The solicitor to the African Democratic Party (ADP) presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, has raised fresh questions over documents allegedly released by Chicago State University to Atiku’s legal team, claiming that the materials contain discrepancies concerning President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s academic records and other documents submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission(INEC)
Speaking on the documents and their possible relevance to ongoing legal proceedings, the solicitor listed several issues which he said emerged from materials obtained from Chicago State University and proceedings in the United States.
According to him, one of the documents allegedly raises questions about the authenticity of the certificate presented by Tinubu to INEC.
He said, One: that Bola Ahmed Tinubu forged the certificate he presented to INEC. That’s one.
The solicitor further referred to what he described as a qualifying certificate from Southwest College to Chicago State University, alleging that the document contains details indicating that it belonged to a female.
According to him, this raises questions about whether the document is connected to Tinubu.
Two: that the qualifying certificate from Southwest College to Chicago State University has a female, indicating that that document does not belong to Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he said.
The solicitor also drew attention to an admission application allegedly associated with Chicago State University.
He claimed that the application stated that Tinubu attended Government College, Lagos, and graduated in 1970.
However, he argued that the date contained in the document raises questions because, according to his account, the school was established in 1974.
The Chicago State University admission application form has a claim that Bola Ahmed Tinubu attended Government College, Lagos, and graduated in 1970, when indeed the school was established in 1974, he said.
He further claimed that the same document described its owner as a Black American and argued that this raised additional questions about its connection to Tinubu.
The solicitor also referenced a document submitted to INEC in which Tinubu allegedly declared that he did not hold dual citizenship.
According to him, this was another issue that required examination when the various documents were considered together.
The solicitor also pointed to what he described as a discrepancy between the name contained in an oral deposition and the name appearing on a National Youth Service Corps certificate submitted to INEC.
He said the deposition referred to “A. Bola A. Tinubu” as Ahmed, while the NYSC certificate allegedly bears the name “Adekunle.”
Then the same document, oral deposition, says that A. Bola A. Tinubu is Ahmed. But the NYSC certificate Bola Ahmed Tinubu submitted to INEC has Adekunle,” he said.
I don’t know where the Adekunle and the Ahmed emerged from.”
Addressing the potential legal significance of the documents, the solicitor argued that Nigerian law permits parties to introduce fresh evidence before the Supreme Court when the applicable conditions are satisfied.
He maintained that developments from the proceedings in the United States had, in his view, satisfied the conditions required for the admission of fresh evidence.
So, on the second arm of your question of what use will it be in the Supreme Court? It is very, very clear from the settled authorities that the Supreme Court has held that a party can adduce fresh evidence as long as certain conditions are met,” he said.
And from what transpired in the U.S. court proceedings, that condition has already been met.
The solicitor further invoked the legal principle that a party should not benefit from an illegality.
So, as we speak, our law is very clear that a party at fault cannot be allowed to enjoy the fruit of his illegality, he said.
The claims form part of a wider legal and political dispute over President Tinubu’s academic records and documents associated with his educational history.
The allegations made by the solicitor remain claims by the legal representative and would require verification against the original documents, court records and relevant institutional records before they can be treated as established facts.
