Spy360:

Stop running.

The documents included an admission letter, a transcript and certificate.

Admission letter said Bola attended was female.

Why are you disgracing yourself? What atiku and obi tendered was transcript from southwest college not CSU,his degree certificate and nysc certificate.it was tinubu that tendered admission letter kid

Spy360:

Gbam!!! At the bolded.

Mind you, we are not discussing Obaseki here. What that SC screenshot tell you is that the ONLY PROOF OF FORGERY IS AN ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OR CERTIFIED TRUE COPY FROM THE ISSUING ORGANISATION , which was exactly what PO/LP presented to the court. . The documents were obtained from the university under subpoena.

What the documents say is
1. Bola A. Tinubu that attended CSU is a female.
2. She was born in 1954 not 1952
3. That the certificate fake Tinubu submitted was not from the school but from a fake website.

That is the certificate tinubu tendered to inec and the one brought from CSU.show me where gender is stated,show me where date if birth is shown...

You have poor issues of understanding,a naive kid.what the court means is that there must be discrepancies in information and dates of graduation.

Lotanna2:






That is the certificate tinubu tendered to inec and the one brought from CSU.show me where gender is stated,show me where date if birth is shown...

You have poor issues of understanding,a naive kid.what the court means is that there must be discrepancies in information and dates of graduation.

Are the two certificates the same? Which one is original and which one is fake?

Spy360:

Are the two certificates the same? Which one is original and which one is fake?

It is genuine until the school says otherwise boy

Lotanna2:


It is genuine until the school says otherwise boy

You posted two certificates. Which one is the original?

Spy360:

You posted two certificates. Which one is the original?

Both are photocopy of the original


The Chicago State University says All Progressives Congress stalwart and presidential hopeful, Bola Tinubu, indeed attended the university.

Beverly Poindexter, who is in charge of official transcript requests, enrolment and degree verification at the Office of the Registrar, CSU, said this in a terse email response to The PUNCH on Tuesday.

“Mr Tinubu did attend our university, however, if further information is needed, go to studentclearinghouse.org website to make a formal request,” Poindexter wrote.

In an earlier letter dated August 20, 1999 and signed by then Registrar, Lois Davis, the university stated that Tinubu was its student between 1977 and 1979.

He wrote, “Please be advised that Bola A. Tinubu did indeed attend Chicago State University from August 1977 through June 1979. He was awarded a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business and Administration with honours on June 22, 1979. His major was Accounting.”

Also attached to Tinubu’s form CF004 submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission during his re-election bid in 2003 was a commendation letter from CSU recognising his performance and “high scholastic achievement”.

Tinubu’s academic qualification has been a subject of controversy for over a decade.

A recent viral article claimed that all the schools Tinubu claimed to have attended had disowned him.

Human rights lawyer, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), had also questioned Tinubu’s credentials and sued the Nigeria Police Force for failing to investigate him.

The Supreme Court in its judgment on May 10, 2002 ruled that Tinubu could not be prosecuted by the police for alleged certificate forgery.

The apex court also ruled that the Inspector-General of Police could not be compelled by Gani to investigate Tinubu for alleged certificate forgery as he enjoyed immunity at the time

https://punchng.com/tinubu-graduated-from-our-school-says-chicago-university/

There are some few things we should know in this particular presidential petition tribunal, which were totally different from other years..

1. During the Pre-trials, the Judges ruled that since all the parties in the tribunal were all present during the election and that they were all fully involved during the production of the INEC-Results, then, it means that all the CTCs of results that were produced by the INEC and tendered at the Tribunal would all be ASSUMED AS ALREADY READ.
(It wasn't like this in all these other years, especially 2019.)
So, if you are asking about the time the Judges would sit down and read all those trailer-loads CTCs of results, Sorry my brother.. It had all been assumed as already read, even before they were tendered.

2. AND NOW, BEING THAT ALL THE TENDERED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN ASSUMED AS READ BY ALL THE PARTIES,, THE RESPONDENTS AND THE PETITIONERS CAN MAKE FURTHER ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSES IN THEIR ADDRESSES BASED ON THE TENDERED DOCUMENTS..
Nothing prevents them from arguing further or analysing further inside their addresses.

3. Section-137 of the Electoral-Act-2022 said something that is very important...
“It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance
alleged.
(It wasn't like this in all these other years, especially 2019.)


