By Chidinma Joe, Umuahia
Claimant during a court session on 3rd of August, 2021 did not challenge or controvert paragraph 12 of REP. Benjamin Kalu’s Counter-Affidavit where he averred that all the Certificates/documents bearing various names are referable to Rep Benjamin Kalu and to no one else.
By implication, It means that he admitted in law that the entire documents he went to court to contest belonged to Rep Benjamin Kalu, ABN TV reports, with this legal admission one wonders the reason for dragging the name of the Member of the House of reps to the mud. Could it be maliciously motivated?
The Affidavits of Change of name and processes harmonizing the names to be that of Hon Benjamin Kalu, the affidavit, the Newspaper publication in this regard, the Deed Poll and the Gazette of the F.R.N and another Gazette done outside Nigeria are enough evidence that the names are referable to Rep Benjamin Kalu.
Click The Image To Know More About ELEOS SPECIALIST HOSPITAL👇
READ ALSO: Benjamin Kalu Finally Breaks Silence On Certificate Report, Says It’s ‘Mere Distraction’
The Claimant woefully failed to show that the documents belong to any other person than Rep Benjamin Kalu. The SAN Nwufor cited a relevant authority in the decision of the SCt in ABUBAKAR v. INEC
The Claimant who alleged that Rep. Benjamin Okezie Kalu forged Certificates because he changed his surname and so they are no longer genuine, failed to prove the alleged forgery.
The Claimant also failed to exhibit two sets of documents: one set said to be false/forged, and the other set said to be genuine for the needed differentiation by the court. There was no evidence to this effect.
On the question of whether or not this was brought out of time in view of the Electoral Act provisions, Nwufor SAN, Hon. Kalu’s counsel submitted that since the claimant agreed that the suit ought to have been filed within 14 days of the conduct of the Primaries as a Pre-election matter but that the suit was protected by the Limitation Law by virtue of an alleged Illegality, which he could not prove, the Claimant’s suit was indeed statute-barred. Was never supposed to appear before any court post-election.
The claimant’s counsel Okay SAN was asked whether he ought to have come to court by Notice instead of the originating motion used by him.
He appeared confused at which point Nwufor SAN observed that though he came as originating motion but the format of the processes used by him was by notice.
The matter was adjourned till the 23rd of August for ruling.
