policy for him. I needed to make a claim for his family,” Saaka explained to the court.

The EC Director for Walewale, Mr. Adams Abdul-Rauf, provided testimony as a witness for the 1st defendant. He emphasized the need to carefully scrutinize and allow delegates with repeated or omitted details in the polling station album to vote.

During cross-examination by Plaintiff counsel Sylvester Isang (ESQ), Mr. Rauf clarified that he sought approval from his superior before submitting his witness statement. When asked about his decision not to produce the register, he expressed his lack of trust in the individual who came to pick it up, emphasizing the late hour and the person’s affiliation with the plaintiff.

Addressing Video Exhibit 1, Mr. Rauf clarified that the individual described as a stranger by the plaintiff was actually the Deputy Regional Director of EC for the North East, responsible for supervising the internal elections as per EC provisions.

In response to the plaintiff counsel’s inquiry about EC regulations, Mr. Rauf explained that the Presiding Officer could delegate other officers to declare election results. He also clarified that he was not the Presiding Officer, citing Richard Yamba as the designated officer, as indicated on the election declaration form.

Mr Kabiru Fuseini was the second witness for the 1st defendant. He gave evidence to the effect that he voted as a proxy for one Haruna Issahaku. He told the court that Plaintiff gave him GH¢3,000.00, a standing fan, a mini bag of rice, a reflector shirt, and a phone to represent Haruna to vote for her. When asked if the plaintiff handed it personally to him, he stated that the plaintiff met him together with other delegates on the eve of the election.

The lawyer for the plaintiff put it to Mr Fuseini that he was procured by the 1st Defendant to falsely testify against the plaintiff. “No, My Lord, I am here to say the facts as they happened.” It was also put to the witness that he knew at all times that Haruna was sick and took advantage of it for personal gain. The witness denied the same.

The lawyer reiterated that the plaintiff was not responsible for accreditation and could not have assisted in the voting process. In response, Mr. Fuseini stated that Yidana, the NPP secretary and election committee member, who was also part of the plaintiff’s campaign, controlled the accreditation. He claimed that the secretary had given him accreditation to vote on that day.

The third witness for the first defendant was Mr. Salifu Yussif. His witness statement was admitted along with the plaintiff’s medical report, which was filed in court without objection. He informed the court that the plaintiff had approached him with the promise to help him obtain his late father’s death certificate, allowing him to access his blocked funds, if he agreed to vote for her in the election.

Sylvester Isang (ESQ) cross-examined Salifu Yussif, the 1st defendant’s witness, and asked about the whereabouts of Imoro Issifu. Salifu responded that Imoro Issifu was deceased. When asked why he was testifying in court, Salifu claimed that the medical report presented by the plaintiff was fake and had different serial numbers from the one he possessed. He also confirmed that his father was deceased. When Sylvester accused him of seeking revenge for a declined tractor request, Salifu denied the assertion and stated that he came to speak the truth to the court.

The final witness for the 1st defendant was Martha Sulemana. During her testimony, she revealed that her name had been fraudulently used on a medical certificate presented as evidence in court. She stated that she was unaware of the death certificate report until it was brought to her attention as a court exhibit.

When cross-examined by the plaintiff’s lawyer Sylvester, Martha confirmed that her mother was deceased. She also acknowledged knowing the 1st defendant before the election and mentioned that the 1st defendant had attended her mother’s funeral. Martha was then discharged from the stand.

The case has been adjourned to Monday, August 26, 2024, to accommodate the testimony of eight additional key witnesses and six subpoenaed individuals.