Cc...
Lotanna2, Spy360..

I just say make I bring this three things to your attention.

According to the 6th-Point in those things I raised inside the Original-Post...,, The BVAS Machines are physically required to establish any case of Over-voting., Or in the alternative, an INEC-CERTIFIED Document-of-examination for the various BVAS-Machines, which contain all the relevant information that were directly gotten from the various BVAS-Machines..

6. The Supreme-Court Judgement recognized that: to establish a case of non-accreditation, improper accreditation, and over-voting, the evidence required are the register of voters, the BVAS Machines, and the polling-unit results.
(Page:17)

In the event that there is a conflict between the number of accredited voters in the BVAS Machine and the number of ticked names in the register of voters due to human errors, the BVAS record shall prevail.
(Page:27)

In place of producing numerous physical BVAS-Machines as evidence, the “Certificates of the BVAS records which are issued by the INEC from the examination of the record of the accredited voters in the BVAS machines” could be tendered.
(Page:31)

Labour Party requested for CTCs of some sets of data from ALL THE 36 STATES, INCLUDING FCT..

These sets of data are:

1. The CTCs of the EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, and EC8Ds that were used by the INEC in all the various States. (Call them: CTCs of the Original-Results)

2. The CTCs of all the various EC8As that were uploaded to the IREV Portal.. (Call them: CTCs of IREV-Results)

3. The CTCs of all the various Scanned Photos of the EC8As which were snapped using the various BVAS-Machines, and were stored inside the BVAS-Machines. (Call them: CTCs of BVAS-Results)

4. The CTCs of the various accreditation data which were captured in the various BVAS-Machines in all the States, just before they were reconfigured for the States Election's. (Call them: CTCs of BVAS-Accreditation)


Now,, INEC produced only the CTCs of the Original-Results of some (not all of the) States, and the CTCs of the IREV-Results of some (not all of the) states.
They didn't produce the CTCs of the BVAS-Results of ANY State., Not even for the FCT.

Nevertheless, the INEC provided the CTCs of BVAS-Accreditation. And thus, they would be used to establish cases of Over-voting in all the affected Polling-units.



But the main question here is this....
INEC tampered badly with the BVAS-Results inside the BVAS-Machines..
They deleted the results inside the BVAS, and they didn't keep any back-ups anywhere.
Are there no serious sanctions and punishments for the INEC as an organization, and for all those INEC staff that were involved in wiping the BVAS Data.??

Cc...
Lotanna2, Spy360, Fergie001..

BluntCrazeMan:
According to the 6th-Point in those things I raised inside the Original-Post...,, The BVAS Machines are physically required to establish any case of Over-voting., Or in the alternative, an INEC-CERTIFIED Document-of-examination for the various BVAS-Machines, which contain all the relevant information that were directly gotten from the various BVAS-Machines..



Labour Party requested for CTCs of three sets of results from ALL THE 36 STATES, INCLUDING FCT..

These some sets of data are:

1. The CTCs of the EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, and EC8Ds that were used by the INEC in all the various States. (Call them: CTCs of the Original-Results)

2. The CTCs of all the various EC8As that were uploaded to the IREV Portal.. (Call them: CTCs of IREV-Results)

3. The CTCs of all the various Scanned Photos of the EC8As which were snapped using the various BVAS-Machines, and were stored inside the BVAS-Machines. (Call them: CTCs of BVAS-Results)

4. The CTCs of the various accreditation data which were captured in the various BVAS-Machines in all the States, just before they were reconfigured for the States Election's. (Call them: CTCs of BVAS-Accreditation)


Now,, INEC produced only the CTCs of the Original-Results of some (not all of the) States, and the CTCs of the IREV-Results of some (not all of the) states.
They didn't produce the CTCs of the BVAS-Results of ANY State., Not even for the FCT.

Nevertheless, the INEC provided the CTCs of BVAS-Accreditation. And thus, they would be used to establish cases of Over-voting in all the affected Polling-units.



But the main question here is this....
INEC tampered badly with the BVAS-Results inside the BVAS-Machines..
They deleted the results inside the BVAS, and they didn't keep any back-ups for them.
Are there no serious sanctions and punishments for the INEC, and all those INEC staff that were involved in wiping the BVAS Data.??

Cc...
Lotanna2, Spy360, Fergie001..

