President Tinubu’s Alleged Certificate Forgery : Will The Saga Make Any Impact at Supreme court Or Turn Out To Be a Mere Academic Exercise?

PRESIDENT TINUBU’S ALLEGED CERTIFICATE FORGERY: WILL THE SAGA MAKE ANY IMPACT AT THE SUPREME COURT OR TURN OUT TO BE A MERE ACADEMIC EXERCISE?

DR ABUBAKAR ALKALI
alkalizai@yahoo.com

*The efforts of Atiku Abubakar to unravel alleged inconsistencies in President Tinubu’s academic certificates and get the Supreme Court upturn his election victory may turn out to be a mere academic exercise because the Supreme Court will not upturn the election but the saga could have an impact on the 2027 Presidential election*

The Chicago state university (CSU) certificate saga involving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has taken a new twist. After the oral testimony otherwise known as deposition by Mr Caleb Westberg
the Registrar of CSU was taken, there were 5 points to ponder:
1. President Bola Tinubu attended and graduated from the CSU
2. The female mark on Mr Tinubu’s certificate from South West college which he used to gain admission into CSU could have been an avoidable typographical error since the admission letter was addressed to a male- Mr Bola Tinubu
3. CSU cannot vouch for the certificate that President Tinubu presented to INEC but can vouch for Tinubu’s CSU certificate
4. CSU never said President Tinubu’s certificate is fake
5. President Tinubu’s different dates of birth on the two CSU certificates – 29/3/1952 and 29/3/1954- could have been written in error.

The most important aspect of the saga however, is that CSU confirmed that President Tinubu attended and indeed, graduated from the university. Any other thing in-between could be given various interpretations in the form of accusations and denials. A simple affidavit in a court could have settled some of the arguments such as the errors in the dates of birth on the two certificates.

Clearly, the certificate President Tinubu presented to INEC is not the same as the one attested to by the CSU Registrar but this could have been caused by the effort to recreate another certificate by Mr Tinubu having lost the one CSU presented to him. In any case, President Tinubu has a certificate with CSU and it is genuine. A simple application to the CSU to issue a replacement certificate could have avoided this drama.

If indeed, there is any ground for the Supreme Court to consider any alleged misconduct, forgery or perjury on the part of President Tinubu regarding his certificate, the position of the law is clear: Mr Tinubu as President of the federal republic of Nigeria is covered by immunity as stated in section 308 of the constitution federal republic of Nigeria CFRN 1999 (as amended). The immunity clause in the 1999 constitution has shielded the President from prosecution.

Albeit it is at the discretion of the Supreme Court to admit new evidence under order 2 rule 12 of the Supreme Court rules 1985, it is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will accept new evidence in this case. This is because there are certain conditions that must be met for the Supreme Court to admit new evidence. These conditions are:

1) The new evidence couldn’t have been obtained at the trial (prior to the appeal). 2) The new evidence is important and crucial to the case, and, 3) The evidence is credible and incontrovertible. See UBA Plc v. BTL Ind. Ltd. (2005) 10 NWLR (Pt. 933) 356 at 370–371.

Clearly, the new evidence in the case of the certificate saga cannot be said to be incontrovertible. For one, the CSU has confirmed that President Tinubu has a genuine certificate. The APC has stated that the certificate is not fake while Atiku and the PDP insist that the certificate is fake. It must be stated however, that there is a stark difference in the logo of the two certificates being circulated on social media. But will the Supreme Court rely on social media bliss? If it will, then the Presidential election tribunal could as well have declared Peter Obi as President of Nigeria.

Another issue is the question as to whether the certificate saga is a pre-election matter or not. This question is pertinent because the Supreme Court can rely on the pre-election doctrine to refuse to admit any new evidence presented by Atiku Abubakar.

Clearly, there are two aspects to this saga; election and alleged forgery. Obviously, if there are any issues related to alleged forgery, it will not apply to the President because he is covered by immunity albeit it could have a dent on his integrity. The Supreme Court may decide to consider the election aspect and the President’s eligibility to contest the election. In this regard, the Supreme Court may simply dismiss Atiku’s prayer to upturn the election because the President was nominated by his party -the APC – and nomination of a candidate is a pre election matter which is within the purview of the candidate’s political party not the Supreme Court.

In fact, Nugeria’s electoral laws are so vague and broad that virtually any candidate presented to INEC by the political party is good to go.
No checks by INEC on the candidate’s credentials and eligibility. What makes the situation more worrisome is the fact that INEC doesn’t have any internal mechanism to verify a candidate’s profile including his/her documents before accepting such candidate presented to them by the political party. INEC simply does a ‘copy and paste’ on whoever the political party presents to them on the premise that ‘the losers can go to court after the election if they doubt the credentials of the winner or they don’t agree with the outcome of the election. To avoid issues with certificates, dates of birth etc, INEC should have an internal mechanism to verify all documents and profiles presented to them by the political parties. If there are issues with the candidates certificate, he/she should be disqualified by INEC and the political party asked to replace such candidates.

