Chicago varsity responds to Atiku’s application, agrees to release Tinubu’s records if…

Chicago State University (CSU) has finally responded to the application filed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, requesting the academic records of President Bola Tinubu, a former student of the institution, however, saying it will only comply with an order of the court.

The school had initially refused to disclose the credentials of now President, Tinubu on account of protecting privacy of the student.

Atiku had approached a United States court seeking a compellation on CSU to release Tinubu’s academic records.

Releasing its response, Thursday, to the ongoing case, CSU said it has agreed to release the documents if ordered by court in the United States.

In the response, CSU in affirming that Tinubu attended the institution in 1979, claimed that the documents Atiku requested from it ‘through documents subpoena and deposition subpoena are Tinubu’s ‘Private Educational Records.’

This is also as the CSU said it ‘struggles to understand’ how Tinubu’s  grades and students records from the 1970s, dates, signatories and certificates have any bearing on the 2023 General Elections.

The CSU further argued that since they are not familiar with the legal systems in Nigeria and other legal principles, Tinubu, who is familiar with the issues and directly involved, should himself advance his arguments and objections.

CSU also informed the court that they held a conference with Atiku lawyers who told them that documents cannot be tendered at the PEPT anymore, but that Atiku ‘might’ introduce it when the case is appealed to the Supreme Court.

The American school, therefore, begged the court to rule on the case only after scrutinizing the status of the PEPT and the possibility of any discovery from the documents in the PEPT.

CSU’s full statement:  “Pursuant to this Court’s Order dated August 9, 2023 (Doc. 15), Respondent Chicago State University (the “University), for its response to the 28 U.S.C. 1782 Application filed herein by Atiku Abubakar (“Abubakar), states and submits as follows:

The University Defers to Intervener Tinubu Concerning Privacy and Relevance Issues.

Bola Tinubu, the President of Nigeria, graduated from the University in 1979. One of his political opponents, Abubakar, socks discovery from the University of Tinubu’s student records and information about the dates and circumstances certain diplomas were issued by the University, asserting such discovery is pertinent to a Nigerian proceeding challenging Tinubu’s election earlier this year.

“The student records Abubakar seeks from the University via a documents subpoena (Doc.1-1) and the information Abubakar seeks the University to provide pursuant to a deposition subpoena (Dec. 1-2) concem Tinubu’s private educational records. But since Tinubu has intervened to oppose this discovery, the University defers to Tinubu on the privacy issues implicated by Abubakar’s Application.

Similarly, the University defers to Tinubu on whether any of the discovery information sought here is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. 41782, including whether it is relevant to the pending Nigerian proceeding. “The University struggles to understand how-given that Tinubu did in fact graduate from the University in 1979-Tinubu’s grades and other student records from the 1970s and date and signatory information on subsequently issued ceremonial diplomas could possibly have any bearing on a 2023 election challenge in a foreign country. But the University is admittedly not familiar with the issues in the Nigerian proceeding or the evidentiary and other legal principles applicable therein. Accordingly, the University defers to Tinubu-who obviously is familiar with these issues and directly involved in that foreign proceeding-to advance procedural and relevancy objections to the Application

“In a recent conference with Abubakar’s counsel about the Application, Abubakar’s counsel confirmed that the evidentiary phase of the Nigerian proceeding has concluded, but that the information sought in the Application might be introduced in appellate proceedings to come. The University respectfully requests that this Court, in ruling on the Application, scrutinize both the actual status of the Nigerian proceeding and the likelihood that any discovery information provided by the University would in fact be considered in the Nigerian proceeding

“The University Reserves Objections to the Scope of the Discovery Sught by Abubakar. Finally, in the event the Court determines to allow any discovery to proceed here, the University urges the Court to direct only limited, targeted discovery on the University. As leave to issue any discovery has not yet been granted, and the Court’s views on what if any discovery is appropriate here under 28 U.S.C. $1782 are not yet known, it is premature for the University to raise objections to the scope of the documents and information sought in Abubakar’s subpoenas.

“But without limiting further objections, which the University expressly reserves, the University notes that the scope and relevancy of certain of Abubakar’s requests are clearly inappropriate. For example, Abubakar’s document subpoena Request No. 5 seeks information on diplomas issued by the University for a 44-year period (1979 to the present), and Abubakar’s deposition subpoena Topic No. 7 seeks information on the employment status and reasons for departure of a former employee in the University’s General Counsel’s Office. Following this Court’s ruling on the Application, should any discovery be permitted, the University will meet and confer promptly and in good faith with Abubakar’s counsel to attempt to address all the University’s concerns.”

Meanwhile, in Tinubu’s application seeking to stop the CSU response, the President, through his counsels, had argued that though Atiku’s application fulfil 1 of 3 jurisdictional issues. But it did not fulfil 2 others, including that; the discovery (of Educational documents) is not ‘for use’ in the pending electoral proceedings: Here, Tinubu argues that in the electoral petition before the PEPT, Atiku did not raise his Educational background in the initial petition (even though he tendered evidence, called witnesses and made arguments in his final written address to the effect).

And also that Atiku is not an ‘interested party’ in other proceedings: Here, Tinubu argues that Atiku is not a party to the Enahoro Case. Being that it was Enahoro who started the discovery of Tinubu’s educational records.