The PEPT is not a criminal court and hence will not prosecute any one. However, the arrest and prosecution of election offenders should be the responsibility of NASS, DSS or the AGF.

INEC deleted the BVAS data in the excuse of using it for governorship election, but in reality they didn't want the true results of the elections which were captured to be revealed.

Lotanna2:


Both are photocopy of the original


The Chicago State University says All Progressives Congress stalwart and presidential hopeful, Bola Tinubu, indeed attended the university.

Beverly Poindexter, who is in charge of official transcript requests, enrolment and degree verification at the Office of the Registrar, CSU, said this in a terse email response to The PUNCH on Tuesday.

“Mr Tinubu did attend our university, however, if further information is needed, go to studentclearinghouse.org website to make a formal request,” Poindexter wrote.

In an earlier letter dated August 20, 1999 and signed by then Registrar, Lois Davis, the university stated that Tinubu was its student between 1977 and 1979.

He wrote, “Please be advised that Bola A. Tinubu did indeed attend Chicago State University from August 1977 through June 1979. He was awarded a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business and Administration with honours on June 22, 1979. His major was Accounting.”

Also attached to Tinubu’s form CF004 submitted to the Independent National Electoral Commission during his re-election bid in 2003 was a commendation letter from CSU recognising his performance and “high scholastic achievement”.

Tinubu’s academic qualification has been a subject of controversy for over a decade.

A recent viral article claimed that all the schools Tinubu claimed to have attended had disowned him.

Human rights lawyer, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), had also questioned Tinubu’s credentials and sued the Nigeria Police Force for failing to investigate him.

The Supreme Court in its judgment on May 10, 2002 ruled that Tinubu could not be prosecuted by the police for alleged certificate forgery.

The apex court also ruled that the Inspector-General of Police could not be compelled by Gani to investigate Tinubu for alleged certificate forgery as he enjoyed immunity at the time

https://punchng.com/tinubu-graduated-from-our-school-says-chicago-university/

You are blabbing.

I repeat, you posted two different certificates. Tell us the one that is original. Simple.

BluntCrazeMan:
There are some few things we should know in this particular presidential petition tribunal, which were totally different from other years..

1. During the Pre-trials, the Judges ruled that since all the parties in the tribunal were all present during the election and that they were all fully involved during the production of the INEC-Results, then, it means that all the CTCs of results that were produced by the INEC and tendered at the Tribunal would all be ASSUMED AS ALREADY READ.
(It wasn't like this in all these other years, especially 2019.)
So, if you are asking about the time the Judges would sit down and read all those trailer-loads CTCs of results, Sorry my brother.. It had all been assumed as already read, even before they were tendered.

2. AND NOW, BEING THAT ALL THE TENDERED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN ASSUMED AS READ BY ALL THE PARTIES,, THE RESPONDENTS AND THE PETITIONERS CAN MAKE FURTHER ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSES IN THEIR ADDRESSES BASED ON THE TENDERED DOCUMENTS..
Nothing prevents them from arguing further or analysing further inside their addresses.

3. Section-137 of the Electoral-Act-2022 said something that is very important...
“It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance
alleged.
(It wasn't like this in all these other years, especially 2019.)


Cc...
Lotanna2, Spy360..

I just say make I bring this three things to your attention.

The bolded was what I was trying to let Lotanna know about tendering the original copy of Tinubu's certificate from CSU. He was claiming that LP ought to have called someone from the university to witness. As long as certified true copy of the document is tendered especially under subpoena on the issuing organisation, the petitioners do not need to call a witness.

If the justices will be sincere, Tinubu is gone.

BluntCrazeMan:
There are some few things we should know in this particular presidential petition tribunal, which were totally different from other years..

1. During the Pre-trials, the Judges ruled that since all the parties in the tribunal were all present during the election and that they were all fully involved during the production of the INEC-Results, then, it means that all the CTCs of results that were produced by the INEC and tendered at the Tribunal would all be ASSUMED AS ALREADY READ.
(It wasn't like this in all these other years, especially 2019.)
So, if you are asking about the time the Judges would sit down and read all those trailer-loads CTCs of results, Sorry my brother.. It had all been assumed as already read, even before they were tendered.

