The crises surrounding the authenticity of President Bola Tinubu’s academic sojourn is as old as his political career. But the simple desire of the Nigerian public has been for the president to show evidence that he attended school, especially the Chicago State University. This plea has been met with rebuff, therefore, dragging the saga of a supposedly unauthenticated certificate.
However, on Friday, the Chicago State University announced that a said Bola A. Tinubu attended their school, but the transcript released still bear female as gender, and offers discrepancy in dates, thereby sustaining the saga.
Earlier in 2002, the present Minister of Aviation, Festus Keyamo, went to court over certificate forgery against Tinubu. This was cited by the spokesperson, Atiku Abubakar Campaign Organisation, Daniel Bwala, in an interview on Channels TV. He noted that Keyamo had sued the Lagos Assembly in 2002 over Tinubu’s candidacy as the then governor of Lagos State.
Citing a law report titled Keyamo V. House Of Assembly, Lagos State (2002), Bwala said, “This is the Supreme Court decision in the case I have cited and I will just read a line: The appellant alleged amongst others as a legal practitioner that he has been confronted by some of his clients who wanted to understand certain things they consider important relating to their contesting the governorship in Lagos State.
“He further, that is Festus Keyamo, alleged certificate forgery against the Governor of Lagos State, Bola Ahmed Tinubu and that the latter was not qualified for the office of the governor.”
Bwala noted that Keyamo, who is today speaking in favour of and defending tinubu’s eligibility, was the appellant in the then case.
Atiku Abubakar, a former Vice President of Nigeria, and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidate in the 2023 presidential election had heightened the tension associated with the 2023 election by filing a petition to obtain information about Tinubu’s academic records at Chicago State University, where the president claimed he attended and obtained a certificate.
Atiku’s attorney, Angela Liu, had requested documents pertaining to Tinubu’s admission, attendance, degrees, awards, and honors obtained during his time at the university. These issues had been a subject of disputes since the days of Tinubu’s stewardship as the governor of Lagos State.
Atiku had aimed to use the subpoena to verify the authenticity of his claims and establish the truth amidst ongoing disputes about his election and academic history.
Atiku’s application was spurred by an earlier case in Nigeria 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, commenced proceedings against Tinubu by filing a “Direct Criminal Complaint” in the Chief Magistrate Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).
In a swift response however, President Tinubu’s legal team had filed a counter motion to dismiss the subpoena in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chicago, USA through Victor Henderson, counsel to President Tinubu, who argued that the petition lacked the necessary court authorization and provided inadequate time for compliance, violating the Illinois Supreme Court Rules.
According to BussinessDay, “Legal experts and commentators have voiced their opinions on Atiku’s pursuit of justice abroad. Mike Ozekhome, a human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, viewed Atiku’s actions positively, stating that the international nature of the matter warranted seeking legal assistance outside Nigeria.
“Kennedy Khanoba, a Constitutional lawyer, however, maintained that unless President Tinubu is convicted in the US court, Atiku’s efforts might yield little results. He emphasized that only a conviction would have a significant impact on Tinubu’s presidential position, as convictions result in a prohibition from holding public office for a specified period.
“Jackson Ojo, a political analyst, told Punch Newspaper that the sovereignty of Nigeria as an independent state could limit the influence of foreign court rulings on Nigerian affairs. He expressed skepticism about the direct impact of an American court ruling on the outcome of Nigerian elections and judicial proceedings.
As the legal battle unfolds, Nigerians remain divided on the efficacy of seeking justice abroad. Atiku’s pursuit of evidence through the US court system has ignited debates about the integrity of Nigeria’s legal system and its potential impact on the country’s political landscape. The final verdict and its implications for the Nigerian presidency remain uncertain as legal proceedings continue.
But complicating the defence of Tinubu and his legal, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, admitted that it has jurisdiction in the case instituted by Atiku, to compel CSU to produce critical documents relating to Tinubu.
