Our reporter/ President Bola Tinubu has blamed a clerk at Chicago State University for blatant irregularities that characterised a certificate the school reprinted in his name, according to new court filings.
According to Tinubu, the unnamed clerk “unfortunately” made the errors as to the dates the school stated on his recently-issued certificate and when he actually graduated, thereby creating “the appearance of differences.”
Tinubu’s statement was filed on August 23 by his counsel as part of his argument before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago.
Judge Jeffrey Gilbert had given the Nigerian politician until August 23 to explain why his academic records at CSU should not be released to his political opponent Atiku Abubakar.
Atiku earlier this month, requested court approval to subpoena Mr Tinubu’s files domiciled with CSU because he believed the documents would clarify glaring inconsistencies in Tinubu’s background, including publicly-available documents that suggested the CSU in the 1970s admitted a female student bearing Bola Tinubu who was born on March 29, 1954.
Tinubu said he was born on March 29, 1952, although he had also, at different times, listed 1954 as his birth year in the past. He also recently expunged his primary and secondary education from his records after it was discovered that the schools he listed under oath in his 1999 run for Lagos governor did not exist anywhere in Nigeria. Atiku believed the requested records would show which early and high papers Tinubu submitted to CSU before he was admitted to study accounting there.
Atiku had sued to obtain Tinubu’s school records under a U.S. statute that allows documents available in the U.S. to be subpoenaed for use as evidence in a foreign court.
The former vice president argued that Tinubu had presented contradictory claims in Nigeria and the CSU, in responding to a previous subpoena, had issued documents that contradicted what Tinubu had entered under oath in Nigeria.
But Tinubu’s lawyers, led by Oluwole Afolabi and Christopher Carmichael, argued that the August 2022 subpoena that was issued following a request by a Nigerian lawyer Mike Enahoro-Ebah was “illegal” because he had no valid grounds to seek the documents, especially under education privacy rights.
The lawyers, however, admitted the documents indeed emanated from the CSU, but an unnamed clerk had mistakenly typed the graduation date.
“Unfortunately, in responding to the illegal and invalid subpoena, CSU made several errors,” Tinubu’s attorneys said.
“CSU issued a new diploma for Bola A. Tinubu, but incorrectly wrote the date of graduation as June 27, 1979.”
The lawyers also said changes in school-authorised signatories and logos, alongside other anomalies like the fonts of the certificate, all combined to generate an appearance of wrongdoing.
“The correct date was June 22, 1979, but that scrivener’s error – along with a change in the CSU logo, the font on the diploma, and leadership at CSU who signed the diploma created the appearance of differences between an earlier issued diploma and the one issued in response to the 2022 subpoena,” the lawyers stated.
Atiku had told the court he filed the suit because he wanted to get the school to certify all documents relating to Tinubu, some of which had been filed by the Nigerian president’s lawyers in Nigerian court as part of the ongoing election petitions proceeding.
But Tinubu lawyers argued that Atiku should not be requesting the documents because Tinubu’s academic records were not part of the initial litigation over the Nigerian elections as the argument by the opposition had centered entirely on cheating and other irregularities around the conduct of the election.
They further argued that the Nigerian court hearing the election petitions had already concluded hearing on arguments, and a judgment is now being anticipated. The court is expected to deliver judgment on or before September 21, in line with the Nigerian electoral law that mandates the conclusion of a petition within 180 days after the election.
Atiku’s legal team, led by Chicago-based attorney Angela Marie Liu, is expected to file a response to Tinubu’s argument that the documents should not be sought because they were not part of the Nigerian proceeding and would be inadmissible due to the current stage of the case.
Chicago State University Response
Chicago State University, the institution in the eye of the storm had earlier filed their response to the suit filed by Nigeria’s former vice president.
The summary of their response is published below…
1. The Chicago State University (CSU) claims that Tinubu graduated from the University in 1979.
2. They claim that the documents Atiku is requesting from the University through documents subpoena and deposition subpoena are Tinubu’s ‘Private Educational Records’
3. CSU said that they ‘struggle to understand’ how Tinubu’s grades and students records from the 1970s, dates, signatories and certificates have any bearing on the 2023 General Elections.
4. They are however of the view that since Tinubu himself intervened and opposed the discovery of these documents, they defer to Tinubu to…
a. defend the privacy claims of the documents.
b. defend whether the discovery of the information on the documents is appropriate under the US laws.
5. CSU argues that since they are not familiar with the legal systems in Nigeria and other legal principles, Tinubu, who is familiar with the issues and directly involved, should himself advance his arguments and objections.
6. CSU also informed the court that they held a conference with Atiku lawyers who told them that documents cannot be tendered at the PEPT anymore, but that Atiku ‘might’ introduce it when the case is appealed to the Supreme Court Atiku is a bad boy (I said it).
7. CSU pleaded with the court to rule on the case only after scrutinizing the status of the PEPT and the possibility of any discovery from the documents in the PEPT.
Chicago State University further registered objections in case the court decides to order the discovery of the academic records
–CSU prays the court to only permit only ‘limited and targeted discovery on the University’.
-CSU also noted that since the court have not yet ordered the discovery, they cannot raise objections yet as to the scope of documents and information Atiku needs.
-CSU also says that Atiku’s request for information on Certificates issued by CSU for a 44 years period (1979 to the present) is inappropriate.
-They also find inappropriate, Atiku’s request for employment status and reason for departure of a former employee of the University’s General Counsel’s office.
– Outside of all these, CSU pledges to comply, meet with and confer promptly in good faith with Atiku’s lawyers to address all the issues.
With social media reports
Leave a Reply