Atiku Abubakar, the original spark behind the controversy over the validity of the credentials President Bola Tinubu provided to INEC, has now been drawn into it. However, the information at hand indicates that neither of them provided INEC with fake documents.
I follow where the evidence points. The inclusion of the phrase “the best obtainable version of the truth” in last week’s column was advised because it meant that I might state the exact opposite of what I had previously claimed in light of fresh information. I have no vested interest in any viewpoint. Even though Tinubu is an unmitigated disaster as president, I will stand by the facts, even if they are in his favour.
I’ve read and reviewed every statistic linked to this subject, and these are the seven facts I’ve discovered thus far:
- Tinubu attended Chicago State University, graduated in 1979, and was given a diploma (or certificate, to use the Nigerian term), which he collected (I erred in thinking the registrar had indicated he hadn’t; See number 3). The original diploma was apparently misplaced by him in 1979, and he was given a “replacement diploma dated 27 June 1979,” according to the BBC.
- He applied for and received a replacement diploma from CSU in the 1990s. He received a letter from the CSU registrar in 1999 confirming that he did, in fact, graduate from the school in 1979, ostensibly because it doesn’t appear like his 1979 diploma (because diplomas have the signatures of the current president and look like the diplomas issued that year).
- He asked for yet another replacement diploma in the 2000s, which the university provided but which he didn’t collect. He lost the original copy of the 1990s replacement diploma (but has a photocopy of it). When the registrar brought up this passage during his statement, I misinterpreted him for suggesting that Tinubu had not received his 1979 certificate. I apologise.
- Tinubu presented INEC with a photocopy of the 1990s replacement diploma and the 1999 “To Whom It May Concern” letter from the CSU Registrar as proof of his academic qualifications to run for president in 2022.
- The diploma wasn’t the same as the ones CSU presented in 1979, according to opposition politicians who viewed it. they declared it to be a hoax.
- The assertion was fact-checked by the BBC’s Disinformation Team, which concluded that it was true. It only appears phoney because the university’s emblem at the bottom of the diploma was removed during photocopying when it was republished in 1998. Every other aspect of the diploma, according to the BBC, is the same as the ones CSU issued or renewed in 1998.
- The lack of the university logo at the bottom of the duplicated INEC diploma caused the registrar to disown it during his deposition, but even he made the suggestion that it “was possibly ‘cut off’ when it was photocopied.” Therefore, it was a conditional disavowal.
The Foundation for Investigative Journalism (FIJ) made an effort to cast doubt on the accuracy of the BBC fact check, but it was unsuccessful.
According to the FIJ, “of particular relevance was the phrase ‘with honours’ that appeared on the certificate Tinubu submitted to INEC. Because the certificate continues, “with all the rights, honours, and privileges partaking thereto,” the phrase “with honours” in Tinubu’s certificate is a tautology.[sic]. The absence of such terms beneath the course of study in any of the 1990s examples provided by CSU shows that Tinubu’s certificate, which was allegedly received during the same period, did not come from the institution.
That assertion is questionable. No matter the class, a standardised sentence that appears on all diplomas is “With all the rights, honours and privileges pertaining thereto.” Since graduating with honours is an academic distinction that only a select group of students can attain, the addition of “with honours” is not redundant with the fixed phrase that already appears on all diplomas at various U.S. universities.
In any event, the registrar displayed Tinubu’s unclaimed replacement diploma from the 2000s during the deposition, which has both the prescribed sentence AND “with honours.”
The argument that replacement diploma samples from the 1990s don’t include “with honours” is also unconvincing because CSU’s data only included uncollected diplomas, not a representative sample of all types and classes of diplomas received or reissued that year. It’s possible that the uncollected diplomas listed in CSU records didn’t earn the distinction necessary to have “with honours” attached to them.
READ ALSO: Certificate forgery: Dele Momodu publishes Atiku’s school calendar (SEE PHOTOS)
It’s not a given that the uncollected diplomas in CSU’s records will be among the 20% to 30% of students who graduate with honours at American schools and universities (Ivy League universities have higher percentages, though).
In addition, according to FIJ, “Two, whomever prepared the contentious certificate in Tinubu’s possession replicated the 2000s form without considering timing differences. One of the signatures on Tinubu’s certificate makes this very evident. Zaldwaynaka “Z,” the current President of CSU who assumed office in 2018, signed the document on the right. A certificate purportedly issued in the 1990s could not have been signed by a president who entered office in 2018.