The desire of all and sundry to know the truth led to a bombardment of the university official X (former Twitter) account, and due to heavy traffic and enquiries about President Bola Tinubu academic records, a lockup of the account of authorised.
In the X account of the university, there was the ‘protect your posts’ feature that allows users to disclose their mission from persons who are not followers.
This, it was learnt was due to new enquiries to those who were not usual visitors to the X account of the university.
Owing to this, any new visitor to the social media account was asked to disclosed the purpose.
THE ORIGIN
In his original complaint as described by oblongmedia, 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. Compare
“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.
ATIKU SATISFIES ALL REQUIREMENTS – US COURT
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.
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 said it will not hesitate to grant the prayers of Atiku.
Recall that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), on March 1, 2023 declared Bola Tinubu winner of the February 25, 2023 presidential election, having polled 8,794,726 to defeat his closest rivals, Atiku Abubakar of the PDP and Peter Obi of the Labour Party to the second and third positions respectively.
Both Atiku and Obi questioned Tinubu’s eligibility to run for the presidency. Obi’s argument revolved around Tinubu’s alleged forfeiture of $460,000 due to a drug-related case in the United States and his inability to secure 25 percent of votes in the Federal Capital Territory among other irregularities he felt occurred during the elections.
CHICAGO STATE UNIVERSITY CONFIRMS TINUBU’S STUDENTSHIP
Chicago State University, CSU, in an article published on CBS Chicago, confirmed that President Bola Tinubu attended the university and graduated in 1979.
Read the full statement below:
“As an educational institution, we are sometimes asked to provide information related to student records. The federal law known as FERPA (the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) protects the privacy of student records and limits what an institution can release.
In August 2023, a request was made in U.S. federal court for the university to provide information related to educational records concerning Bola Tinubu, the President of Nigeria, and a former CSU student. The university has confirmed Tinubu attended CSU and graduated in 1979 with a bachelor’s degree. Federal law, however, prevents us from providing further information without consent or unless allowed via court order.
CSU is confident in the veracity and integrity of our records regarding Tinubu’s completion of graduation requirements and degree certificate. The university is not a party to the Nigerian legal proceedings that spurred this request, and a U.S. federal judge will determine whether the university will provide further requested information.
Our response to the request for Tinubu’s academic records has been entirely consistent with our practices, policies and federal law. We would respond in exactly the same manner for any request for any student information by a third party.”
Meanwhile in a post on the PDP website, Angela Liu, who is Atiku’s Attorney for the case against Tinubu about the Chicago University Certificate, argued that the university never gave the president any certificate.
The application made in Case No. 23-cv-5099 was filed pursuant to 28 United States Constitution 1782.
The post stated that Liu already submitted a 24-paragraph declaration in support of the application, pursuant to 28 U.S.C 1782, for an order granting leave to serve the Subpoenas to Chicago State University attached to the Application as Exhibits 1 and 2.
Angela Liu stated, “How can you have two certificates issued by the same university, to the same person, for the same course of study, but issued on different dates and signed by two different people.”
According to Atiku’s lawyer, the certificates which Tinubu submitted in Nigeria were different.
“The first Chicago State University certificate which Bola Tinubu submitted to INEC was issued on 22nd June, 1979, and signed by three signatories including a certain Dr. Elnora Daniel, whose signature is dated 22 June 1979.
“The second certificate supposedly issued to Mr. Enahoro by Tinubu and tendered at the PEPT was issued on 27th June, 1979, and now signed by two people and the same Dr. Elnora Daniel, signed it but now the date changed to 27th June, 1979, and a certain Dr. Niva Lubin also signed.”
According to the post, “Now evidence has shown that Tinubu submitted two different certificates and both may even be fake. The two certificates have different fonts, they both have different dates, they both have different Chicago University Logo, they both have different grammar written, they both have different signatories.
