The National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Umuahia has dismissed a petition challenging the election of Rep. Benjamin Kalu, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives.

In his ruling, Justice Samson Paul-Gang, who led the three-member panel on Tuesday, dismissed the petition by the Labour Party (LP) for lacking merit.

He urged all parties to bear the administrative cost.

The judge ruled that the petitioners failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt and it was dismissed.

The LP candidate, Chief Frank Chinasa, had challenged the re-election of Kalu of All Progressives Congress (APC) for Bende Federal Constituency of Abia.

Abuja taskforce impounds rickety vehicles, owners face prosecution

Counsel to Chinasa, Mr. Yunus Usman (SAN), urged the tribunal to set aside all the votes in favour of Kalu because he was not qualified for the February 25 poll.

Usman contended that Kalu was not qualified because he did not possess the requisite educational requirements as provided for in Section 65(2)(a) of the 1999 Constitution.

He argued that Kalu used different names in different educational certificates, other than Kalu Benjamin Okezie, which was his current name.

The counsel also alleged that Form EC9, submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission by Kalu, bore the name “Osisiogu Benjamin Okezie”.

He said that other documents, including his birth certificate, first degree certificate, NYSC Certificate and WASC, bore the name Kalu Benjamin Okezie and Benjamin Okezie Osisiogu, respectively.

He therefore sought an order nullifying and also setting aside all the votes attributed to the first respondent by reason of non-qualification to contest for the said election.

On the other hand, Kalu’s counsel, Mr. Kelvin Nwufo, asked the tribunal to dismiss the petition for lack of merit.

He submitted that the inconsistencies in Kalu’s names were validly harmonised through a deed of proof and Federal Government’s gazette, where the change of name was recorded.

Dismissing the petition, the judge held that the onus of proof of alleged falsification of certificate was on the petitioner, not the respondent, which he failed to do beyond reasonable doubt.

The Star