The Chicago State University transcripts of President Bola Tinubu were accepted as evidence by the Presidential Election Petitions Court after the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Abubakar Atiku, the PDP’s presidential candidate, petitioned against Tinubu’s election win.
The educational records submitted to prove Tinubu’s attendance and graduation from the American university included, among other things, the institution’s entrance letter, which was presented during the petition’s resumed hearing.
Tinubu submitted his Chicago State University transcripts and American visa paperwork via his main attorney, Wole Olanipekun, as evidence that he visited the United States freely between 2011 and 2021.
The President made all of the documentation from the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) that approved him for the US visits accessible to the court, along with the evidence he submitted to refute the criminal accusations brought against him in the lawsuit.
The US Embassy letter from April 4, 2003, which is a response to a letter from the Nigeria Police Force dated February 3, 2003, claiming that the embassy had no record of Tinubu having any criminal offences in the US, has also been accepted as an exhibit by the court.
The PDP and former Vice President Abubakar challenged the papers’ eligibility but were overruled.
Nevertheless, the petition’s first and third respondents, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the All Progressives Congress (APC), were open to the inclusion of all the papers.
Together with the academic records, the court also accepted the originating summons of a lawsuit brought by the solicitors general of the states of Adamawa, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Delta, Edo, and Sokoto contesting Tinubu’s educational qualifications to run for President in 2023.
The President’s attorneys requested an adjournment after presenting the documented evidence to support their case. This was done so they could summon oral witnesses.
After calling one witness before the Tribunal earlier in the day, the electoral umpire concluded its defence of the petition submitted by the Labour Party.
While acknowledging that some of the data retrieved from INEC’s homepage were distorted, the witness, ICT specialist Lawrence Bayode, argued under cross-examination that the commission’s announcement of the presidential election results was accurate.
Patrick Ikwueto, the lawyer for the Labour Party, disagreed, claiming that entirely illegible results cannot be genuine.
