26/08/2024
*BREAKING NEWS FROM REPORT 11* *LIVE FROM THE TAMALE HIGH COURT*
📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌📌
*In the hallowed halls of justice, where the gavel strikes with the weight of the law and the truth is the only currency, the sixth day of the trial in the matter of HAJIA LARIBA ABUDU ZUWERA vrs Dr. TIA KABIRU MAHAMA AND 2 OTHERS* unfolded like a drama in which the protagonists seemed more intent on obfuscation than revelation. The 1st defendant, Dr. Tia Kabiru Mahama, failed yet again to produce his remaining witnesses, an act as telling as a sword that refuses to unsheathe in battle. He sought refuge in the claims of intimidation, casting the plaintiff and her agents as the architects of his witnesses’ silence—a tactic reminiscent of a fox blaming the henhouse for its emptiness.*
The plaintiff’s counsel, Sylvester Isang ESQ, well-versed in the language of the law, did not let this pass unchallenged. He implored the court to consider citing the 1st defendant for contempt, should he persist in his failure to provide evidence of the alleged intimidation. In the world of judicial proceedings, the burden of proof is a heavy yoke that must be borne with evidence, not conjecture. Without such proof, the defendant's accusations were no more substantial than a whisper in the wind.
As if to underscore the gravity of the situation, one of the subpoenaed witnesses, Dr. Isaac Darko of JANGA Hospital, defied the odds and appeared in court ahead of schedule. His presence, like a lighthouse piercing through the fog, brought clarity to the murky waters of this case. Dr. Darko was called to testify regarding two cause-of-death certificates, one bearing an official stamp, the other not—a detail that had become a focal point in this legal battle.
The law of evidence, particularly as it pertains to the admissibility of documents, requires that such exhibits be scrutinized with the precision of a jeweler examining a gemstone. In this case, the scrutiny revealed that both certificates were genuine, corroborating the plaintiff’s claim that the two delegates, Ayishetu Yidana and Imoro Issifu, had indeed passed away prior to the NPP primaries on the 27th of January. Their names, nonetheless, had been ticked and recorded as having voted—a fact as damning as it was indisputable.
The court, having weighed Dr. Darko’s testimony, found it to be a solid foundation upon which the plaintiff’s case stood ever firmer. The evidence, codified in Exhibit M, B1 (P, P1, and P2), aligned seamlessly with the narrative that had been woven by the plaintiff. These exhibits, like pieces of a puzzle, fit together to form a picture that left little room for doubt. The deceased, though no longer among the living, had been counted among the voters—a legal and moral impossibility.
Meanwhile, the 1st defendant’s conduct raised eyebrows and questions. His online posts, in which he erroneously reported the proceedings, smacked of either a gross misunderstanding or a deliberate attempt to mislead. One could surmise that during the court sessions, his attention was more on the screen of his phone than on the substance of the trial. This digital distraction, or perhaps a lack of technical fortitude, rendered his interpretations as faulty as a compass that points south when it ought to point north.
Such misrepresentation is not without consequence. In the courtroom, where the stakes are as high as the law is strict, any attempt to whitewash the truth is akin to pouring ink into a glass of water—it clouds the clarity and taints the purity of the proceedings. The defendant’s attempts to incite the court against the public through misinformation could be seen as a desperate ploy, one that does little to advance his cause.
The High Court, in its wisdom, has issued a clear directive: the 1st defendant must produce his remaining witnesses by the next day, or the trial will proceed without further delay. The law is not a patient master; it demands compliance and respects neither procrastination nor evasion. In the realm of judicial proceedings, time is both a sword and a shield, cutting through delay tactics while protecting the integrity of the trial.
As the trial nears its conclusion, the law of court proceedings dictates that all evidence must be brought before the court, witnesses must be called, and statements must be made under oath. The scales of justice, though they may tip from side to side, must ultimately find their balance. Tomorrow may well be the day when the final pieces of evidence are presented, and the truth, unvarnished and unassailable, is laid bare for all to see.
In the end, it will be the court that speaks the final word, a word that will echo through the corridors of justice as a testament to the enduring power of the law. For in this courtroom drama, as in all others, the truth is the protagonist, and the law is the script by which it is revealed. Whether the 1st defendant will rise to meet his legal obligations or fall further into the pit of evasion remains to be seen, but the court’s patience, like sand in an hourglass, is running out.
*LONG LIVE WALEWALE*
*LONG LIVE NPP PARTY*
*🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘🐘*
