Tribunal reserves judgment in suit by LP, AA to stop Rep’s deputy speaker, Kalu
By Stephen Ukandu, Umuahia
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.
Labour Party candidate at the February 25 national assembly poll, Chief Frank Chinasa; and the Action Alliance, AA, candidate, Mr Ifeanyi Chukwuka Igbokwe, in separate suits, challenged Kalu’s election over alleged non qualification, and non compliance with the electoral act.
Chief Chinasa in his petition, alleged discrepancies in Kalu’s nine different certificates including his birth certificate, and 1st degree certificate, among others.
Adopting his written addresses, through his Lead Counsel, Yunus Ustaz SAN, the LP candidate urged the tribunal to grant all his prayers and cancel the poll.
He insisted that “the 1st Respondent does not have the requisite qualifications” to participate in the election, arguing that “the burden of proof now lies on him to prove that he has the needed qualifications”.
The lead Counsel further argued that the 1st Respondent never tendered any certificate before the court to prove that he has them.
According to him, everything presented by the Petitioner “is affidavit, affidavit”.
The LP candidate, therefore, urged the tribunal dismiss the preliminary objection of the Respondents which he said “is incurably defective”.
On the claims by the 1st Respondent that he had harmonized his certificates through a Deed Pool published in a federal gazette, LP’s Counsel argued 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.”
The Deputy Speaker, 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.
He further argued that the Petitioners were unable to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt, nor were they able to tender any evidence of forgery against the 1st Respondent.
He urged the tribunal to dismiss the LP suit for lack of evidence and proof.
In the same vein, 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”.
Meanwhile, Counsel to the AA candidate, O. E Enwere, while adopting his written addresses, urged the tribunal to nullify the election, claiming that his client was “criminally excluded” from the ballot by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
He argued that the non inclusion of his client and the AA party’s logo on the ballot papers amounted to non compliance with the Electoral Act.
The Counsel argued that INEC could not justify its refusal or failure to include the name of the AA candidate who was validly nominated and his name duly submitted to the electoral umpire.
He said that INEC had in its reply admitted omitting the AA candidate and logo on the ballot, arguing that ” facts admitted need no further proof”.
Responding, 1st Petitioner’s lawyer, urged the court to dismiss the petition, arguing that the documents tendered by the Petitioners were dated after the closure of submission of names of candidates by INEC.
He further argued that the Petitioners did not tender any party logo before the tribunal, and urged for the dismissal of the petition claiming that the Petitioners failed to prove their case.
Counsel to APC, Mr Nwankwo, urged the tribunal to throw away the petition on the grounds that the Petitioners based their petition on unlawful exclusion which he said purportedly occured before the election, hence, it amounted to pre-election matters.
According to him, the tribunal does not have the powers to hear pre-election matters.
He also said that the Petitioner must prove that he was duly nominated, arguing that the Petitioner could not prove that he was duly nominated within the time table given by INEC.
He said that AA primary that produced the Petitioner was held about a week after INEC allegedly closed submission of candidates.
After listening to all the sides including INEC, Chairman of the three-man panel, Justice Samson Paul -Gang, said the tribunal would communicate the parties on a later date for judgment.
End
