By Dr. Sunny Oby Maduka (DSM)
“Your money may buy you power and help to influence the society, but don’t forget that ETERNITY is not about money but your SOUL.” – DSM
Never in the history of Nigeria have I seen such a massive jubilation by APC’s supporters to BBC’s recent report on PBAT’s CSU certificate forgery saga. It was as if the Supreme Court had already declared its permutated verdict on BAT’s legal electoral process. The headline, ‘NO PROOF TINUBU FORGED CHICAGO CERTIFICATE – BBC’, dotted all mainstream media debate on the 11th October, 2023. APC’s supporters, who have been under the dirge of hopelessness and confusion, suddenly gained momentous applause for the BBC’s report. The report seemed to reinvigorate the uncertainty of Nigerians giving PBAT the legitimacy so desperately needed. BBC report was timely and unfortunately, failed woefully in context and content to convince me.
I took my time to go through the BBC’s analytical perspective, and sadly enough, BBC directly and indirectly indicted its own report. The reporters were very confused to even cover up their ugly narrative in their report’s conclusion.
Let’s go through some paragraphs of the report, and you can deduce your own personal perspective on what the headline said and the actual contextual reportage.
“The CSU released several diplomas issued between 1979 and 2003. We analysed all of them.
– There are three different diplomas for Mr Tinubu that we refer to throughout our analysis:
1. The original one, from 1979, which he has said in the past, was lost when he went into exile in the 1990s.”
Lie Number One:
You can only lose what you have previously collected. In this analysis, Tinubu has never collected any original diploma or certificate from CSU in the past. Even a moron will understand that you can’t lose what you don’t have or possess at first instance.
2. “The second one that he submitted to INEC – supposedly a replacement diploma from CSU (it is similar to diplomas issued by CSU in the 1990s).”
Lie Number Two:
Tinubu never collected any certificate or any replacement diploma from CSU as the depository statement was unambiguous, and it stated that no certificate or diploma had been issued out to BAT before. Where did Tinubu get the original diploma certificate or the replacement? Additionally, when has the similarity of an event, or in this case, certificate become a factor to validate an event or certificate? Can we say that, because all white materials are similar, we can validate their quality and prices? The shape of a burger is similar, and can we authoritatively say that the ingredients are the same? People prefer Pepsi to Cocacola not because of the similarity of their colours, but tastes. Is BBC not aware that professional forgers could print a certificate that only the gods could differentiate it from the original?
3. “Additionally, CSU holds another replacement diploma for Mr Tinubu that they say is probably from the early 2000s that he never collected.”
Lie Number Three:
if CSU is still in possession of ‘another replacement diploma’ for Tinubu, why the contradiction on the probability of the early 2000s, when, at that time, BAT has never collected the original diploma certificate from CSU. The question here is, which certificate did BAT submit to INEC? Was it the original certificate from CSU or fake from third party vendor? Did CSU authorised any third party vendor to issue any replacement diploma certificate on its behalf? If the answer is no, it means that the diploma certificate submitted to INEC was a fake, and what should a fake certificate be referred to as, if not forged.
Secondly, if the BBC report, by its own opinion adduced that by 2000s, CSU has not issued any certificate to BAT, what’s the implication of submitting any certificate in whatsoever disguise to INEC as being emanated from CSU? If CSU denied the certificate submitted to INEC as not issued by the institute, what else could we call such a certificate? Original or Fake?
In its rejoinder, BBC made a mess of its own first report when it said, “….. The document submitted has same font, seal and signature with other diploma issued by CSU around 1990s and we can boldly confirmed this. The fact that the replaced certificate was not issued directly by CSU did not invalidate it. Third party vendors are legally permitted to issue replacement Diplomas on behalf of some US colleges and universities, which are BROUGHT to the UNIVERSITY for VETTING and SIGNING by the vendors before it RELEASES it to the OWNER and the CSU allows this practice as well.
Obvious Lies:
1. You can only replace what is lost, and not what has not even been collected. Secondly, when has same font, seal and signature become the vital elements of a certificate validation? Can a FONT be replicated, a SEAL and SIGNATURE be forged by fraudsters? Does a forged document that matched the original document become an original document, simply because, the document’s FONT, SEAL and SIGNATURE are the same as the original? Did the font, seal and signature seen on the certificate the reality of the certificate emanating from CSU?
2. To invalidate the confusion of BBC’s controversial report, you will discover the inconsistency of what was reported, and a typical example can be seen from BBC’s assertion here, “Third party vendors are legally permitted to issue replacement Diplomas on behalf of some US colleges and universities, which are BROUGHT to the UNIVERSITY for VETTING and SIGNING by the VENDORS before it’s release it to the OWNER…”
Qualified Lies:
Did CSU VET and SIGNED the replaced third party vendored certificate before it was released to PBAT? According to BBC investigation, every third party vendor certificate MUST BE VETTED and SIGNED by the authorised institution as a mandated authorisation or authentication stamp of authority and approval before the certificate is released to the owner. The clear answer is a capital NO, as there was nowhere that it was mentioned that the BAT’s third party vendor replaced certificate was reverted to CSU for vetting and signing. Here BBC report failed woefully to address its own blunder.
Yet, BBC is not ashamed of its own misinformed report. Maybe, the writers believe, though erroneously, that all Nigerians are dummies, hence they can cook up lies to cover up its shame of reportage. That’s probably why in its rejoinder’s conclusion, BBC said, “So, we believed those saying otherwise on the matter are either ignorant of the colleges and university system in the US or are deliberately promoting mischief over it. So, we stand by our journalism on the subject matter.”
