Former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar, has said that he is in court in the United States against President Bola Tinubu, in other to further the cause of democracy in Nigeria….CONTINUE READING...CONTINUE READING
At the United States District Court of Illinois, Atiku’s lawyer, Angela M. Liu, late on Wednesday, filed the former Vice President’s opposition to Tinubu’s objection to an earlier order for his (Tinubu’s) Chicago State University (CSU) records to be released.
The lawyer said in the pleading that Atiku “is not seeking the disclosure of Intervenor’s (Tinubu’s) educational documents; he is seeking to authenticate documents that are already in the public record.”
A decision of the court is expected shortly.
Speaking with Saturday Tribune on Friday, Atiku’s spokesman, Phrank Shaibu, said everything the former vice president was doing in the case was to strengthen democracy.
“Our expectation is that the US court will render justice. We’ve been able to show that our need for the records of discovery, as extra evidence in our appeal at the Supreme Court, far outweighs Tinubu’s claims to the preservation of his so-called rights to privacy. Our country and our democracy will be the better for it by unveiling the records of Tinubu at the CSU,” he said.
PDP speaks
Meanwhile, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has said that the application by the lawyers of President Bola Tinubu urging the United States District Court of Illinois not to release details of his academic records at the Chicago State University (CSU) are in direct conflict with his public declarations that the records are impeccable.
The main opposition party has therefore charged the All Progressives Congress (APC) to come clean on what it said is the desperation by the lawyers to conceal certain vital details regarding the president’s academic records.
The PDP made the assertion in a statement issued on Friday by Debo Ologunagba, its National Publicity Secretary, where it recalled that President Tinubu had in a public function openly asserted to Nigerians that “I was one of those most recruited graduates of my university, multiple honours, First Class degree and I have the reference point.”
The statement noted that in view of the above assertion, the plea by the lawyers that the details of his academic record should not be released is a great disservice to President Tinubu in particular and Nigeria in general.
“This desperation to conceal vital information is consistent with APC’s penchant for trickery and underhand dealings in their transactions with Nigerians which has heightened under the Abdullahi Ganduje leadership.”
At an emergency hearing, last week, Judge of the District Court of Northern Illinois, Eastern Division, Judge Nancy Maldonado had agreed with Tinubu to delay an earlier order by a magistrate court which directed Chicago State University to provide academic documents of President Tinubu withing 48 hours.
Maldonado ordered the lawyers on both sides to file additional arguments by Thursday, 28 September.
Ms Maldonado said she would rule as quickly as possible after the filling saying, “I will have a busy weekend.
“The issue is of process and rules. I’m a rule person; that’s why I’m a judge. This case is quite involved. I am aware of the stakes. It’s more important to me to get this right,” she was quoted as making that statement by CBS news.
Atiku had alleged that documents showing that Tinubu graduated from Chicago State University in 1979 were fraught with inconsistencies.
The university worsened the case when it told the court that it could confirm that the president graduated from CSU but could not authenticate the certificate in question because it is a ceremonial document that was not part of a student’s official academic file.
At the hearing by the U.S. district judge last week Thursday, Chicago State University’s lawyer Michael Hayes said the university was ready to provide the requested documents once the legal issues were resolved.
“We don’t have a dog in this fight,” said Mr Hayes, adding that the university had amassed significant legal fees and unwarranted bad public relations because of the political fight in a foreign land.”
What Atiku wants
Atiku’s requests are that the university should be compelled to provide:
(1) An example of a Chicago State University diploma issued to President Tinubu in 1979.
(2) Mr Tinubu’s diploma issued in 1979.
(3) Any example of a Chicago State University diploma that “contains the same font, seal, signatures, and wording as contained in Exhibit C to the First Liu Declaration, which purports to be a CSU diploma issued to Mr Tinubu on or about June 22, 1979.”
(4) CSU documents certified and produced by Jamar Orr, an associate general counsel at CSU at the time.
Judge Jeffrey Gilbert of a Magistrate Court in Chicago had earlier issued a 48-hour ultimatum to the CSU to release Tinubu’s academic records to Atiku to enable him prove his case against Tinubu at the presidential election tribunal.
Judge Gilbert noted that the, “court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
She added that, “for all of the reasons discussed above, Atiku Abubakar’s application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for an order directing discovery from Chicago State University for use in a foreign proceeding [ECF No. 1] is granted.”