“Now here is the crazy part, the Dr. Elnora Daniel who Tinubu put on his certificate as a signatory for CSU in 1979, was not an employee of CSU in 1979. She was not employed by CSU until 1998
“A whole 19 years after Tinubu allegedly graduated. So how did she sign in 1979, when the woman was not even an employee of Chicago University as at that time.
“Also the second signatory Dr. Niva Lubin who Tinubu claimed signed his certificate dated in 1979 was not an employee of Chicago University until 1996. A whole 17 years after Tinubu claimed he graduated.”
It alleged that Tinubu had no certificate from Chicago State University and Atiku had taken the bold step to summon Chicago State University as a respondent in the case in Illinois.
Tinubu’s political rival, Atiku Abubakar, claims that documents showing that Tinubu graduated from Chicago State in 1979 are not authentic, and that is grounds to nullify Tinubu’s election victory earlier this year.
According to the People’s Gazette, Tinubu submitted the diploma to Nigeria’s election commission. It was purportedly issued in 1979 and signed by university President Elnora Daniel. But Daniel didn’t arrive at CSU until 1998 and left about ten years later. Submitting false records to the National Election Commission before the vote should nullify the election, Abubaker claims.
At a hearing in Chicago, Abubakar’s lawyers asked a federal judge to compel CSU officials to turn over Tinubu’s academic documents and appear for depositions. Judge Jeffrey Gilbert of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois did not rule on the request.
CSU’s lawyer, Michael Hayes, told Gilbert that the university wouldn’t be able to certify Tinubu’s diploma under oath.
A CSU spokeswoman said the university can confirm the president graduated. However, it cannot authenticate the diploma because it is a ceremonial document that is not part of a student’s official academic file.
With the confirmation of a certain Bola A. Tinbu attending and graduating from CSU in 1979, it therefore behoves on the Atiku legal team to prove that the aforementioned Bola is not Nigeria’s president, but a certain lady as the documents tend to declare.
The parties will soon have their day in court, and so the saga continues.
The Senate President, Godswill Akpabio, has urged Nigerians to be careful of those trying to kidnap for ransom.
Akpabio argued on Tuesday that those behind kidnapping are perpetuating the activity to create an impression that Nigeria is not safe.
Speaking in Abuja during the commissioning of road projects to mark President Bola Tinubu’s third year anniversary, Akpabio said some of the president’s critics have resorted to paying youths to cause mayhem.
Akpabio accused Tinubu’s critics of focusing on insecurity instead of policy and infrastructure.
“Minister you said that people claimed that nothing is happening in Nigeria under the administration of President Tinubu. If they did not say that, how will they go for election? he asked rhetorically.
“If you realize what is happening recently, when they realized that they can’t talk about projects, performance, good laws, transformation in the Petroleum industry, subsidy removal that have been promised Nigerians for decades, they can no longer talk about the high-rise buildings in Abuja such as the NRS building, they resorted to paying young people and recruiting them to cause mayhem in the country.
“Be very vigilant and be careful about people trying to kidnap for ransom. They are kidnapping in order to give the impression that Nigeria is not safe.
“Our men and women in uniform have done tremendously well but many people will not know and that is why I keep saying that the devil you see today, you will soon see them no more.
“Elections will come and go; elections will never be our end; we will see the end of elections; it will never see our end,” he said.
From the first day the African Democratic Congress (ADC) took a new shape in July, 2025, in readiness to wrest power from the government of the day, crises, allegedly engineered by the President Bola Tinubu-led All Progressives Congress (APC), have remained its lot.
From the struggle for leadership positions to the fight to save itself from deregistration, the hitherto coalition and main opposition party, has remained in a battle for its life and existence. And has not relented in the search for lasting justice. This time, it has taken the law itself to court to ensure that justice is not only done, but seen to have been done.
