Who Is The Real Father? Dna Report Excludes Former Iyc Chairman Pere Iniefe!
Who Is The Real Father? Dna Report Excludes Former Iyc Chairman Pere Iniefe!
DNA TEST REPORT EMERGES IN PERE INIEFE PATERNITY CONTROVERSY, DOCUMENT SAYS FORMER IYC CHAIRMAN IS NOT BIOLOGICAL FATHER
YENAGOA, BAYELSA STATE — The controversial paternity dispute involving former Ijaw Youth Council (IYC) Central Zone Chairman, Comrade Pere Iniefe, and Catherine Japhet has taken a fresh turn following the emergence of a DNA test report which indicates that Iniefe is not the biological father of the child at the centre of the controversy.
A document bearing the name of Lynx DNA Laboratories, described as a DNA Diagnostic Centre (DDC) Certificate of Analysis, states that the paternity test conducted between Pere Iniefe and the child returned a negative result.
According to the document, the analysis concluded that the alleged father, identified as Perekosufa Iniefe, is not the biological father of the tested child.
The report carries Case Number 2600165465 and indicates that the samples were collected on September 17, 2026.
It further states that the specimens analysed were cheek cells collected through buccal (oral) swabs.
The emergence of the document represents a significant development in the controversy, which had generated considerable public debate following conflicting accounts by the two parties.
However, Tarakirivoice has not independently verified the authenticity of the laboratory document or established whether the testing facility and its procedures meet the applicable accreditation and forensic standards.
HOW THE CONTROVERSY STARTED
Recall that Tarakirivoice previously reported the public disagreement between Pere Iniefe and Catherine Japhet over the paternity of a child, with both parties offering sharply conflicting accounts of their relationship and the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy.
In her earlier public statement, Catherine alleged that she entered into a relationship with Iniefe in 2024 and subsequently became pregnant.
She claimed that although she initially considered terminating the pregnancy because Iniefe was married, he allegedly persuaded her to keep the child, explaining that he and his wife had not yet had a child.
Catherine further alleged that she gave birth through a Caesarean Section and agreed to keep the child’s existence away from Iniefe’s wife for two years.
According to her account, Iniefe initially accepted responsibility for the child and provided financial assistance before their relationship allegedly deteriorated.
She subsequently questioned the credibility of an earlier DNA examination, alleging irregularities surrounding the testing process and demanding another examination at a mutually agreed accredited medical facility in the presence of both families and neutral observers.
INIEFE’S RESPONSE
In his response to the allegations, Iniefe denied wrongdoing, maintaining that he acted responsibly throughout the period he believed the child was his.
He disclosed that he provided accommodation, financial support and other assistance to Catherine for nearly two years.
He also explained that he initially kept the matter away from his wife because of sensitive family circumstances, including the loss of their twin boys and his wife’s emotional condition.
Iniefe maintained that doubts about the child’s paternity emerged months after the birth and claimed that Catherine consented to a DNA examination which excluded him as the biological father.
He rejected allegations that the test was fraudulent, explaining that samples were collected at a laboratory on Imiringi Road in Yenagoa and subsequently transported to Lagos for analysis.
The former IYC chairman also publicly expressed his willingness to undergo another DNA examination at an independently agreed laboratory.
FRESH QUESTIONS FOLLOWING THE EMERGENCE OF THE REPORT
With the latest document now circulating, attention is likely to shift towards the authenticity of the report, the laboratory’s accreditation status and whether both parties recognise the examination as conclusive.
Several questions remain important:
Has the laboratory confirmed the authenticity of the certificate?
Was the examination conducted with the informed consent and participation of the relevant parties?
Were proper sample identification and chain-of-custody procedures followed?
Will Catherine accept the latest result or maintain her demand for another independent examination?
Are both parties willing to submit to another mutually agreed forensic examination to finally resolve the dispute?
The questions are particularly important because of the serious personal and reputational implications of paternity disputes.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The emergence of the DNA report could influence the next phase of the disagreement, particularly Iniefe’s previously stated intention to seek legal redress if an independent examination confirms that he is not the child’s biological father.
Nevertheless, the document should not be treated as independently authenticated until its issuing laboratory confirms its validity and the relevant testing procedures are established.
Catherine’s response to the latest development is also being awaited.
As of the time of filing this report, Tarakirivoice had not obtained an independent confirmation from Lynx DNA Laboratories or a fresh response from Catherine regarding the newly surfaced document.
Our heritage Reporter will continue to monitor the development and report any further responses from the parties involved.
EDITORIAL NOTE: In reporting this sensitive matter, our heritage Reporter considers the privacy and welfare of the child paramount. The child’s identity has therefore been withheld.
Credit X Tarakirivoice