In other words, most of us who have faulted BBC’s damaged control rejoinder are ignorant and mischievous. A clear case of a pot calling a kettle, black.
Reading down the BBC first report, it became very clear that the writer(s) were all morons to have used the misleading headline that Tinubu never forged his certificate.
Hear BBC report:
“Another claim, made by a fact-checking organisation in Nigeria, was that the diploma Mr Tinubu submitted was not from CSU as its diplomas do not include the phrase “with honours” under the degree name.
“But the BBC found that while this was not reflected in the other diplomas released by CSU, it does appear in Mr Tinubu’s diploma issued in the early 2000s, which Mr Westberg authenticated during his deposition.”
Cover Up Lies:
The deposition of Westberg never authenticated Tinubu’s look alike certificate, rather, it is now a global deformatory analogy, when Westberg carpeted forgery as, A NIGERIA THING.
The Lie continues: “Mr Westberg said that the school could authenticate this particular diploma because it was still in its possession as it was never picked up,” – BBC.
What kind of contradictory report did BBC’s assessment exhibited, and the question is, ‘how can Westberg authenticate a certificate that CSU never issued?’ The original copy of the certificate is still in the custody of the school, and even a fool won’t authenticate any certificate that originally, never emanated from his or her institution. Was Westberg authenticating the certificate in the school’s archives, or the third party vendor certificate, when in reality, nobody has come to claim the original certificate?
To worsen the matter, BBC played a leading role as a defence lawyer rather than an unbiased investigative journalism. BBC again tried to clarify the allegation of identity theft making the rounds concerning Tinubu’s gender.
“In Southwest’s transcript, there is an “F” (for “female”) in the column where gender is indicated, leading to claims that it was a woman who attended the school and that Mr Tinubu “stole her identity”.
Here again, BBC failed to explain to the world why such grievous offence shouldn’t be exaggerated. Rather, its reportage was solely based on certificate forgery, and of course, didn’t see the ugly psychiatrist narrative of its contradictory perspective on gender disparity.
Journalism should be holistic and balanced in content and context, but unfortunately, BBC chose a narrow minded approach to delude itself, and at the end, became a biased Nigerian political entity, especially as it concluded that, PBAT’s certificate forgery allegation was a fluke.
BBC investigating team didn’t comment on the NYSC certificate that BAT submitted to INEC that bore Adekunle instead of Ahmed. To worsen the matter, wikipedia profile of PBAT has been changed overnight, and now, we have, PBAAT in its website.
As if that was not enough, BBC reporters failed to educate us about the consequences of a president having dual citizenship saga, but filled his INEC form as a full fledged Nigerian. I would have loved the BBC report to talk about the case of $460k narcotic fund that was forfeited by BAT.
I won’t blame any Nigerian who was hoodwinked into believing such absurdity that was written by BBC. It goes to acknowledge Mr. OLISA AGBAKOBA’s insinuation that, ‘corruption is not a Nigeria thing alone.’
The same celebrated BBC report failed to educate Nigerians about BAT’s primary and secondary schools certificates. They failed to equally verify BAT’s secondary school existence and certificate obtained.
BBC report failed to educate us about the fact that BAT claimed that he graduated in 1970 from a school that was established in 1974. The documents of the subjects he took and a letter written by CSU that BAT should enrol for English language qualifying examination eluded the BBC reporters fact-checking investigation. How did BAT graduate without any evidence of writing the English language qualifying examination? BBC didn’t think that such information should have aided its investigation about PBAT’S certificate forgery saga.
If BBC was truly clean to this shabby job, they should have invited BAT to a global media chat, so as to allow him to speak out the truth about his certificate forgery saga. I learnt that CNN invited BAT to come public and state his own side of the fact, but he didn’t honour the invitation. By inviting and interviewing BAT, BBC would have had the moral justification to spew a balance narrative to the disastrous consequences of PBAT’s certificates uncertainties.
With all modesty, will BBC come up with such a defective headline if BAT was a British citizen seeking to be the Prime Minister of Great Britain? The answer is obvious. BBC cannot and will never display this kind of distasteful and shameful report about any alleged British PM with so many clusters of character flaws, because they won’t be appreciated by British citizens. BBC will never conduct a half baked version of a certificate forgery allegation against the PM of Great Britain aimed at exonerating a PM with several barges of character flaws.
If BBC is truly a global investigative organisation, they should have known that, if what PBAT is being investigated for happened in UK, the Prime Minister would have resigned with a remorseful apologies to all British citizens. Playing double standards in a global disaster that Nigerians are facing right now is the height of hypocrisy by BBC, and I hope that one day, the outfit will publicly apologise to Nigeria and all Nigerians for cooking up a story that demeaned the noble profession of journalism.
In my conclusion, I will appeal to BBC to invite BAT, ATIKU and CSU representative to a global live media chat or interview, and this way, Nigerians and the world will draw their own assumptions, conclusions and perspectives. To me, that will equally help in an image laundering ladder for BBC’s damaged headline on PBAT’s certificate forgery allegation. Nothing will be so much appreciated than to see PBAT on a big screen to address the world through the evangelism of BBC outreach or programme.
“Truth is very plain to only those whose consciences are not blinded by deception.” – DSM.
Thank you, and don’t forget that, I come in PEACE.
