As Atiku Tenders Tinubu’s Varsity Records Before Supreme Court…

Alex Enumah harps on the need by the Supreme Court to thoroughly scrutinise the Chicago State University’s academic record of President Bola Tinubu tendered before it last week, not just in the interest of justice regarding the petition of Atiku Abubakar, but in the overall interest of the Nigerian nation.

President Bola Tinubu’s educational history have been one that has been enmeshed in one controversy or another since 1999, when he contested for the office of governor of Lagos State. Since then, the issue has refused to go away, reaching its crescendo with the 2023 general elections.

Even before Tinubu declared his intention to vie for the number office in the country, opposition to his ambition commenced move both in the media and in various law courts to ensure that he never become President of Nigeria, something which Tinubu himself declared as his life ambition.

Besides David Hundeyin, a journalist and Mike Enahoro-Ebah, a lawyer, civil society groups such as the Center for Reform and Public Advocacy; the Incorporated Trustees for the Advocacy for Social Rights Advancement and Development Initiative (ASRADI) and the Action Alliance (AA) all made efforts through advocacy and litigation to ensure Tinubu was disqualified from participating in the 2023 presidential election. But whether by fate or default, Tinubu did not only win the ticket of his party, the All Progressives Congress APC) but went ahead to win the February 25, 2023 presidential poll with over eight million votes.

In various petitions filed against his victory at the poll, the presidential election tribunal was asked to hold that Tinubu violated Section 137 of the Constitution when he last year submitted forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), to enable him contest the presidential election.

While it is not the first time such allegation was being made against Tinubu, it would be in the best interest of the judiciary to finally deal with the issue and lay it to rest permanently. Recall that efforts in the past by Nigeria’s leading legal luminary and activist, late Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) to get Tinubu investigated and prosecuted suffered a set back due to the immunity clause that shields state governors and the president from investigation over alleged criminal offences.

As at today, Tinubu is the President of Nigeria and just as in 1999 enjoys immunity from investigation and prosecution of any alleged crime.

Owing to the international dimension the issue is generating, especially with the release of Tinubu’s academic record and the subsequent denial of the diploma certificate the president submitted to INEC by the CSU, it has become imperative for the apex court to rise to the occasion and redeem the already battered image of the country.

Judge Nancy Maldonado of a United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, had on September 30, 2023 ordered the CSU to release Tinubu’s academic records to Atiku, unfailing by October 3, 2023. The court in its judgment in Tinubu’s objection to the release of his CSU records to Atiku, held that the Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Gilbert, was right in granting Atiku’s application for discovery.

While pointing out that Atiku met the statutory requirements and that the discretionary factors support granting the application, Justice Maldonado held that, “this Court will not obstruct the flow of discovery solely within the possession of a U.S. institution on a matter of such importance when the respondent stands ready and willing to provide it”.

There is no gainsaying the fact that Nigeria does not have a good image outside the country, as some of her citizens have been engaged in one crime or another, however this poor image would further degenerate if the apex court fails to do justice this time around.

Like Atiku Abubakar said during his press briefing recently in Abuja, “the reputation of our country is at stake. That affects everyone, Nigerians everywhere”.

While documents released last week seem to buttress allegations that the certificate Tinubu submitted to INEC, was forged, what appears to have dealt a deadly blow to Tinubu and the nation as a whole, was the submission by CSU’s Registrar, Mr Caleb Westberg, who told a US court that the diploma Tinubu submitted to INEC was not issued by the university. Westberg stated this while deposing to the documents the CSU was handing over to Atiku to support his case at the Supreme Court. Recall that in objecting to the release of his academic records, Tinubu had alleged “irreparable harm” to his person.

Indeed, there is an irreparable harm waiting to befall the country except the apex court in deciding the matter act judicially and judiciously and in the overall interest of the country.

Although, the registrar in his deposition had maintained that Tinubu attended and graduated from the CSU in 1979, however, during cross examination, he could not confirm the diploma Tinubu submitted to INEC, claiming he was seeing it for the very first time.