2. AND NOW, BEING THAT ALL THE TENDERED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN ASSUMED AS READ BY ALL THE PARTIES,, THE RESPONDENTS AND THE PETITIONERS CAN MAKE FURTHER ARGUMENTS AND ANALYSES IN THEIR ADDRESSES BASED ON THE TENDERED DOCUMENTS..
Nothing prevents them from arguing further or analysing further inside their addresses.

3. Section-137 of the Electoral-Act-2022 said something that is very important...
“It shall not be necessary for a party who alleges non-compliance with the provisions of this Act for the conduct of elections to call oral evidence if originals or certified true copies manifestly disclose the non-compliance
alleged.
(It wasn't like this in all these other years, especially 2019.)


Cc...
Lotanna2, Spy360..

I just say make I bring this three things to your attention.

It has always been so except you didn't notice

BluntCrazeMan:
According to the 6th-Point in those things I raised inside the Original-Post...,, The BVAS Machines are physically required to establish any case of Over-voting., Or in the alternative, an INEC-CERTIFIED Document-of-examination for the various BVAS-Machines, which contain all the relevant information that were directly gotten from the various BVAS-Machines..



Labour Party requested for CTCs of three sets of results from ALL THE 36 STATES, INCLUDING FCT..

These some sets of data are:

1. The CTCs of the EC8As, EC8Bs, EC8Cs, and EC8Ds that were used by the INEC in all the various States. (Call them: CTCs of the Original-Results)

2. The CTCs of all the various EC8As that were uploaded to the IREV Portal.. (Call them: CTCs of IREV-Results)

3. The CTCs of all the various Scanned Photos of the EC8As which were snapped using the various BVAS-Machines, and were stored inside the BVAS-Machines. (Call them: CTCs of BVAS-Results)

4. The CTCs of the various accreditation data which were captured in the various BVAS-Machines in all the States, just before they were reconfigured for the States Election's. (Call them: CTCs of BVAS-Accreditation)


Now,, INEC produced only the CTCs of the Original-Results of some (not all of the) States, and the CTCs of the IREV-Results of some (not all of the) states.
They didn't produce the CTCs of the BVAS-Results of ANY State., Not even for the FCT.

Nevertheless, the INEC provided the CTCs of BVAS-Accreditation. And thus, they would be used to establish cases of Over-voting in all the affected Polling-units.



But the main question here is this....
INEC tampered badly with the BVAS-Results inside the BVAS-Machines..
They deleted the results inside the BVAS, and they didn't keep any back-ups for them.
Are there no serious sanctions and punishments for the INEC, and all those INEC staff that were involved in wiping the BVAS Data.??

Cc...
Lotanna2, Spy360, Fergie001..

It's unfortunate

Spy360:

The PEPT is not a criminal court and hence will not prosecute any one. However, the arrest and prosecution of election offenders should be the responsibility of NASS, DSS or the AGF.

INEC deleted the BVAS data in the excuse of using it for governorship election, but in reality they didn't want the true results of the elections which were captured to be revealed.

But what was deleted is exactly what is on irev

Spy360:

The bolded was what I was trying to let Lotanna know about tendering the original copy of Tinubu's certificate from CSU. He was claiming that LP ought to have called someone from the university to witness. As long as certified true copy of the document is tendered especially under subpoena on the issuing organisation, the petitioners do not need to call a witness.

If the justices will be sincere, Tinubu is gone.

The copy from CSU does not show manifestly show forgery.forgery is a criminal offence and must be proven beyond doubt.the same school has confirmed that tinubu is a Mr,graduated from their school and produced a pix of him in their yearbook.what exactly is disturbing you son?

By the way,the section the op quoted is about electoral malpractice and not qualifications.

Spy360:

You are blabbing.

I repeat, you posted two different certificates. Tell us the one that is original. Simple.

You mean the school is blabbing? You see how you are disgracing yourself as usual? Why didn't obi make the school to testify? If you have nothing useful to say,better swerve

Spy360:

God bless you. I don't know why people hide facts as if they will die when they say so?

That guy is just hiding from basic facts that would ensure he keeps arguing.

Firstvhw said LP didn't have the primary evidence. He was cleared. Then he said they didn't present any witness to show that they won. He was cleared. Then he said that the witness didn't calculate results. He was cleared. Now he is saying that the witness used only IREV for his calculations. It was at this point I knew that he was probably paid to create false illusions or he is just being ignorant and doesn't know that he is ignorant.

