https://www.myjoyonline.com/walewale-npp-parliamentary-petition-lawyer-subjects-petitioners-witness-to-cross-examination/-------https://www.myjoyonline.com/walewale-npp-parliamentary-petition-lawyer-subjects-petitioners-witness-to-cross-examination/

Lawyers for Dr. Kabiru Mahama, the first respondent in the New Patriotic Party (NPP) parliamentary primaries for the Walewale constituency, have begun cross-examining the petitioner’s first witness.

This follows the challenge of the election results by the incumbent Member of Parliament, Lariba Zuweira Abudu, who is also the current Gender Minister.

Constituency Secretary Wuni Yidana was questioned by Samson Lardy Anyenini, counsel for Dr. Mahama.

The interrogation focused on the compilation of the voter’s album and absentee voters letters.

Mr Anyenini probed whether Mr Yidana submitted Exhibit A, a list of deceased delegates, and Exhibit C, statutory declarations from relatives confirming these deaths.

He also asked about the Ghana cards of absentee delegates and whether Mr Yidana contacted them.

Read also: Walewale NPP candidate’s lawyers request judge recusal over alleged bias

The witness denied reaching out, but Mr Anyenini argued he had spoken to some of them.

The counsel further alleged that Yidana had threatened some individuals to prevent them from testifying for the first respondent, which Yidana denied.

The witness confirmed that Exhibit A was compiled in December 2022 and acknowledged his role in the 2nd respondent’s presidential primaries.

Read also: Tamale High Court injuncts Kabiru Mahama from holding himself as NPP candidate for Walewale

Questions were also raised about six absent delegates during the January primaries.

Mr Yidana received their letters individually, including one from a US-based delegate.

He could not recall the exact date of receiving the letter and promised to provide details at the next court session on August 20, 2024.

Earlier, objections were raised by the respondent’s counsel regarding the process of admitting Exhibits A, B, and C into evidence, but the judge allowed them to remain as they would not affect the proceedings.

DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.


DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.