Toba Owojaiye Reporting
In a high-stakes presidential election season, a shadow of controversy was cast over Nigeria’s President, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, as allegations of forged academic certificates went viral on social media.
This scandal emerged following the release of Mr. Tinubu’s academic records by Chicago State University (CSU), raising questions about the authenticity of the documents he submitted to the country’s electoral commission.
Various political pundits have delved into this complex web of claims to determine whether there was any concrete evidence of forgery.
These are some findings
Background
The controversy surrounding President Tinubu’s academic records was triggered by a judicial case initiated by one of his primary rivals in the upcoming presidential election, Atiku Abubakar, a prominent figure within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Atiku Abubakar accused President Tinubu of falsifying a CSU diploma dated 1979, specifically a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, which was submitted to the electoral authority (Inec).
To substantiate his claim, Atiku Abubakar pursued a legal path that led him to the United States, seeking the assistance of an American court to compel CSU to release Mr. Tinubu’s academic records. This process, known as discovery, involves the exchange of information, including documents, between parties ahead of a trial.
Mr. Tinubu’s legal team initially opposed this discovery application, citing privacy concerns, but the U.S. court ultimately ruled in favor of proceeding.
The documents sought by Atiku Abubakar in the discovery process were:
⁃ A copy of any CSU diploma issued in 1979.
⁃ A copy of the diploma CSU issued to Mr. Tinubu in 1979.
⁃ Copies of diplomas with the same font, seal, signatures, and wording awarded to other students that resemble what CSU awarded to Mr. Tinubu in 1979.
⁃ Documents from CSU certified by Jamar Orr, a staff member at CSU, within the 12 months starting from 1 August 2022.
CSU’s Response
CSU, complying with the U.S. court’s ruling, provided responses to the discovery requests. Their responses shed light on the case and raised questions surrounding the alleged forgery.
⁃ Response to Request One (A copy of any CSU diploma issued in 1979.):
CSU submitted seven diplomas covering different disciplines from 1979, with students’ names redacted.
According to the university’s registrar, these diplomas had not been collected by the students.
⁃ Response to Request Two (A copy of the diploma CSU issued to Mr. Tinubu in 1979.):
CSU stated that they could not find the diploma they issued to Mr. Tinubu in 1979, as they do not keep copies of diplomas already collected by students.
⁃ Response to Request Three:
(Copies of diplomas with the same font, seal, signatures, and wording awarded to other students that resemble what CSU awarded to Mr. Tinubu in 1979.)
CSU disclosed that they produced a replacement diploma for Mr. Tinubu, dated 27 June 1979. They also released diplomas awarded to other students that shared similar font, seal, signatures, and wordings as Mr. Tinubu’s diplomas.
⁃ Response to Request Four:
(Documents from CSU certified by Jamar Orr, a staff member at CSU, within the 12 months starting from 1 August 2022.):
CSU submitted other academic documents that were initially attested to and released by Mr. Orr.
The data provided by CSU formed the basis for the subsequent analysis and investigation.
Discrepancies and Explanations
The allegations regarding the authenticity of President Tinubu’s diploma were mainly rooted in a comparison between the document he submitted to Inec and the 1979 diplomas released by CSU.
During a deposition session with Caleb Westberg, CSU’s current registrar, Atiku Abubakar’s lawyer, Angela Liu, raised concerns about the copy of the diploma presented to the electoral commission.
It was suggested that this diploma was unlike any of the diplomas released by CSU.
Mr. Westberg acknowledged that the diploma in question did not resemble the 1979 samples.
However, he explained that the certificate actually resembled three of the diplomas CSU released to Atiku Abubakar. Further analysis confirmed this finding.
The discrepancy in appearance between the documents was attributed to the fact that the diploma had been re-issued in the 1990s.
Mr. Westberg also clarified that CSU’s diploma template had evolved over the years.
Therefore, any request for a new diploma would reflect the template in use at that time, regardless of when the student graduated.
Consequently, if Mr. Tinubu had reordered his diploma in the late 1990s, it would naturally resemble the template from that era.
In the data submitted by CSU, three diplomas from the 1990s were found to be similar to Mr. Tinubu’s.
One of them, dated 18 December 1998, was virtually identical to the diploma Mr. Tinubu had handed over to Inec, except for the names, class of degree, and dates.
Mr. Westberg further noted that CSU does not keep records of when graduates request a diploma reissuance.
This fact explained why there was no recorded request for Mr. Tinubu’s diploma. Moreover, Mr. Westberg clarified that the missing portion of the university logo on the copy submitted to the election commission was likely a result of the photocopy process.
Authentication and ‘With Honors’
In a bid to authenticate the diploma Mr. Tinubu submitted, the BBC contacted Mr. Tinubu’s team for a copy of the diploma in question.
The provided copy was a black and white photocopy, identical to what had been submitted to Inec.
Another claim originating from a Nigerian fact-checking organization questioned the authenticity of Mr. Tinubu’s diploma, citing the absence of the phrase “with honors” under the degree name, which was not found in other CSU diplomas.
However, the BBC investigation revealed that this detail was indeed present in the diploma issued to Mr. Tinubu in the early 2000s.
Mr. Westberg authenticated this particular diploma, emphasizing that it was still in CSU’s possession as it had not been collected. He further clarified that not all students graduate with honors, but in several court documents, CSU attested that Mr. Tinubu did graduate with honors.
Gender Identity and Birth Date Discrepancies
The controversy took another twist with allegations circulating on social media that the person attending CSU with the name Bola A Tinubu was female.
This claim stemmed from Southwest College, where an “F” (for “female”) was found in the gender column of the transcript, suggesting that a woman attended the school and that Mr. Tinubu had allegedly stolen her identity. Atiku Abubakar’s lawyer, Mr. Kalu, alluded to this at a press conference.
However, during Mr. Westberg’s deposition, he emphasized that there was no confusion regarding the gender of the individual who attended CSU as the records clearly identified a male named Bola A Tinubu.
The Social Security Number (SSN) found in the transcript from Southwest College corresponded to other documents where the student’s gender was unmistakably marked as male.
Nevertheless, the released documents did raise questions about Mr. Tinubu’s birth date and the secondary school he attended.
One document indicated that Mr. Tinubu attended Government College Lagos in 1970.
This seemed problematic, as information available on the school’s website stated that it was only founded in 1974.
Aside from the gender discrepancy, the birth dates in some of the released documents differ from the official birth date of President Tinubu, which is 29 March 1952.
His transcript from CSU has his date of birth as 29 March 1954.
His undergraduate admissions application form has his date of birth as 29 March 1955.
Mr Atiku’s lawyer said during Mr Westberg’s deposition that on the forms submitted to Inec, Mr Tinubu had given his date of birth as 29 March 1952.
Mr Westberg, during cross-examination, responded that the discrepancies could have been due to human error.