The National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Umuahia, Monday, reserved judgment in the petition seeking to nullify the election of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives and member representing Bende federal constituency, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu.
Chairman of the three-man panel, Justice Samson Paul -Gang, after all parties had adopted their final written addresses, said the tribunal would later communicate the parties on a date for judgment.
Kalu’s election is being challenged by both the Labour Party candidate, Chief Frank Chinasa; and his Action Alliance, AA, counterpart, Mr Ifeanyi Chukwuka Igbokwe.
The LP candidate had alleged discrepancies in Kalu’s credentials including his birth certificate, 1st degree certificate, National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) certificate, among others.
His Lead Counsel, Yunus Ustaz Usman, SAN, while adopting his written addresses, urged the tribunal to grant all the reliefs sought by the Petitioners.
The lead Counsel further argued that the 1st Respondent never tendered any certificate before the court to prove that he has them , saying that “everything he presented is affidavit, affidavit”.
He urged the panel to throw away the preliminary objection by the Respondents which, according to him, “is incurably defective”, arguing that it ought to have been moved by way of motion.
The LP candidate’s lawyer faulted the claims by the 1st Respondent that he had harmonized his certificates with a Deed Pool published in a federal gazette, citing a judgment by the Supreme Court that it is only the issuing authority that can effect a correction in the certificate it issued, and not by a mere affidavit or Deed Pool by another party.
Kalu through his Lead Counsel, Kelvin Nwufo, SAN, adopted his written addresses, explaining that the said discrepancies in his certificates have been harmonised by a Deed Pool published in a federal gazette.
Similarly, APC lawyer, Vigilus Nwankwo, urged the tribunal to dismiss the petition which he described as “baseless and frivolous”.
He argued that the Petitioners had asserted that the 1st Respondent was not qualified as at the time of the election to stand for election, hence, the onus was on them to prove the assertion which he claimed, was a positive assertion.
The APC lawyer further argued that a Petitioner was bound “to give credible, oral and documentary evidence to prove the grounds of his petition”.
