Despite having narrowly escaped disqualification from running for the National Assembly election of February 2023 by the election tribunal, the embattled Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Benjamin Kalu still has names forgery allegation plaguing his continued membership of the 10th National Assembly for which his major opponent is approaching the Supreme Court to upturn his election
By Mathew Obinnakwere
It is still not yet uhuru for the embattled Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon Benjamin Kalu despite his victory at the National Assembly Election Petitions Tribunal sitting in Umuahia the Abia State capital. Kalu who represents Bende Federal Constituency of Abia State had his election challenged at the Tribunal by his major opponent, the candidate of Labour Party (LP), Frank Chinasa
Chinasa told the Tribunal that the House of Representatives Deputy Speaker was not qualified to run for the election for alleged discrepancies in the names on the various certificates being paraded by Kalu.
The petitioner also prayed the Tribunal to nullify the election of Kalu because he was not elected by the majority of the lawful votes cast at the poll.
Chinasa further prayed the Tribunal to withdraw the Certificate of Return issued to Kalu and reissued to the first petitioner (Chinasa) or in the alternative nullify the entire election and declare a rerun.
However, in favour of the Deputy Speaker, the Tribunal had on Tuesday, August 22 dismissed the Chinasa petition “for lack of merit”. The three-man Tribunal chaired by Justice Samson Paul Gang in a unanimous judgment read by the Chairman said that the certified true copies of the various certificates of Kalu as tendered by the petitioners did not emanate from the issuing authorities, hence they were inadmissible to the Tribunal.
Tribunal held that since the petitioners could not produce the staff of the issuing authorities to testify at the Tribunal, a party who is not the maker of a document is not competent to tender such evidence since the Tribunal can only rely on credible evidence instead of speculation.
According to Tribunal, Kalu had harmonized his names through a “Deep Pool” published in a Federal Gazette, and backed it with newspaper publication of change of name. Hence the name, “Okezie”, in the estimation of the Tribunal, remained a constant denominator in all three names in the 1st respondent’s various names.
Kalu, the Deputy Speaker, as is the norm, has begun to celebrate his victory at the Tribunal. Through his Chief Press Secretary (CPS), Livinus Nwabughiogu who issued a press statement in Abuja same day the judgment was given, Kalu enthused, “I have never doubted the ability of the judiciary at any level to do justice to issues. My confidence in them has always been unwavering. It has, once again, vindicated me on this matter, and also upheld my mandate as the elected representative of the people and in this case, the Bende Federal Constituency of Abia State. I am grateful”.
As Kalu swims deep in the euphoria of his victory at the Tribunal, his opponent, Chinasa, has assured that he would take the matter up to the Appeal Court for better interpretation of his evidence against Kalu. “We are weighing our options with the judgement which we consider unfair. It is not the end of the matter. We are confident that we will get a better hearing at appeal”.
Chinasa’s confidence at the Court of Appeal is not unconnected with the argument of his lead counsel, Yunus Ustaz Usman SAN who argued in his final address that the petitioner Chief Ifeanyi Frank Chinasa of the Labour Party (LP) had his case built on questions about Benjamin Kalu Okezie who made several changes to his names.
Observers of the litigation who favour the cause of the LP candidate argued that the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives may have been on his way to becoming another Salisu Buhari of the House of Representatives based on the argument of the petitioners at the tribunal which will form the basis for their appeal at the Appeal Court.
Kalu of the All Progressives Congress, APC, born as Umunna Okezie in 1971, had made these distinct and different changes to his name, according to Usman’s address, these changes are affidavit of Change of Name of 17th day of June, 2002, Affidavit of Change of Name of 10th day of January, 2011, Deed Poll of 6th October, 2011, South Africa Gazette No. 25492 of 03 October, 2003 for change of name. Usman said the changes provided grounds to doubt Kalu’s identity and ownership of the education documents he uses. Benjamin Kalu Okezie has documents bearing these names: The 1st Respondent’s First School Leaving Certificate which he obtained in 1983 but was issued in 1987 has the name Umunna Okezie. The name in the 1st Respondent’s Leaving Certificate and Testimonial of 1988 is Osisiogu Benjamin Okezie. The 1st Respondent’s West African Examinations Council Certificate of 1991 bears Osisiogu Benjamin Okezie. The name in 1st Respondent’s Bachelor of Laws Certificate of 1998 is Osisiogu Benjamin Okezie. The name of the 1st Respondent in the Council of Legal Education Certificate of 2011 is Benjamin Okezie Osisiogu. The 1st Respondent’s NYSC Discharge Certificate of 2011 has Kalu Benjamin Okezie as his name. His Certificate of Call to Bar of 2006 has the name Benjamin Okezie Osisiogu. The name in the 1st Respondent’s Statutory Declaration of Age of 2002 is Kalu Benjamin Okezie. The INEC Form EC 9 for 2019 election submitted by the 1st Respondent bears Benjamin Okezie Kalu. The INEC Form EC 9 for 2023 election submitted by the 1st Respondent has the name Kalu Benjamin Okezie.
In the course of the trial, Kalu had deposed on oath thus: “That consequently, upon these changes and steps, the Registry of the Supreme Court enrolled me as a Solicitor and Advocate of the Supreme Court of Nigeria with my name Kalu Benjamin Okezie on the 6th day of June, 2012 with enrolment number SCN/078630.”
Usman dug in on the deposition, drawing the attention of the tribunal to the facts that the Certificate of Call to Bar and Council of Legal Education Certificate Kalu tendered had “Benjamin Okezie Osisiogu” on them and not “Kalu Benjamin Okezie”. The Call to Bar Certificate read 6th day of September, 2011 and not 6th day of June, 2012 when Kalu said he was called to Bar. Usman continued that if Kalu was called to the Nigerian Bar on the 6th day of September, 2011, he would have enrolled at the registry of the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the same day.
“The 1st Respondent could not have enrolled at the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the 6th day of June, 2012, nine (9) months after his Call to Bar. The 1st Respondent had the burden to explain to the Honourable Tribunal the reason for his delayed enrolment, if at all he was called by the Body of Benchers and enrolled before the Supreme Court of Nigeria,” Usman said.
Usman raised more issues. Kalu’s 2006 Certificate of Birth and his 2002 Statutory Declaration of Age obtained in 2002 also bear Kalu Benjamin Okezie. An age document is one of the mandatory documents for registration at the Nigerian Law School. Usman wondered how the Call to Bar Certificate and Council of Legal Education Certificate will bear different names Benjamin Okezie Osisiogu and not Kalu Benjamin Okezie which is also on Kalu’s NYSC certificate.
Usman said since it was evident that the first respondent lacked the necessary qualifications to stand for the election, the tribunal should nullify Kalu’s victory and declare Chief Chinasa as the rightful winner.
