Tinubu’s academic records must be made public within 48 hours (US court)

Atiku Abubakar, the People’s Democratic Party’s (PDP) nominee for president, has once more prevailed in his protracted legal struggle to have President Bola Tinubu’s academic credentials for the February 25 presidential election investigated.

In order to be eligible to vote in the election, Tinubu had given the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, certifications from Chicago State University, CSU.

A court in the United States of America ordered CSU to produce Tinubu’s academic transcripts on Saturday in order to verify them and support Atiku’s claim to have the results of the 2023 presidential election challenged.

In a ruling, Justice Nancy Maldonado explicitly directed the CSU to give Atiku access to his academic records while rejecting Tinubu’s objection to Atiku’s request.

All four of the grounds on which the former vice president based his legal claim in a US court were upheld by the judge in the judgement.

The ruling that the academic records be made public in the interest of justice was made by Justice Maldonado after stating that Tinubu’s inflammatory words could not stand in for the presence of facts.

The judge gave the university a 48-hour deadline to comply with her ruling and give the PDP presidential contender access to the contentious academic data.

In the ruling, Justice Maldonado noted that Tinubu had not shown any solid evidence to support overturning the Magistrate Court’s decision, which had earlier accepted Atilku’s motion before Tinubu attempted to halt the order’s enforcement.

“The Court established an expedited briefing timetable on President Tinubu’s objections given the impending Nigerian court deadlines.

“That briefing is now complete, and the Court has gone over the parties’ statements. The Court rejects President Tinubu’s objections and fully approves Judge Gilbert’s suggested ruling for the reasons outlined in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

“Therefore, the Court grants Mr. Abubakar’s application pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

It is mandated that CSU reply to Mr. Abubakar’s subpoena in the manner and time specified below.

The concerns made by Tinubu in opposition to the disclosure of Atiku’s academic records include assertions of privacy and that Atiku was engaged in a fishing expedition because he can no longer use the records to support his appeal at the Supreme Court because the presidential tribunal did not take his case into account.

But according to Justice Maldonado, Judge Gilbert only provided a “report and recommendation” in the application dated August 2 that was subject to de novo review for any parts that were objected to.

Naturally, as will be demonstrated below, the Court finally comes to the same decision as Judge Gilbert and decides that the application should be approved. Furthermore, as already said, the Court only revisits elements of Judge Gilbert’s opinion that have drawn objections from a party.

“For the portions to which no party has objected, the opinion is reviewed only for clear error,” the judge stated.

The court held that Tinubu failed to present “any testimony or evidence indicating that the Court of Appeal decision somehow prevents the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in its discretion, from considering new arguments and evidence under exceptional circumstances” in response to Tinubu’s argument that the documents could not be presented to the top court to prove Atiku’s case.

In fact, President Tinubu explicitly acknowledged such was the situation before Judge Gilbert, and he continues to accept the existence of this legal procedure for submitting evidence to the Supreme Court of Nigeria in “exceptional circumstances.” The evidence does not support President Tinubu’s assertion that the evidence “cannot be considered under any circumstances” at that point.

“This Court will not or cannot make assumptions about Nigerian law or practise. President Tinubu did not object to the sworn affidavit before Judge Gilbert, which states that the Supreme Court of Nigeria may take new evidence into consideration in extreme cases.

It is therefore undeniable that there is a method by which Mr. Abubakar can perhaps introduce the desired finding into the international proceedings. It is not for the Supreme Court of Nigeria to decide whether Mr. Abubakar can utilise the documents or whether it will take them into consideration while making a judgement, the judge said.

The court determined that CSU has exclusive access to the evidence because Mr. Abubakar has no other way of getting the sought-after details about President Tinubu’s diploma and schooling. This is because the court determined that the discovery is therefore unquestionably of considerable importance, as are the issues at stake.

“These Rule 26 considerations therefore support granting the request for discovery,” the judge concluded.

“This Court will not hinder the flow of discovery when the respondent is ready and willing to produce it and it is in the sole possession of a U.S. institution on an issue of such importance.

“The Court finds the final discretionary factor weighs in favour of granting the application because it determines that Mr. Abubakar’s interest in the discovery outweighs President Tinubu’s privacy interests and because the Court need not worry itself with any burden to CSU in making the production.

“The Court concludes that, on balance, the discretionary factors support granting Mr. Abubakar’s application, with three factors leaning in his favour and one neutral. Apart from saying they are overly wide generally, President Tinubu made no specific objections to Judge Gilbert’s decisions about the scope of the discovery requests.

But even if he had, the Court has determined on its own that the requests are properly tailored to gather the necessary data. The portion of Judge Gilbert’s decision that restricted the scope of Mr. Abubakar’s request for production number four was not objected to by him, and the Court agrees that requesting CSU to conduct electronic discovery at this time is neither appropriate nor practical.

Thus, the Court accepts Judge Gilbert’s decision regarding the nature of the discovery requests. Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 4 must be complied with, however Request No. 4’s section requesting “all communications to or from CSU regarding the certification of such documents by Jamar C. Orr, Esq., during the period of August 1, 2022 to August 1, 2023” is exempt from CSU’s obligation to comply. (Dkt. 40 at 28.) Regarding the deposition, CSU is required to provide a witness who can speak to each of the five subjects listed in the subpoena.

“For the aforementioned reasons, the Court rejects President Tinubu’s objections to Magistrate Judge Gilbert’s suggested decision and so upholds it in its entirety. Therefore, Mr. Abubakar’s application is approved. The Court establishes an accelerated timeline for the conclusion of discovery in view of the impending Supreme Court of Nigeria deadline, which is set as October 5, 2023, and based on CSU’s assurances that it is prepared to abide by the discovery demands and produce a witness.

Respondent CSU is required to respond to Mr. Abubakar’s subpoena’s Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 4 (as limited by Judge Gilbert and approved here) by noon (noon) CDT on Monday, October 2, 2023, with all pertinent and non-privileged documents.

By 5:00 p.m. CDT on Tuesday, October 3, 2023, CSU’s corporate designee’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition must be finished. The Supreme Court of Nigeria’s filing date is October 5, 2023, hence the court will not extend or change this deadline.