It would be recalled that shortly after the the party ratified the election of Senator David Mark and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola as Chairman and Secretary of the party respectively, skirmishes were noticed among the rank and file of the party as a supposedly former deputy national chairman of the party, Nafiu Bala Gombe, claimed chairmanship of party, saying that since the founding chairman had resigned, it is constitutionally incumbent upon him to automatically assume the chairmanship role.
Gombe’s claims came on the heels of his ‘resignation’ from office, which paved the way for a new national executive of the party to be constituted. But his claims did not deter the party from carrying on with the formation and running of the party, including holding a keenly contested presidential primary election, which produced His Excellency, the former Vice President Atiku Abubakar. So Gombe went to court. Yet, Mark and Aregbesola carried on the running of the party.
As a result, Gombe had approached a court for an order restraining Mark leadership from parading themselves as leaders of the ADC pending the hearing and determination of his suit challenging their leadership.
He had also asked the court to issue another order against the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), restraining it from recognizing the Mark leadership.
But in his ruling in the interlocutory application, Justice Emeka Nwite ordered Gombe to put the defendants on notice so that they appear before the court to show cause, why the application should not be granted.
Rather than appearing before the trial court to show cause, the defendant appealed to the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court to dabble into the matter they described as internal matters of the ADC.
The appellate court in dismissing the appeal for lacking in merit, ordered accelerated hearing in the suit and further ordered all parties to maintain status quo ante bellum.
Dissatisfied, Mark had approached the appellate court but, his appeal was dismissed and the matter returned to the trial court.
With the to and from nature of the cases involving the ADC leadership crisis, the party has accused judges of bias in favoring party detractors and disobedience to court rules among other malice, the party has taken a new route to obtain the much eluded justice, and that involves charging the custodians of the law to court.
Consequently, the ADC has filed a lawsuit before a High Court in Abuja involving the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, over concerns arising from the ongoing leadership dispute within the party.
Also joined in the suit is the National Judicial Council (NJC), which the party said had not addressed issues it raised regarding the handling of a case challenging the leadership of former Senate President, Senator David Mark, within the ADC.
The lawsuit, dated June 4, 2026, was filed by the National Welfare Secretary of the ADC, Nkemakolam Ukandu, who is seeking to be joined in Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025 instituted by Nafiu Bala Gombe against the Mark-led leadership of the party.
According to the suit, Ukandu expressed concerns about the handling of the matter and alleged that the actions of both Justice Tsoho and Justice Peter Lifu, the judge assigned to hear the case, could affect confidence in the proceedings.
The lawsuit further stated that the assignment of the case to Justice Lifu stirred concerns among some members of the party, who believe the process may not guarantee a fair hearing.
The legal action marks a fresh twist in the leadership dispute within the ADC, which has attracted significant political attention ahead of the 2027 general elections.
Aside Justice John Tsoho, other defendants are the National Judicial Council (NJC), and Justice Peter Lifu, a judge newly assigned to hear the suit challenging the Senator David Mark-led leadership of ADC.
The plaintiff, who was seeking to be joined in the Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025, brought by Nafiu Bala Gombe against the Mark-led leadership, accused the chief judge and Lifu of manifest bias, and willingness to do the biddings of persons against the interest of the party.
Ukandu, in the suit he personally filed at the Federal High Court, Abuja, faulted the chief judge for reassigning the suit to Lifu, in alleged disregard of the orders of the Supreme Court as well as Justice Emeka Nwite of the Abuja division of the Federal High Court, who initially heard the suit brought by Gombe against the party.
The plaintiff, in the suit marked FHC/ ABJ/ CS/ 1165/2026, recalled that an appeal from an interlocutory decision of Nwite rose to the Supreme Court, wherein the apex court on April 30, 2026, “made an order of remittance of Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/1819/2025: Nafiu Bala Gombe VS. ADC & 4 ORS back to Justice Emeka Nwite for continuation of hearing of pending applications challenging the jurisdiction of the trial court.”
He stated that upon resumption of hearing before Nwite, the plaintiff wrote to the chief judge praying for a reassignment of the matter to another judge of the Honourable Court.
