Counsel to Chinasa, Yunus Usman (SAN), had urged the tribunal to set aside all the votes in favour of Kalu because he was not qualified for the February 25 poll.
By Jeffrey Agbo
A tribunal sitting in Umuahia, Abia State capital has dismissed the petition by the candidate of the Labour Party, Frank Chinasa, seeking to nullify the election of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu.
The National Assembly Elections Petition Tribunal made up of three judges dismissed Chinasa’s petition on Tuesday for lack of merit.
The unanimous judgment was read by the tribunal chairman, Justice Samson Gang.
Counsel to Chinasa, Yunus Usman (SAN), had 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.
READ ALSO:
What are your names, Hon Deputy Speaker Kalu?
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, 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.
Counsels to the parties were not willing to grant press interview.