Due to the absence of “Zaldwaynaka Z” on the diploma Tinubu provided to INEC, it appears that this assertion is untrue. The only difference between the photocopied CSU diploma Tinubu provided to INEC and samples of replacement CSU diplomas from the 1990s is the absence of the university logo in Tinubu’s copy due to photocopying.
The registrar’s denial of the diploma’s validity does not invalidate it because he just stated that the absence of the CSU logo on the photocopy presented to him made it appear to be something other than a diploma from the university. People who are emotionally invested in the claim that Tinubu “forged” a diploma he legitimately earned (which is absurdly excessive legal literalism to begin with) omit that context and make it seem as though the registrar’s words are an unquestionable statement of fact rather than a conditional, context-dependent answer to a particular question about a particular photocopied document that doesn’t reflect all the characteristics of diplomas CSU issued in 1998 BECAUSE of photocopying
In a startlingly dramatic way, this subject has shown me how partisan blinkers may affect people’s perceptions of reality. People would prefer to cling to the most ridiculous apophenic hallucinations (i.e., seeing preset patterns from a cacophony of unrelated phenomena) they can conjure to confirm their assumptions when they so desperately want something to be true yet it turns out to be untrue. Although I have studied and taught about this phenomenon for years, I have never before witnessed it emerge on such a large scale.
The only fresh information that will alter the discourse is the unmistakable admission that Tinubu didn’t graduate on time and that dishonest university administrators gave him a fake transcript to prove it. That would create a legal foundation for forgery. Knowing what I do about the school right now, I won’t be surprised if this occurs. Therefore, I believe that the solution to the issue is hidden rather than obvious. Only thorough inquiry will reveal it.
Last but not least, the CSU registrar never stated that “forgery is a Nigerian thing.” Tinubu had his attorney acquire copies of his academic transcripts from CSU and asked that they be certified by the institution before providing them to Tinubu.
When Atiku’s attorney enquired as to whether CSU had ever certified any of the documents it had distributed, the registrar responded, “No, I believe this was made because it is more of a Nigerian thing.” Therefore, the “Nigerian thing” he spoke to was not fabrication but the certification of school records for legal purposes.
Atiku’s academic transcript
Atiku’s post-secondary school appellative alteration was dug up by Tinubu’s henchmen in an effort to avenge him, and they are now using it to accuse him of forging his diploma. But let’s look at the facts.
In Muslim northern Nigeria, “Sadiq” and “Siddiq” and all other spelling variations are identical. This is how Atiku was referred to. He was given the name Abu Bakr in honour of the first caliph of Islam, whom the prophet of Islam referred to as “al-Siddiq,” which is Arabic for “the righteous.” Therefore, every Abubakar (our domestication of Abu Bakr) is a Siddiq in Muslim northern Nigeria, and vice versa for every Umar.
When Siddiq and Abubakar share the same first and last names, some have questioned why Atiku is tautonymous, or having the same first and last names. Well, in the early years of education in Northern Nigeria, people hid the names of their fathers in order to save them from bullying by other students. Some people adopted toponyms, or geographical names, as their family names (Aminu Kano, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, and Ahmadu Rabah, before changing his name to Bello, are notable instances).
However, some people went with the tautonymous option. Former president Muhammadu Buhari is one of them. He was given the name Muhammad al-Bukhari in honour of the renowned ninth-century Hadith compiler who was a native of the city of Bukhara in what is now the Uzbek Republic. Bukhari just refers to a Bukharan person. However, every Buhari is a Muhammad in northern Nigeria. In this sense, Muhammadu Buhari is a tautonym.
Atiku presumably started out by using a tautonym as well. I’m not sure where he got the name Atiku, but it’s a Nigerianized version of the Arabic name Atiq, which means “ancient.” According to some, it means “freed.” Arabs and Bangladeshis both refer to it as Atiqullah.
But more than anything, he actually took an oath to validate this name change. Bola Tinubu, who we now know was formerly known as Lamidi Amoda Sangodele, cannot be said to be in the same boat.
A well-known Nigerian newspaper writer and journalism professor located in the United States is Farooq Kperogi.