Who cleared who? You mean you cleared yourself.i still ask,which evidence shows that obi won?

garfield1:


The copy from CSU does not show manifestly show forgery.forgery is a criminal offence and must be proven beyond doubt.the same school has confirmed that tinubu is a Mr,graduated from their school and produced a pix of him in their yearbook.what exactly is disturbing you son?

By the way,the section the op quoted is about electoral malpractice and not qualifications.

You have been quoting me upandan with no bearing.

I asked a simple question. Which of the certificates posted is the original?

Answer my question and stop fooling around.

Spy360:

You have been quoting me upandan with no bearing.

I asked a simple question. Which of the certificates posted is the original?

Answer my question and stop fooling around.

Only the school can answer that and until that,the cert remains regular

garfield1:


It has always been so except you didn't notice

Ok then.


because it's like you really need to teach Lotanna2 how all these work.

He had been arguing on court processes and procedures for days now.

BluntCrazeMan:
Ok then.


because it's like you really need to teach Lotanna2 how all these work.

He had been arguing on court processes and procedures for days now.

You are the one that needs tutoring not him.he is trying to teach you.forget about the obi case,just take note of all the grey areas of the law and sponsor an amendment through your rep

garfield1:


But what was deleted is exactly what is on irev

Not true.

BVAS is not supposed to have Blurred Results.

Now that the results inside the BVAS had been deleted,, we cannot really say exactly what the cause of the blurred results were.
Whether it was The BVAS? Or the server,, or the AWS Cloud...


It's like the BVAS Machines doesn't have “DELETE” button..
So, all the results that were contained inside the BVAS were still fresh and not manipulated (or tampered with)..
(Both The Originally Captured Results and their Blurred Counterparts).........
So, they rushed and did a complete FLASHING in order to remove everything.!!

garfield1:


It has always been so except you didn't notice

Meanwhile..
What you said here is NOT TRUE..

If CTCs had always been assumed as “Already Read” all these years, then why was the CTCs of the results tendered (on subpoena) by the INEC in 2019 regarded as “Dumping of Evidence in Court”??
(Even though the PDP tried to do all the whole necessary analyses from all those CTCs inside their Address.??)
Or abi Lawyers are not allowed to do simple arithmetics.??

BluntCrazeMan:
Meanwhile..
What you said here is NOT TRUE..

If CTCs had always been assumed as “Already Read” all these years, then why was the CTCs of the results tendered (on subpoena) by the INEC in 2019 regarded as “Dumping of Evidence in Court”??
(Even though the PDP tried to do all the whole necessary analyses from all those CTCs inside their Address.??)
Or abi Lawyers are not allowed to do simple arithmetics.??

It is settled law that you won't just tender evidence but also use it to lead evidence and establish your case.obi lawyers should have analysed and calculated them before tendering them.do not follow what the judges say,follow the law and established legal procedures to be on the safer side

garfield1:


It is settled law that you won't just tender evidence but also use it to lead evidence and establish your case.obi lawyers should have analysed and calculated them before tendering them.do not follow what the judges say,follow the law and established legal procedures to be on the safer side

Must the calculations and analysis of the evidence be done during hearing?

BluntCrazeMan:
Not true.

BVAS is not supposed to have Blurred Results.

Now that the results inside the BVAS had been deleted,, we cannot really say exactly what the cause of the blurred results were.
Whether it was The BVAS? Or the server,, or the AWS Cloud...


It's like the BVAS Machines doesn't have “DELETE” button..
So, all the results that were contained inside the BVAS were still fresh and not manipulated (or tampered with)..
(Both The Originally Captured Results and their Blurred Counterparts).........
So, they rushed and did a complete FLASHING in order to remove everything.!!

The problem with you guys is reading the law opposite or trying to bring morality to law.bvas is a device just like our phones or a photocoyuing machine.the cameras of the bvas can be bad,the posture of the adhoc staffs snapping,poor visibility due to bad weather etc can cause a result to be blurry.if irev copy is blurry,you simply check abd confirm from the hardcopy.
Like I told you,the deletiin or loss of data from bvas is unfortunate but the court cannot do anything about it except reprimanding inec.
There is a mistake you lp guys are making.rigging can be done from any point be it bvas,irev or hardcopy and not just hardcopy as you think.infact,it is easier to rig with bvas or irev than with manual forms.when results are done atbunits,a copy is given to parties and police.since parties and police have a copy,this is a strong checking mechanism.but when they want to rig,they simply rewrite a new result different from the one given to police and agents and then snap it with bvas and upload.thats why I told you what is in irev is what is on the bvas.sincw obi claims that inec server was hacked by inec,it means irev too was manipulated.therefore,he cannot depend on irev results or bvas.the only thing for him to do is to gather lp agent copies,gather that of the police abd compare with inec.but he has refused to do that.he only tendered them in court without further push.