Recall that on May 26, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that a political party cannot interfere in the internal affairs of another political party. This ruling was sequel to the petition by the PDP seeking to disqualify Kashim Shettima, the then vice Presidential candidate of the APC on the grounds of double-nomination as a senatorial and vice Presidential candidate at the same general election. In the lead judgement delivered by Adamu Jauro JSC, the Supreme Court relied on section 285(14(c) to dismiss the petition by the PDP and edged on to declare the petitioners ‘meddle some interlopers. In this regard, it is highly likely that the Supreme Court will rule that President Tinubu’s certificate authenticity is an internal affair of the APC which should be trashed at party level and the onus to disqualify Mr Tinubu ab-initio rests with the APC. However, if the Supreme Court toes this line, it will be contrary to its ruling on February 13, 2020 where a five-member panel led by Justice Mary Odili sacked the governor of Bayelsa state David Lyon on the grounds that his deputy Biobarakuma Degi-Eremienyo presented false information to INEC. The apex court ruled that the then deputy governor Degi-Eremienyo
presented a forged certificate to INEC hence the apex court held the November 12 2019 ruling of the federal high court Abuja on the grounds that there is no connection in the name on
Mr Degi-Eremienyo’s O’level certificate, BA, Masters degree and the affidavit he swore. The Supreme Court promptly sacked the deputy governor-elect and the governor-elect David Lyon over the offence of the deputy governor-elect.

Curiously, the Supreme Court didn’t declare the PDP as meddlesome interlopers in its ruling on the Bayelsa gubernatorial election but went ahead to grant the prayers of the PDP and cancel the APC’s victory. The difference between Mr Degi-Eremienyo’s certificate and that of President Tinubu is that CSU had confirmed that President Tinubu has a genuine certificate while in the case of Mr Eremienyo, the court was convinced that his certificate was fake.

Although there are seeming discrepancies in the two certificates of President Tinubu being paraded on social media regarding the date of issue and logo, it is clear that the Supreme Court will not rely on social media updates to arrive at an informed decision.

Nigeria’s judiciary is too weak to upturn a Presidential election. Albeit there is always a first time, the 2023 Presidential election will not be the first time. In fact there is a numb feeling that cancelling a Presidential election in Nigeria could lead to a ‘constitutional crisis’
Some of the posers that will crop up in the event of any likelihood of cancelling a Presidential election in Nigeria include but not limited to; Who will take over? For how long? In what capacity? How about power shift? It is ‘our turn’ to rule? These are the sort of infelicitous political mentality amongst us Nigerians. Almost everything in Nigeria is about region and religion.

Since Nigeria’s independence in 1960, no Presidential election has ever been cancelled or the President removed from office by the judiciary over election petitions. This is curious especially when juxtaposed with the fact that every Presidential election in Nigeria has been allegedly marked by very serious irregularities and challenged at the court. Except the 2015 Presidential election which wasn’t challenged at the court though thought to be marred by irregularities. The 2015 Presidential election wasn’t challenged because former President Jonathan negotiated his freedom and struck a deal with the Buhari government not to go to court in exchange for freedom from the hammer of the EFCC over allegations of grand corruption. Obviously, one cannot expect a ‘radical judgement’ in the Tinubu V Atiku saga from a Supreme Court that declared Ahmad Lawan as the Yobe North senatorial candidate of the APC in the 2023 election when he (Lawan) never completed a form for the election nor participated in the primary election. That judgement was based on Lawan’s position as the senate President.

Atiku’s ongoing efforts on Mr Tinubu’s certificate saga may not actually be targeted at upturning the 2023 Presidential election but could be targeted at the next Presidential election in 2027. The game plan by Atiku and the PDP is to weaken President Tinubu’s electoral value through the certificate saga and simultaneously suffocate the APC enroute to creating an advantage for the PDP in the coming 2027 Presidential election. This is not uncommon. It is all politics.

Clearly, Atiku Abubakar has shown some measure of sportsmanship when he stated that he will abide by any ruling of the Supreme Court on the election petition albeit he brought the issue of alleged betrayal meted to him by President Tinubu which by the way, is a non-election matter. From all indications, Atiku seems to be warming up to contest the next Presidential election in 2027.
In the final analysis, it looks certain that the Supreme Court will not upturn the election based on new albeit still disputed evidence on President Tinubu’s certificate. At the end of the day, Atiku Abubakar and PDP’s efforts will turn out to be a mere academic exercise.