Ukandu stated, “All the defendants’ counsel, including counsel to the applicants seeking to be joined in this matter, opposed the said application by the plaintiff’s counsel and Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite thereafter adjourned the matter sine die pending the service of the said letter by the plaintiff’s on all the parties in the matter, outcome of the letter by the 2nd defendant and the furnishing of the CTC of the judgement of the Supreme Court to the court.
“Without complying with the orders of the Supreme Court and Hon. Justice Emeka Nwite, the 2nd Defendant in abuse of his judicial powers reassigned this matter,” to Lifu.
He added that the third defendant, on his part, pretending not to see the order of Nwite, went ahead and fixed the matter for hearing for June 3, 2026.
Ukandu further recalled that ADC had on May 7 informed the public through a press release that the chief judge had planned to reassign the case to another judge favourable to the plaintiff.
He said the party had “warned against such unethical practice but the 2nd Defendant despite the public outcry reassigned the suit to the 3rd Defendant who have been nick-named as ‘Wike Judges’.”
He stated that the third defendant had started presiding over the matter, despite taking judicial notice of the orders of the Supreme Court and Nwite, and that the matter came up for hearing before the third defendant.
Though neither the Federal High Court nor the National Judicial Council had publicly responded to the issues raised so far, it is imperative to to state that the ADC appears to have lost interest in both the judiciary, which it believe is kowtowing to the dictates of Gombe, and by extension the body language of the Federal Government.
The ADC appears to have managed to draw the sympathy of the public as a group known as the Grassroots Mobilization Network (GMN), has lent their voice to the supposed injustice leveled against the Mark-led ADC, raising concerns about the handling of the matter, and calling for transparency in the judicial process.
The group alleged that the judiciary was being used to target opposition parties.
The group expressed concern over what it described as growing public distrust in the judiciary and called on relevant authorities to ensure fairness and transparency in the handling of politically sensitive cases.
While Nigerians await the outcome of the litigation, and other resolution of other sundry issues arising from the ADC and the judiciary, the party is going ahead making last minute transparent efforts to nominate a suitable running mate to bear the presidential flag with the presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar.
Among the party’s shortlists are the first runner-up in the presidential primary, Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi, Mrs. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Akinwumi Adesina, Emeka Ihedioha, Emeka Nwajiuba and Chief Dele Momodu.
Suspected gunmen have abducted the sister of a former Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, in Ibadan, the Oyo State capital.
The family of former minister and chieftain of the All Progressives Congress (APC) confirmed the abduction, disclosing that Mrs. Olaide John-Paul and her 12-year-old twin sons were kidnapped by the gunmen on Wednesday, June 3, 2026.
According to a statement issued by Adelabu’s media aide, Femi Awogboro, the victims were kidnapped at about 7:30am while Mrs. John-Paul was taking her children to school.
Mrs. John-Paul, the youngest of five children of Mrs. Olufunmilayo Aduke Adegoke Adelabu, reportedly retired voluntarily from her career at First Bank Pension Custodian in 2025 before relocating to Ibadan with her children.
She was said to be making arrangements to join her husband, who had earlier relocated to the US.
The family expressed deep concern over the development but stated that security agencies had already commenced efforts to rescue the victims and apprehend those responsible.
“We are pleased to confirm that security operatives have swung into action and preliminary investigations have commenced in earnest,” the statement partly read.
While appealing for calm, the family urged members of the public to refrain from spreading unverified information that could undermine ongoing rescue operations.
“We are deeply distressed by this unfortunate incident, but remain hopeful that the victims will be rescued safely. We appeal to the public to remain calm, avoid speculation and support ongoing efforts with prayers,” the statement added.
The family also called on anyone with useful information that could aid the rescue operation to promptly share such intelligence with security agencies through the appropriate channels.
It assured that it would continue to cooperate fully with law enforcement authorities and provide updates as investigations and rescue efforts progress.