“Exhibit 6, this purports to be a June 22, 1979 diploma issued to Tinubu and you can see it is stamped by INEC on the diploma as well. Have you seen this document before”, witness was asked.

“In the proceedings of this case yes “, he responded.

Question: You have never seen the document prior to the proceedings in this case?

Answer: You are correct.

Besides, the witness agreed that there were remarkable difference in the diploma Tinubu submitted to INEC and the ones issued by the institution both in 1979 when Tinubu graduated and the one issued last year to Enahoro-Ebah. These differences range from the signatories down to the logo and seal. According to Westberg, certificates issued in 1979 had five signatories and seal with the class of hands, but the one Tinubu submitted to INEC has just three signatories and seal with triangle.

Specifically, Westberg pointed out that the signature on the replacement certificate of Tinubu matches certificates issued in the 1990s and not those of 1979, adding that some of the persons who signed the INEC diploma were not in the institution by 1979.

Question: The diploma says it was granted on June 22, 1979?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And CSU did not have a board of trustees in 1979, did it?

Answer: True

Question: So let’s look at the signature on the INEC diploma, on the right it looks like one of the signatories was Elnora Daniel correct?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And Elnora Daniel was not the chair or president of CSU in 1979 correct?

Answer: yes.

Question: she was president 1998 to 2008, correct?

Answer: As far as I am aware.

Similarly, while witness identified another signatory in the diploma Tinubu submitted to INEC as that of Herbert Conley, he admitted that Conley was not the dean of the faculty of Business Administration in 1979.

Faulting further the seal on the diploma with INEC, witness stated that the the word “responsibility” and year 1867 were missing.

Question: And you are unaware of any diploma that includes these three signatories being issued by CSU?

Answer: correct.

Question: And you have never seen a diploma that cut off the triangle seal in this manner?

Answer: correct.

Question: You have never seen a diploma that cut off the signature of Herbert Conley, position like this?

Answer: Correct.

Question: And CSU does not have a 1979 diploma that contains the font CL signatories and wording apart from the INEC diploma?

Answer: Correct.

Question: So CSU does not know of any diploma dated 1979 like the INEC diploma that has ever been issued?

Answer: correct.

Question: And CSU has no record of issuing the INEC diploma to President Tinubu in 1979?

Answer: Correct.

Question: So CSU did not issue the INEC diploma to President Tinubu in 1979?

Answer: Not in 1979.

Question: And did not issue diploma dated June 27, 1979 to Tinubu in 1979?

Answer: Correct.

Meanwhile, while the witness in one breath claimed that, “we did not find any diploma issued by 1979 to Tinubu”, in another he admitted that the school has in its file the diploma dated June 27, 1979, which was the copy released last year to Enahoro-Ebah under the order of a US court.

On why they have the June 27, 1979 copy in their file, witness stated that he presumed that the diploma was not picked up by Tinubu. But, the certificate Tinubu submitted to INEC was dated June 22, 1979.

Meanwhile, in his request for permission to bring in new evidence (Tinubu’s academic record), in support of his appeal at the apex court, Atiku argued that, “a successful proof of the said allegation will render the 2nd Respondent (Tinubu) unqualified to have contested the said election ab initio for presentation of forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) pursuant to the provisions of Section

137(1)(j) of the Constitution, being a weighty matter of constitutional importance”.

He cited the apex court judgment in the case of Saleh vs Abah (2017), where it was held that, “The intention of the Constitution is that anyone who had presented a forged certificate to INEC should stand automatically disqualified for all future elections if, as in this case, a Court or tribunal finds the certificate to have been forged, and it matters not whether or not such fact is further fraudulently or desperately concealed in subsequent elections or declaration forms.

“No decent system or polity should condone, or through judicial policy and decisions, encourage the dangerous culture of forging

certificates with impunity to seek electoral contest”.

Although Tinubu’s lawyer, Christopher Carmichael had during the hearing of Atiku’s application for discovery argued that the apex court cannot accept fresh documents from Atiku in support of his petition, whatever the apex court does however would go a long way either in redeeming or further denting the already battered image of the country.

