The Gold Digger’s Defence

■ Counsel for the defence, please.

■ Thank you, my lord.

So, Miss Goldie, what’s your relationship with the plaintiff, Mr Richie?

■ He was my boyfriend.

■ For how long were you two on?

■ Roughly two years.

■ So you’re no longer in the relationship?

■ No.

■ What kind of a boyfriend was he?

■ He’s funny and caring, and he makes football sound so interesting.

■ In other words, you found him to be a good man?

■ Objection! My lord, I don’t see where this is leading.

■ Counsel?

■ If I may crave my lord’s indulgence, this is important; my client has but good things to say about

her ex boyfriend. She is not bitter about their fallout.

■ Overruled.

■ Thank you, my lord.

Miss Goldie, under what circumstances did you call off your relationship with Mr Richie?

■ We quarrelled – over some money I needed.

■ And?

■ He refused to give it to me. He’d been doing that lately all of as sudden.

■ Why?

■ He said he was having some problems in his business.

■ And so since he could no longer pay your bills, you broke up with him.

■ That’s right.

■ D’you think you were right in doing so?

■ Objection! Defence is asking to his client to reach a legal conclusion.

■ Sustained. Counsel, that is improper.

■ I’m sorry, my lord.

Miss Goldie, has the plaintiff refused giving you money before when you asked for it?

■ Objection! My lord, the defence is wasting this court’s time by eliciting cumulative testimony.

■ Counsel, this is your last chance to make your point. Overruled.

■ Thank you.

So, Miss Goldie, would you please, answer the question?

■ He has never refused me money…until he started having these problems in his business.

■ Good…

Miss Goldie, do you corroborate Mr Richie’s testimony that you two lived together while you

were in the relationship?

■ Yes.

■ For how long?

■ Fifteen months.

■What was the living arrangement like?

■ What’s funny, Miss Goldie?

■ Nothing, my lord.

■ Good; answer the question.

■ Okay…It was very much like a marriage. I cooked and cleaned before leaving for school while he

handled the gardening and paid the bills – his and mine.

■ Where is your school?

■ Urban University

■ How far is it from Mr Richie’s place?

■ Twenty minutes on bike.

■ Thank you, Miss Goldie.

My lord, my client here moved in with a man who lives twenty minutes away from where she goes to school – and that’s if she took public transport. She lived with this man for over a year, performing all the duties of a wife to him – which she was not – and in return, having him satisfy her financial needs. This honourable court would agree with me that there was some kind of contract these two were on, an agreement.

■ What’s your point, counsel?

■ My lord, Miss Goldie could have remained in the school hostel or found an apartment closer to her school. She could have saved herself the hassle of combining her studies with undue wifely duties. But she didn’t. Her earlier submission that Mr Richie was kind and funny showed she liked him a lot – even, I daresay, loved him. So she moved in with him as he wanted.

She didn’t have much of a choice because he was taking care of her financial needs. And now he

suddenly couldn’t handle those needs anymore, yet he wanted my client to remain with him as girlfriend – and pseudo-wife. How was that going to be possible when he was no longer keeping his own end of the bargain?

***

■ Yes, what does the prosecution have to say?

■ My lord, let not this honourable court forget that my client, Mr Richie, was sole sponsor of Miss

Goldie’s education for two sessions, one of them currently running. He paid her fees, bought her books and provided her with all she needed to make her study without money-related distractions. He was going to marry her! He did all these for her and the first sign she got that he’s financially unstable she bolted – probably into the arms of another bonehead.

My lord, I maintain that Miss Goldie has done my client a great injustice, using trickery, deceit and

infidelity. Thank you.

■ Defence?

■ My lord, the issue of contention here is not whether the plaintiff took care of my client’s financial needs or not. The issue is also not that my client seemingly left her lover, Mr Richie, unjustly after she discovered he could no longer satisfy her financial needs. Rather, my lord, the issue in contest is that a term of agreement had been breached making the entire process unable to continue.

Miss Goldie is a student; she has to study, attend lectures, do assignments and take care of her general wellbeing. However, my lord, there’s no way she could do all these if she’s constantly discomposed over money she didn’t have and basics she couldn’t afford. She couldn’t possibly waste her time dallying with a man from whom she was gaining nothing – given her…um…special situation.

In order to save herself this anxiety, she agreed to date Mr Richie and do everything to make him happy, provided he could keep her financially afloat. That was her requirement, that was her condition for a romantic relationship. The condition could’ve easily been handsomeness or intelligence or a buff physique, but she chose wealth. Should this court then begrudge my client her freedom to associate with whoever she pleases in the way she sees fit within the confines of the law?

I rest my case.

***

■ Case dismissed. (Gbam!)

***

■ Oh, best friend, I can’t stop squeeeealing! I knew you’d win the case.

■ ’Course, I would’ve won anyhow. And speaking of squealing, don’t stop, ’cause there’s more.

■ Oh yeah? Babe, gist me!

■ My lawyer propositioned me in his office.

■ Wait oh, the one who defended you?

■ Yes…

■ What?

■ What?

■ Goldie…is he rich?

■ Of courrrrrrse, are you nuts!

■ Uh-oh! Case closed.

Related Posts via Taxonomies

• Bonanza – Alaba Okuyiga
• I Remember Last Christmas
• Pieces Of Rags 11
• Headaches and Admirers
• Elevator Ride
• Madam General
• Night Riders – Pajama Wonder
• Doctor Mahmud’s Tapes: Tape I
• The Prophecy
• Pieces Of Rags 10

Comments

comments