Walewale NPP Legal battle: Plaintiff’s 2nd witness ‘grilled’ in court

On Tuesday, August 20, 2024, the plaintiff in the Walewale New Patriotic Party(NPP) Parliamentary Primary, Hajia Lariba Abudu called her 2nd witness, Tahiru Braimah who introduced himself as a worker at the Ministry of Gender and Social Protection and polling station agent for the plaintiff during the primaries.

When asked about the competence of the 1st witness at his job as secretary he said he was competent because he won elections 3 times. He was again asked about the first witness’s competence concerning the conduct of elections, he said he was incompetent and the same for members of his committee.

The plaintiff’s second witness was also asked if he knew members of the plaintiff’s campaign team with names, Issifu Azara and Prime Minister, who frequently come to court on this matter. The witness who is an aide to the plaintiff said he does not know if they were members or not but could only say he knows of “Prime Minister” as just a party person and Azara as someone who frequents the plaintiff’s house. It was put to him that these two individuals who are members of the plaintiff’s team including the witness himself at all times knew about the fact that some persons were not qualified to vote but were secretly procured by them to vote and after losing they wanted to use their deeds to nullify the results. The lawyers for 1st defendant referred to 12 instances of telephone calls between some of these individuals on the night of the election and the election day.

The plaintiff lawyers objected to the questions about the schemes by some members of the plaintiff team before and during the election to procure votes representing absentees and dead delegates. Defendant lawyers objected stating that it was material to the case. The judge Justice Richard Kogyapwah overruled the objection of the plaintiff.

The witness also confirmed that one of their pleadings in court was a recount and examination of some rejected ballots and that if that had been done, the plaintiff would have emerged a winner. He however noted that they are no longer interested in this relief but just want a cancellation and re-run of the election. He also confirmed that per the rules of the election, no one could have voted without accreditation. This was also confirmed by 1st witness yesterday who said no one could vote without being accredited.

On the issue of dead delegates voting, the witness said their claim is now in respect of 6 votes (from 17 votes). On absentee votes, the witness said their claim is now in respect of 2 (from 7 or 6) votes and duplicate names their claim is in respect of 2 votes (from 3).

On Tuesday, August 20, 2024, the plaintiff in the Walewale New Patriotic Party(NPP) Parliamentary Primary, Hajia Lariba Abudu called her 2nd witness, Tahiru Braimah who introduced himself as a worker at the Ministry of Gender and Social Protection and polling station agent for the plaintiff during the primaries.

On the issue of duplicate names, as claimed, it was put to the witness that it was a mistake which he as an agent to the plaintiff helped to resolve amicably on the day of the election and that he was acting in utmost bad faith to now want to claim such as duplicate. The lawyers for 1st defendant put it to him that contrary to the witness arguing that those delegates (Sumani Salifu and Tia Haruna ) voted twice, it was Sulemana Nantogmah and Sulemana Kasim whose names were omitted through no fault of theirs and they voted instead.

The witness was asked if he knows Nasiru Abdul Salam in whose name Gafaru voted as proxy. He said he knows Nasiru, who is his brother but has never seen Gafaru. It was put to the witness that he knew Nasiru was absent and procured Gafaru services as a proxy voter but now wants to hide under his deeds to nullify the election.

The court resumes today August 21, 2024, for the plaintiff to call their last witness. Initially, the plaintiff had indicated that she would be calling 12 witnesses. However, it appears all 9 other witnesses are not relevant to their case because they sought to prove that some persons had voted but on the face of the register they did not. The first defendant is likely to call his first witness today.

Source:newslinkghana.com