BluntCrazeMan:
Must the calculations and analysis of the evidence be done during hearing?

Yes.judges make their decisions during the hearing and proceedings.obi was supposed to do the calculations before the court proceedings proper or before he tenders and then drop the calculations while tendering.instead,he only calculated that of irev.what does that suggest?

garfield1:


The problem with you guys is reading the law opposite or trying to bring morality to law.bvas is a device just like our phones or a photocoyuing machine. the cameras of the bvas can be bad,the posture of the adhoc staffs snapping,poor visibility due to bad weather etc can cause a result to be blurry. if irev copy is blurry,you simply check abd confirm from the hardcopy.
Like I told you,the deletiin or loss of data from bvas is unfortunate but the court cannot do anything about it except reprimanding inec.
There is a mistake you lp guys are making.rigging can be done from any point be it bvas,irev or hardcopy and not just hardcopy as you think. infact,it is easier to rig with bvas or irev than with manual forms. when results are done atbunits,a copy is given to parties and police.since parties and police have a copy,this is a strong checking mechanism.but when they want to rig,they simply rewrite a new result different from the one given to police and agents and then snap it with bvas and upload.thats why I told you what is in irev is what is on the bvas.sincw obi claims that inec server was hacked by inec,it means irev too was manipulated.therefore,he cannot depend on irev results or bvas.the only thing for him to do is to gather lp agent copies,gather that of the police abd compare with inec.but he has refused to do that.he only tendered them in court without further push.

Now you see where we are.
Everything you wrote here are all possibilities..

If only the INEC provided the results that were contained inside the BVAS,, you won't be here rolling out all these possibilities..

We would just know for sure whether BVAS was the Source of the blurry results,, Or something else somewhere else..

Now, the hard copy is there.
But we want to also see what is in the BVAS,, since the corresponding IREV Copy is blurred...
Is it a very hard something for someone to request for every possible obtainable information from INEC.??

MEANWHILE...
THE EXACT MOMENT FOR THE SNAPPING OF THE RESULTS WITH BVAS IS AT THE POLLING-UNIT, (THAT IS,, IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE RESULT-SHEETS WERE COMPLETELY FILLED).
THUS, IT SHOULD BE SNAPPED AND UPLOADED EVEN BEFORE THE POLICE-COPIES AND AGENTS-COPIES WERE TORN OUT AND GIVEN TO THEM.

So,, If any other procedures are followed apart from what I have just stated above,, then even the so-called copies that were given to the police and agents cannot be trusted too.
So, stop creating fake scenarios here..

Some Officials went to the Collation Centers and started snapping the results again..
That is,, after they had already snapped the first photos at the polling-units.
But that was not what the Law and guidelines stated.

Meanwhile,, it's really very unfortunate that the results inside the BVAS were totally wiped off by the INEC.
But let's just leave it like that for now.
It definitely will Not happen again.
We have taken note of that.

Lalasticlala, Seun, Nlfpmod

garfield1:


Only the school can answer that and until that,the cert remains regular

Don't be silly the school already answered by sending in their original certificates and transcript.

All the court need to now do is to compare the two to see if they are the same. The slightest variance nullifies the fake one.

Lol 😂😂😂

O lari go.

Spy360:

Don't be silly the school already answered by sending in their original certificates and transcript.

All the court need to now do is to compare the two to see if they are the same. The slightest variance nullifies the fake one.

Lol 😂😂😂

O lari go.

Are you ok? Is that what the supreme court specified in forgery case? Why was obaseki not disqualified despite discrepancies? Forgery is a criminal case and must be proven beyond doubt kid without any strain of doubt.
One one hand,the cert has diff but on the other hand the school clearly said Mr tinubu graduated from their school.therefore,there is no convincing evidence beyond doubt.for it to be beyond doubt,the school must testify.onye iberibe like you