Tinubu argued that himself and Atiku are parties in an election suit and should be a reason not to grant his application. That the Supreme Court has cautioned about it, and also that Atiku cannot use the documents if given since evidence at the Tribunal closed since July 29, 2023. So there is ‘no indication’ that the Nigerian court will receive additional evidence.

 Finally, Tinubu argued that Atiku’s application is ‘unduly intrusive or contains burdensome requests’. That the numerous documents listed by Atiku are ‘beyond broad and are burdensome’ and the disposition subpoena is a fishing expedition and to satisfy curiosity.

Tinubu listed cases to support his arguments and concluded that the application should be denied since CSU have ‘clearly and conclusively’ established that ‘Bola A. Tinubu’ graduated from CSU in ‘June 1979’.

It would be recalled that the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, had, Monday, ruled that it had jurisdiction in the case instituted by Atiku, to compel Chicago State University (CSU) to produce critical documents relating to Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Atiku’s application was spurred by an earlier case in Nigeria precisely on November 9, 2022, several months before the Presidential elections, in which one Mr. Mike Enahoro-Ebah, described as a “Human Rights Defender and Public Interest Litigator” in Abuja, Nigeria, commenced proceedings against Mr. Tinubu by filing a “Direct Criminal Complaint” in the Chief Magistrate Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

In his complaint, Mr. Enahoro-Ebah alleged that Mr. Tinubu submitted an “Affidavit of Personal Particulars” to INEC in June 2022 as part of a required filing to run for President that included a forged CSU diploma dated June 22, 1979  and other information that is inconsistent with the CSU documents.

According to court papers filed by Atiku in the US court dated August 2, 2023, to support the allegations, “Mr. Enahoro-Ebah stated that after Mr. Tinubu made his INEC filing, Mr. Enahoro-Ebah obtained a subpoena from the Circuit Court of Cook County, dated August 11, 2022, and served it on CSU. In response to the subpoena, CSU’s Registrar, Mr. Caleb Westberg, sent a letter dated September 22, 2022, to Mr. Enahoro-Ebah’s Chicago counsel, Mr. Matthew J. Kowals, advising Mr. Kowals that “[t]he enclosed documentation is all the records we have for Bola E. Tinubu.

“According to the complaint, the documents that accompanied Mr. Westberg’s letter included a CSU diploma issued to Mr. Tinubu on June 27, 1979. The June 27 diploma allegedly produced by CSU to Mr. Kowals, and the June 22 diploma allegedly submitted by Mr. Tinubu to INEC, are very different documents. In addition to the different dates, the documents have different seals, fonts, and language. The June 22 diploma has grammatical errors that the June 27 diploma does not have. They are also signed by different persons who are ostensibly officials of CSU. The June 22 diploma has three signatures, one of which purports to be the signature of Dr. Elnora Daniel as President of CSU. The other two signatures on the June 22 diploma are illegible.

“By contrast, the June 27 diploma only has two signatures. They purport to be the signatures of Dr. Daniel, again as the President of CSU, and Dr. Niva Lubin as the Chairperson of the Board of Trustees.

“In his complaint, Mr. Enahoro-Ebah asserts that the June 27 diploma produced by CSU to Mr. Kowals is authentic, and that the June 22 diploma submitted by Mr. Tinubu to INEC is a forgery. However, Applicant’s staff have recently conducted further research into the names of CSU officials with legible signatures on the two diplomas: Dr. Daniel (whose signature appears on both the June 22 and June 27 diplomas) and Dr. Lubin (whose signature appears only on the June 27 diploma). According to public records, Dr. Daniel and Dr. Lubin did not join CSU until the late 1990s—around two decades after CSU supposedly awarded the June 22 diploma and/or the June 27 diploma to Mr. Tinubu.

Applicant’s research therefore calls into question the authenticity of both the June 22 and the June 27 diplomas.

In his complaint, Mr. Enahoro-Ebah alleged the following additional discrepancies between the information provided by Mr. Tinubu to INEC and the documents produced by CSU to Mr. Enahoro-Ebah:

“According to documents produced by CSU, the “Bola Tinubu” who attended CSU was a U.S. citizen, while in the information provided to INEC, Mr. Tinubu states that he has always been solely a Nigerian citizen and has never acquired the citizenship of any other country.  According to the documents produced by CSU, the “Bola Tinubu” who attended CSU was born in 1954, while according to the information provided to the INEC, Mr. Tinubu was born in 1952.

“According to the documents produced by CSU, the “Bola Tinubu” who applied to CSU submitted a prior transcript from Southwest College that identified “Bola Tinubu” as “female.” According to the documents produced by CSU, the “Bola Tinubu” who attended CSU claimed that s/he had graduated from Government College, Lagos, in 1970, while in the information provided to INEC, Mr. Tinubu makes no mention of having attended Government College.

Pursuant to the above,  Atiku, by and through his counsel, applied to the Court for an order granting him leave to compel CSU to release and verify the authenticity of documents purportedly issued to Tinubu by the university.

Going by available court papers, the Court has established that it has jurisdiction over this matter in accordance with US laws which “authorizes any “interested person” to request that a United States District Court order the discovery of documents and testimony for use in a foreign proceeding from persons that “reside[] or [are] found” within its District.”

The court said Atiku has satisfied all statutory requirements as he is an “interested person”; and the respondent, CSU, is a public university established and existing under the laws of Illinois, with its principal campus and offices in Chicago.

Having met all requirements, the court ruled that it will not hesitate to grant the prayers of Atiku.