The court further held that the institution “shall produce all relevant and non-privileged documents in response to requests for production Nos. 1 through 4 (as narrowed by the court) in applicant subpoena within two days of the entry of this memorandum opinion and order.
“The deposition of respondent’s corporate designee shall proceed within two days of the production of documents. The parties can modify the dates set by the court by mutual agreement. Given the tight time frame under which the parties are operating, the deposition can, if necessary, occur on a non-weekday,” the court added.
Tinubu had on June 17, 2022, submitted a certificate to INEC that was purportedly issued in 1979 and signed by Elnora Daniel. But Atiku claimed that Ms. Daniel only arrived at CSU in 1998 from Hampton University, 19 years after Tinubu was said to have graduated and that she left the school in 2008 or 14 years before June 2022, when CSU issued yet a fresh certificate in Tinubu’s name under subpoena from a Nigerian lawyer who had inquired about Tinubu’s education there.
Atiku subsequently filed the suit to compel CSU to produce records relating to Tinubu and make its top officials available for deposition to certify the produced records.
Why court should not grant Atiku’s request —Tinubu
Tinubu in his court filings told Judge Maldonado that Atiku “is not seeking anything more than opposition research on a political opponent”, adding that the magistrate, “clearly erred in granting the application for discovery and concluding that Chicago State University must respond to the document and deposition subpoenas”.
While stating that there was no presumption in favour of applications to conduct discovery under Section 1782, Tinubu urged the court to deny outright the application or narrowly limit it to “a handful of questions about the diploma submitted to INEC”.
He predicated his arguments on the grounds that the, “Discovery could not be for use in the foreign proceeding because the Nigerian election court held that it cannot be used and the only document at issue is the diploma.”
Besides, Tinubu submitted that the discovery was unduly intrusive to Private And Confidential Educational Records, which, by the United States laws, could not be released without his consent.
He argued, “The Magistrate erroneously concluded that a foray into ‘other educational documents’ was permissible because ‘Intervenor also submitted other educational documents in a related proceeding in Nigeria.
“There are three shortcomings with this conclusion. First, the Nigerian constitution and Electoral Act pertain to submissions to the INEC. There is no assertion that submissions as a defence in a different and subsequent proceeding will cause disqualification.
“Second, the other submissions occurred in a ‘related proceeding,’ and Applicant justified the discovery here about the election challenge now proceeding before the Nigerian Supreme Court
“Discovery about ‘other documents’ cannot be ‘for use’ in the election challenge proceeding.
“Third, the catchall category of ‘other documents’ is vague and is cover for a fishing expedition into protected, private, and confidential records.
“The Magistrate erred in requiring compliance with two subpoenas that go far beyond the narrow issue of the diploma submitted to the INEC, and finding that the education records protections were overcome by Applicant’s investigatory interests.”
Tinubu had in his appeal during the week pleaded that if the court was inclined to grant Atiku’s application for discovery, it should be limited to only the diploma certificate he submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in aid of his qualification for the 2023 presidential election, which he won.
“That conclusion should be set aside and the application should be denied because the information sought cannot be used and, therefore, is not ‘for use’ in the foreign proceedings.
“Even if a narrow subset of information can be considered ‘for use’ in the foreign proceeding, that is limited to the diploma submitted to INEC. Fishing expeditions into other documents and more document productions must be precluded.”
Atiku had argued that Tinubu ought not to be on the ballot on the grounds of presenting false and forged documents to INEC.
Atiku had pointed out that there were conflicting dates in Tinubu’s Diploma certificate, adding that other documents relating to Tinubu’s record in the institution showed the president as a female
Although the Presidential Election Petition Court, in its judgement of September 6, had dismissed Atiku’s request for the disqualification of Tinubu over his certificate controversies, Atiku told the US court that the apex court could consider fresh evidence against Tinubu.
Following his conviction that Atiku’s application had merit and outweighed Tinubu’s plea of protection and privacy, Gilbert ordered that Tinubu’s record be released to confirm or dispute Atiku’s allegations.
But a few hours to the execution of the order, Tinubu, in a fresh emergency application, begged the district court to delay the enforcement of the order of Gilbert till, September 25 saying he would not be prejudiced against if the court delayed the release of the said documents up till September 27 to submit materials in support of his appeal at the Supreme Court….CONTINUE READING
