The Supreme Court yesterday disallowed an application by former Wajir Governor Ahmed Abdullahi to cross-examine his successor Mohamud Abdi over his academic papers.
In a ruling made by six judges led by Chief Justice David Maraga, the Bench said they also did not see any basis to vary their orders issued on September 28 to have the new additional evidence by Abdi taken orally.
“The application to cross-examine all the deponents of the affidavits being in additional evidence is hereby disallowed,” they ruled.
On September 28 court allowed Abdi to adduce more evidence to prove he holds two degrees from Kampala University and has so far submmitted the certificates in court.
The Bench also dismissed allegations by the former governor that the ruling allowing to file more evidence was obtained fraudulently.
“The applicants have not demonstrated the ruling of September 28 was obtained fraudulently, a nullity, made under a mistaken belief that the parties had consented thereto, was rendered on the basis of a repealed law or as a result of a deliberately concealed statutory provision,” ruled the judges.
The former governor had made the request after the judges granted Abdi leave to adduce additional evidence in the case where he is fighting to retain his seat.
“We direct that all parties ought to adduce additional evidence by way of affidavits and responses to any such evidence to be by way of affidavits,” ruled the judges in September.
The six judges are Maraga, Mohamed Ibrahim, JB Ojwang’, Smokin Wanjala, Njoki Ndung’u and Isaac Lenaola.
Abdullahi, through senior counsel Ahmednasir Abdullahi, had made the application on grounds the court did not direct the manner in which the additional evidence would be taken .
He had claimed the right to cross-examine opposing witnesses is a fundamental element of due process in both civil and criminal proceedings.
“That Article 50 of the Constitution grants every person the right to adduce and challenge evidence and denying a litigant the right to cross-examine or challenge evidence adduced against him is a violation of his non-derogable right to a fair trial,” said Ahmed.