By our Reporter
For nearly two years, what began as a private relationship quietly unfolded behind closed doors. Financial support was given, trust was extended, and a child was believed to have strengthened an already complicated bond. Today, that relationship has become the subject of intense public scrutiny, leaving a child, two adults, and their families at the centre of an emotionally charged controversy.
The paternity dispute involving the Chairman of the Central Zone of the Ijaw Youth Council (IYC), Comrade Peres Ineife, and Yenagoa-based socialite Catherine Japhet has dominated conversations across Bayelsa State and on social media, highlighting the emotional and legal complexities that often accompany such allegations.
Responding publicly to claims that he abandoned responsibility for a child allegedly fathered by him, Ineife insisted that his actions over the past two years reflected his belief that the child was his. According to him, he paid Catherine’s house rent, settled her bills, and provided monthly financial support while accepting responsibility as the presumed father.
The IYC chairman disclosed that he deliberately kept the matter away from his wife, explaining that the family was still struggling with the devastating loss of their twin boys. He said revealing the situation during that period would have compounded the emotional pain already confronting his household.
However, what he described as growing doubts about the child’s paternity months after the birth prompted him to seek scientific confirmation. He said a DNA test was conducted through an accredited laboratory, with samples collected in Bayelsa and analysed in Lagos.
According to Ineife, the result showed that he is not the biological father of the child.
That finding, however, did not end the controversy.
Catherine Japhet questioned the authenticity of the DNA test, alleging that the result was manipulated. Her claims reignited public debate and drew widespread reactions online, with supporters on both sides expressing differing opinions over the matter.
Determined to clear his name, Ineife has now offered to undergo another DNA test at any mutually agreed accredited laboratory. He maintained that he has nothing to hide and welcomed an independent process that would finally settle the issue.
He further stated that should a second DNA test also confirm that he is not the child’s biological father, he would pursue legal action over what he described as false accusations that have damaged both his reputation and public image.
While the dispute has become a trending topic, many observers note that beyond the public statements and social media exchanges lies the human cost of the controversy. Families have been drawn into the disagreement, reputations are under scrutiny, and a child remains at the centre of an issue that can only be conclusively resolved through credible scientific evidence.
Legal experts have consistently advised that DNA testing remains the most reliable method of establishing biological parentage, especially where conflicting claims exist. They also caution against conducting such sensitive matters through social media, where public opinion often forms before evidence is fully examined.
As calls for another DNA test gain momentum, many believe that a transparent, mutually accepted process could bring closure to both parties and reduce the growing speculation surrounding the case.
For now, the dispute remains unresolved. Whether the proposed fresh DNA test will finally end the controversy is a question that both families—and the wider public following the story—continue to await.
