By CEO @VivaDido
From your letter, it is obvious you’ve not studied the CSU deposition but just being swayed by the views of many who have neither read the deposition nor the PEPC Judgment.
In response to your query number 2, go to pages 111 and 112 of the deposition and see where they admitted that the SSN in the South-West College record and the one in the CSU record are the same.
In that same page and other pages, you would see where they admitted their belief that the female gender could have been a typographical error on the part of South West College.
Anyway, read my quoted post for clarity.
Go for the truth and stop peddling propaganda.
This is a bit long but it’s worth reading.
According to Mark Twain, a man who can read but does not read is not better than a man who can not read.
I had seen some people claim that the CSU team had deposed that forgery of documents is a Nigerian thing. This claim is false. If you have the cleansed document, please check page 82.
One of the CSU team members was asked by Ms Liu about their certification process, if any of their documents issued to requisitioners was certified. The witness said no, and that he had never seen any of such but this time around, the requisitioners from Nigeria were requesting and insisting for the requested documents to be certified (definitely, Nigerian institutions are like British, certified documents are more authentic and reliable here). So based on the pressure they’re getting for the documents to be certified which to them was strange, they then believe the request for the certification of the document (stamping, sealing, etc) is a Nigerian thing.
What I think is that, their documents are already certified by their seal, stamp or signatories but they don’t call this certification like we do.
CSU did not at any time say ‘Forgery is a Nigerian thing’
—————-
On page 96
The CSU admitted that while other countries might give so much attention to diplomas, in the US, diplomas are treated as ceremonial documents and do not really hold so much official value. They don’t really see it as an official document.
——————
On pages 92/93
CSU did not have the June 22nd 1979 diploma of Tinubu but the June 27th 1979 diploma and admitted the difference in date was human error.
The witness admitted that CSU presented the original diploma to Bola A. Tinubu in 1979 but that’s not the copy submitted to INEC by Tinubu. According to them, the copy submitted to INEC has the signatories of officers who started working in their institution some time later but not in 1979.
They admitted there was an order for a replacement from Tinubu probably due to the loss of his original diploma and when it was ready, he didn’t show up to pick it. When asked if they have any idea why he didn’t show up, they said it’s common for students to apply for the certificates but not show up due to reasons best known to them. They admitted that it’s a common practice. *This is true, many Nigerians in Nigeria have not even gone to pick up their original certificates (diplomas/degrees) due to certain reasons.
They admitted the discrepancy in the date of award of the diploma and the replacement copy was a typographical error.
The CSU witness admitted that their replacement certificates are no longer done in-house but outsourced. According to the witness, he believed around that 1979 period, it must have been done in-house. *Remember, Tinubu picked up his original diploma in 1979, that doesn’t mean it’s in that same year he lost it. So I believe his request for a replacement could be some years after 1979*
—————–
Pages 100/101
According to the witness while being cross-examined by VICTOR P. HENDERSON, ESQ; they’ve been receiving series of emails from people trying to enquire about Tinubu’s education in their institution and owing to the constant request, they had to prepare a particular letter (To whom it may concern type, admitting that Tinubu indeed graduated, his grade and the years he spent with them) which they then send to anyone who writes to them for enquiries about Tinubu. A copy of this letter was given to Mr. Reno Omokri when he went on a mission to get a negative report about Tinubu but his expectation was dashed.
—————-
Pages 102-13
The witness admitted that the Bola A. Tinubu who was enrolled in their school as a transfer student from South West College (SWC) was a Male
Although the gender in his SWC academic record was a female but he believed that was a typographical error because the Social Security Number of the Tinubu who attended the SWC and the Tinubu who applied for their school was the same and it belongs to a male, the Bola A. Tinubu who’s now their student.
———————
(page 117)
When asked if they have other supporting documents to prove that the Tinubu that attended their school was a male and not a female, he said yes and mentioned his undergraduate admissions application, the admission letter issued to Tinubu too.
The age captured on CSU records was lower than what was entered on INEC records. They admitted that any discrepancy in Tinubu’s date of birth could be as a result of human error
———————
Pages 94-96
The witness admitted that there were changes in the template design and seals of their certificates around 1979, 1999-2003 and then in the 20s (probably from 2000-2020)
The replacement certificate submitted by Tinubu to INEC has different template design from the original copy and also has different seal and signatories. The excuse for the wrong award date of the diploma and the template design had already been explained.
Depending on when Tinubu got the replacement certificate and from what I have read and understood so far, the replacement certificate with Tinubu has the signatories of the then present President and board chair, and also the design template and seals of the university at that time he obtained the replacement and not the signatories of the President and board chair of 1979. This is very much in order based on CSU policy.
According to CSU, they keep the certificates of their students up to 2years and if someone graduates in for example, year 2021, they would be able to provide the diploma for the person upon request but after 2years, maybe someone who graduated over 20 years ago, they won’t be able to keep the diplomas that long except on very rare cases but the transcripts of such students are always kept irrespective of their year of graduation.
CSU said they don’t issue their diplomas or replacement certificates to third parties without the consent of the student but they can issue verification certificate (to whom it may concern) to third parties without the consent of the student. This is appropriate and what is generally done.
One of the documents given to Atiku’s Lawyer through subpoena has Tinubu’s gender as Female. This document was from South-West College. So if Atiku and his team want to continue probing Tinubu’s gender, I think it is appropriate they go query South-West college for stating the gender as Female to know if it’s a mistake on their part or not.
They shouldn’t be probing CSU for the possible error of SWC.
CSU worked with the information made available to them, the Tinubu who came to them was a male, the social security number matched too.
Now let’s talk about the documents given by Atiku’s team through a subpoena.
The signatories of the certificate copy issued to Atiku’s team by CSU seems questionable. Owing to the fact that Atiku’s team subpoenaed the CSU in 2022 for Tinubu’s records, the signatories were supposed to be of the 2022 authorities but from the cross-examination in pages 73-75,
i) The certificate copy with Atiku’s team was signed by Eleanor Daniel who was neither the President of the school in 1979 when the original diploma was indeed awarded nor in 2022 when the replacement was issued. (Remember, since Atiku made a request in 2022, the copy was supposed to bear the signatories of the authorities in 2022)
ii) It’s also signed by Dr. Lubin who was neither the board chair in 1979 when the original diploma was made nor in 2022 when the replacement was issued.
(This is a case already)
Now be informed, the certificate copy given to Atiku through whatever means is questionable.
Also, CSU was not supposed to give Atiku or any member of the Public the original diploma or replacement certificate of Tinubu or any graduate who’s on an enquiry mission. What is usually given in such situation and without the consent of the student is the verification certificate, which can also be substituted for ‘To Whom It may concern’ letter.
Kelvin Kamo, remember the 3 types of certificates I mentioned the other day: original certificate, replacement certificate and the X certificate. This X certificate is the verification certificate.
When you take out time to study the deposition, you would find out more things.
From my keen observation, while Tinubu’s certificate copy tendered appears to be in order, that tendered by Atiku does not seem to be in order.
Tinubu’s replacement copy has the right signatories based on CSU Policy, Mr. Atiku’s copy of the replacement policy does not have the correct signatories.
Here’s a link to the cleansed copy of the CSU team deposition. —–>>>> easyupload.io/0dvn76
You can download it from there if you haven’t. The link would be expiring 7 days from today.
As you digest this, let’s agree to disagree and then disagree to agree. We can do this without insults.
