In a stunning turn of events at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, a witness for the PDP party has presented explosive revelations, backed by previously unseen documents.
To obtain these crucial papers, PDP' legal team had to issue a subpoena to INEC, demanding the production of Tinubu form. These documents reveal discrepancies in the name of Bola Tinubu Adekunle, raising questions about their authenticity. As we delve into the implications of these revelations, it becomes evident that Tinubu's fate before the judges hangs in the balance. Let's explore the remaining documents and their potential impact on the trial.
Documents Submitted by the PDP Witness:
The PDP witness submitted a Certificate of Service from Mobile, indicating Tinubu's employment prior to his political career. Other documents included a certificate from Chicago State University, an NYC exemption letter, a Tingles Party membership card, and a letter from INEC
, verifying the petitioners' payment for the released documents. These documents were obtained from INEC and subsequently submitted by the PDP.
Documents Obtained by the PDP Legal Team:
The PDP legal team independently acquired two additional documents. First, they hired a notary public in the United States who subpoenaed Chicago State University to produce a form containing comprehensive information about Tinubu's pre-admission details. However, discrepancies emerged in the person's gender and birth year, contradicting Tinubu's documented information. The second document was a transcript from Southwest College, further indicating inconsistencies related to Tinubu's identity.
Implications and Potential Disqualification:
The presented evidence from academic records suggests that the individual mentioned in the documents is distinct from the document's owner. Additionally, the NYC exemption letter raises questions regarding its authenticity and the possibility of verification from the NYC itself. Similar cases in the past have led to automatic disqualification, as submitting false documents under oath constitutes perjury. Therefore, if PDP's legal team can substantiate the claim that the exemption letter is fake, Tinubu's disqualification becomes inevitable.
Previous Allegations and Investigative Efforts:
Past accusations of certificate forgery against Tinubu have raised doubts about the veracity of his educational claims. Notably, during his first term as governor, an individual petitioned Tinubu for falsely claiming to have attended Chicago State University. Subsequently, Tinubu presented his degree certificate in a press conference to refute the allegations. However, the investigation at the time failed to verify the transcript and the true identity of the individual involved.
Examining the Evidence:
The judges reviewing the case will encounter glaring inconsistencies within the Chicago State University documents provided by Tinubu. Discrepancies in signatures, university logos, and other elements indicate potential forgery. The electoral law now strictly deals with candidates involved in certificate forgery, irrespective of ownership. Even a slightly altered certificate raises significant concerns.
The Role of the Judges:
The judges will evaluate the evidence in its entirety, considering the discrepancies in academic records, the alleged attendance of a non-existent government college, and Tinubu's employment history. It will become evident to the judges that Tinubu is concealing information, and one lie necessitates subsequent lies to maintain the façade. Additionally, the judges must address issues such as the validity of the NYC exemption letter and the determination of the rightful winner of the presidential election.
Conclusion:
The bombshell revelations and document discrepancies presented by PDP's witness have cast a shadow of doubt over Tinubu's political fate at the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal. The evidence suggests a deliberate attempt to misrepresent personal information and educational qualifications. As the judges scrutinize the documents and witness testimonies, it becomes increasingly clear that Tinubu's alleged misrepresentations may lead to disqualification. The court must also weigh other factors, such as the lawful votes and constitutional provisions, in determining the ultimate outcome of the presidential election.
Comments
0 comment