Following the controversy his educational qualifications generated in 1999, Tinubu, had in 2022, attached just his CSU certificate, without listing the primary and secondary schools he attended.

Besides, he claimed that he lost his certificate during his days in exile, when the then military government of late General Sanni Abacha was allegedly after them.

But, Atiku feels otherwise and wants Tinubu removed as president for allegedly forging his diploma certificate submitted to INEC.

However, a five-member panel of the presidential election tribunal in their unanimous judgment delivered on September 6, dismissed Atiku and PDP’s petition for lacking in merit.

While the tribunal held that the petitioners did not prove allegations made against the conduct of the presidential poll, it refused to consider and determine the allegations of certificate forgery and perjury against Tinubu on the grounds that they failed to list the allegations in their main petition.

Bent on proving the allegation, Atiku approached the US court for additional evidence, which he hoped to tender before the Supreme Court of Nigeria, where he had already filed an appeal against what he claimed is a “perverse” judgment of the presidential tribunal.

He predicated his application on Order 2 of the Supreme Court Rule, which stipulates that, “A party who wishes the court to receive the evidence of witnesses (whether they were or were not called at the trial) or to order the production of any document, exhibit or other thing connected with the proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 33 of the Act, shall apply for leave on notice of motion prior to the date set down for the hearing of the appeal.

“The application shall be supported by affidavit of the fact on which the party relies for making it and of the nature of the evidence or the document concerned.

“It shall not be necessary for the other party to answer the additional evidence intended to be called but if leave is granted the other party shall be entitled to a reasonable opportunity to give his own evidence in reply if he so wishes”.

In the application filed on August 2, Atiku had requested for an order of mandamus compelling the CSU to release information regarding Tinubu’s record argued that Section 137 (1)(j) of the Nigerian Constitution (amended in 2010) specifically stated that no one would be legitimately elected president of Nigeria if the person “has presented a forged certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission.”

Tinubu had on June 17, 2022, submitted a certificate to INEC that was purportedly issued in 1979 and signed by Elnora Daniel. But Ms Daniel only arrived at CSU in 1998 from Hampton University, 19 years after Mr Tinubu was said to have graduated. She left the school in 2008 following a financial mismanagement scandal, or 14 years before June 2022 when CSU issued yet a fresh certificate in Tinubu’s name under subpoena from a Nigerian lawyer who had inquired about Tinubu’s education there.

The irregularities prompted Atiku to file the suit to compel CSU to produce records relating to Tinubu and make its top officials available for deposition to certify the produced records, according to the Nigerian opposition leader’s lawyers.

He had specifically requested for four documents, seeking true and correct copies of: (1) an example of a CSU diploma for a Bachelor of Science degree issued in 1979; (2) President Tinubu’s diploma issued in 1979; (3) any examples of a CSU diploma that “contains the same font, seal, signatures, and wording (other than the name of the recipient and the specific degree awarded)” as the copy of the diploma that was purportedly issued to President Tinubu on or about June 22, 1979; and (4) certain other CSU documents that were apparently certified and produced by Jamar Orr (an associate general counsel at CSU) in other

Nigerian proceedings, as well as communications relating to these documents (the “Orr Documents”).

In addition Atiku further sought for a deposition by CSU pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 30(b)(6), seeking to explore five topics through deposition: (1) the authenticity of the documents produced by CSU in response to the application and how and where CSU located the documents; (2) CSU’s position on the authenticity of other CSU documents related to President Tinubu purportedly produced by CSU in another Nigerian proceeding (“Enahoro-Ebah v. Tinubu”); (3) the contents of an affidavit from CSU’s registrar Caleb Westberg; (4) CSU’s position on the authenticity of a letter from Westberg (the “Westberg Letter”) on CSU letterhead regarding President Tinubu, including who requested the letter, who prepared the letter, and to whom it was sent; and (5) CSU’s position on the authenticity of the Orr Documents and other facts regarding why the documents were certified, if Mr. Orr was authorized to do so, who requested the documents, and to whom they were sent.