Home / Chronicles / IN DEFENCE OF THE GOLD DIGGER

IN DEFENCE OF THE GOLD DIGGER

FOREWORD: This is a friend’s play, originally updated among his Facebook notes as far back as 2012. I recently stumbled on it, read it again, and had such a laugh I knew I wouldn’t forgive myself if I didn’t share it here. Here, read and enjoy.

*

Judge: Counsel for the defence, please.

Defence counsel: Thank you, my lord. So, Miss Goldie, what is the nature of your relationship with the plaintiff, Mr. Richie?

Goldie: He was my boyfriend.

Defence counsel: For how long did you two date?

Goldie: Roughly two years.

Defence counsel: So you’re no longer in the relationship?

Goldie: No.

Defence counsel: What kind of a boyfriend was he?

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

Defence counsel: In other words, you found him to be a good man?

Prosecuting counsel: Objection! My lord, I don’t see where this is leading.

Judge: Counsel?

Defence 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.

Judge: Overruled.

Defence counsel: Thank you, my lord. So, Miss Goldie, under what circumstances did you call off your relationship with Mr. Richie?

Goldie: We quarreled – over some money I needed.

Defence counsel: And?

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

Defence counsel: Why?

Goldie: He said he was having some problems in his business.

Defence counsel: And so since he could no longer pay your bills, you broke up with him?

Goldie: That’s right.

Defence counsel: Do you think you were right in doing so?

Prosecuting counsel: Objection! Defence is asking to his client to reach a legal conclusion.

Judge: Sustained. Counsel, that is improper.

Defence counsel: I’m sorry, my lord. Miss Goldie, has the plaintiff refused giving you money before when you asked for it?

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

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

Defence counsel: Thank you, my lord. So, Miss Goldie, would you please, answer the question?

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

Defence counsel: Good. Now, Miss Goldie, do you corroborate Mr. Richie’s testimony that you two lived together while you were in the relationship?

Goldie: Yes.

Defence counsel: For how long?

Goldie: Fifteen months.

Defence counsel: What was the living arrangement like?

(Witness chuckles)

Judge: What’s funny, Miss Goldie?

Goldie: Nothing, my lord.

Judge: Good. So, answer the question.

Goldie: 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.

Defence counsel: What school are you in?

Goldie: Urban University.

Defence counsel: How far is it from Mr. Richie’s place?

Goldie: Twenty minutes on bike.

Defence counsel: 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 honorable court would agree with me that there was some kind of contract these two were on, an agreement.

Judge: What’s your point, counsel?

Defence 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?

***

Judge: So, what does the prosecution have to say?

Prosecuting counsel: My lord, let not this honorable 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.

Judge: Defence?

Defence counsel: 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.

***

The judge rules. Case is dismissed. Gbam!

***

Goldie’s BFF: Oh, best friend, I can’t stop squealing! I knew you’d win the case.

Goldie: Of course, I would’ve won anyhow. And speaking of squealing, don’t stop, because there’s more.

Goldie’s BFF: Oh yeah? Babe, gist me!

Goldie: My lawyer propositioned me in his office.

Goldie’s BFF: Wait oh, the one that defended you?

Goldie: Yes na!

Goldie’s BFF: What? Goldie…is he rich?

Goldie: Of courrrrrrse, he is!

Goldie’s BFF: Ah! Case is closed o!

The End

Written by Kelechi Njoku


About shakespeareanwalter

Walt Shakes(@Walt_Shakes) is an award-winning Nigerian writer, poet and veteran blogger. He is a lover of the written word. the faint whiff of nature, the flashing vista of movies, the warmth of companionship and the happy sound of laughter.

Check Also

The Politics Of Labels And A Slippery Slope

In today’s society, labels are political. Feminism, Atheism, LGBT etc. All political. Sam Harris once ...

10 comments

  1. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 😂😂😂😂😂😂 This!

  2. Lol. No time.

  3. Humour to start the morning ☺😀

  4. OMW! I laughed so hard!

  5. Goldie na correct babe!
    Agreement is agreement.

  6. No long thing

  7. Adeleke Julianah

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha 😂 😂 😂

  8. Lol. Where is the signed contract, I ask?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *