BOLA AHMED TINUBU MUST RESIGN NOW
Human Rights Monitor, after a critical review of the allegations of
perjury and falsification of documents leveled against Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the insults
being heaped on imaginary enemies by Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s town criers believes that it
is in the national interest to speak up. Human Rights Monitor had thought that Bola Ahmed
Tinubu, the supposed Governor of Lagos, would quickly respond to the allegations and clear
the air regarding the qualifications he claimed to have obtained and the discrepancies in
his age declaration.
Rather than do this the Governor and his close aides and associates
have been engaged in shadow boxing and name calling, blaming the travails of the Governor
on imaginary enemies trying to prevent him from doing the job for which the people of
Lagos State elected him.
Human Rights Monitor is surprised that leading news organizations, the
Alliance for Democracy and some members of the Human Rights Community are engaged in an
unconscionable attempt at suppressing the disclosures regarding the allegations of perjury
and falsification of documents.
The Human Rights Community must be careful about its approach to the
allegations against Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu of Lagos State. The Human Rights Community
must at all times uphold the same standards of equity, fairness, and justice that saw it
through the period of military dictatorship in Nigeria. It is these standards that
endeared the human rights community to the Nigerian people and assured it the moral
strength and authority to speak authoritatively against the continuation of the military
in government.
At no time during this period did the human rights community make a
pact that we cannot condemn infractions of the law against any member of the human rights
community no matter how highly placed such a person may be in the hierarchy of authority.
We must at all times use the same standards of probity and accountability for conservative
and progressive elements. The same standards must be used for people from the North, the
South and the East of the country. The human rights community will definitely lose the
respect of the Nigerian people the moment we start applying double standards in the
presentation or prescription of issues. This is why it is important for the Nigerian human
rights community to speak up on the allegations against the Governor of Lagos State.
Human Rights Monitor also believes that the Governor, his aides,
acolytes and town criers are making a big mistake by hiding under the provisions of
Section 308 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The section
restricts legal proceedings against a person holding the office of Governor during his or
her period of office. Human Rights Monitor is of the view that the section does not apply
to the Governor of Lagos State since the issue in contention is his qualification to hold
the office of Governor of Lagos State.
The overwhelming evidence of falsification and perjury against the Bola
Ahmed Tinubu (the supposed Governor of Lagos State) goes to show that he was not qualified
to contest for the office of the Governor of Lagos State in the first place. Having so
contested the elections while under the banner of alleged criminality, his election is
null and void and of no effect and he cannot rely on the immunity granted to duly elected
Governors as a shield from prosecution. The Police must therefore arrest and interrogate
Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The office of the Attorney General of the Federation must also speak up
on the allegations leveled against Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The Attorney General of the
Federation and that of Lagos State must demonstrate unequivocally that they are the Chief
Law Officers of the Federation and Lagos State by initiating criminal proceedings against
Bola Ahmed Tinubu. The Attorney General of the Federation must shed his pastoral toga and
perform the functions for which he was appointed. His performance in the case of the
former Speaker of the House of Representatives was abysmal and the Nigerian people cannot
tolerate another situation where our Chief Law Officers will be shielding those with
serious criminal cases to answer.
The Lagos State House of Assembly that is constitutionally invested
with the powers of removing a fraudulent Chief Executive is also compromised and cannot be
expected to discharge its constitutional functions without fear or favor. The same thing
goes for the Alliance for Democracy that is fervently praying that the allegations against
Bola Ahmed Tinubu will go away or disappear having adopted a puritanical stance in respect
of less controversial matters in the past. They are therefore not the best place to go in
search of justice.
Human Rights Monitor calls on the Nigerian Human Rights Community to
take a principled position in respect of the grave allegations leveled against Bola Ahmed
Tinubu. The Human Rights Community must assist the Police, the office of the Attorney
General of the Federation and that of Lagos State and the State Security Service in
apprehending Bola Ahmed Tinubu if he refuses to voluntarily withdraw from government
house. That will only be the path of honor for the human rights community and that will be
the only way the Nigerian people will be sure that ethnic and other parochial prejudices
do not color our struggles.
The Federal Government must also take a position on the grave
allegations leveled against Bola Ahmed Tinubu. They have the benefit of security
information and they ought to know by now that the allegations against Bola Ahmed Tinubu
are overwhelming and it is against the spirit and letter of the constitution to still
allow him to occupy the seat of Governor of Lagos State. The fight against corruption
embarked upon by the present regime will come to nothing if it cannot muster the political
will to deal with clear and uncomplicated issues of corruption by public officers. The
Federal Government can assist the Governor by making his exit less painful rather than
burying its head in the mud and pretending that nothing is amiss.
Festus Okoye Esq
Executive Director
Human Rights Monitor
September 22, 1999
Subject: THIS TINUBU PALAVER
Dear Colleagues:
The Transition Monitoring Group must be concerned at the Bola Ahmed
Tinubu controversy. Most Nigerians looked up to the Nigerian human rights
community to take a principled position in the light of the Buhari and Enwerem
saga.However the way some of our constituent groups are responding to the
controversy makes one shudder at what our response will be when faced
with a much more serious issue. Maybe human rights will assume a sectional
coloration in this new dispensation. Human Rights Monitor took a position. Our position is
attached herewith as HRM. What of your organisation?
Date: September 29, 1999
Subject: Re: THIS TINUBU PALAVER
Festus,
I see that you wrote on the 22nd of September, before the Lagos State
House of Assembly issued its report. Though of course, it was likely to be
biased in his favour, yet I am hoping that you can enlighten me about exactly
what the serious criminal allegations against Tinubu remain. Having read the
Guardian's reproduction of the Lagos State House of Assembly, I cannot find them. As
I have been saying in another series of correspondence on the matter, I was away when the
matter broke,and may have missed something. Beyond the difference between Chicago
State University and University of Chicago, and the completion of secondary education at
Richard Daley College, what exactly is the issue? If there ismore behind the age
matter than the alleged mistake on the document from CSU, please enlighten me. The
electoral requirements do not demand a secondary school leaving certificate, only that the
candidate must have been educated up to secondary school level. No doubt
inconvenient for those of us who were lucky to proceed from primary to secondary to
tertiary education (were we to want to be candidates), but no doubt a relief to those who
had to work their way through secondary school. In the circumstances, your
suggestion about Tinubu not being qualified for election (and therefore subject to arrest
because he should not be a governor at all) does not seem to hold water.
As I've said also, I am pre-disposed in the man's favour because he is a
member of the pro-democracy constituency. It doesn't make it impossible for him
to fall, however, even in my eyes. So if you can provide what will remove
the scales from my eyes ... I await the next episode.
Ayo Obe
President, Civil Liberties Organisation
1a Hussey Street, Jibowu, Yaba, Lagos.
Tel: 234-1-266 9553 (w)(fx)
234-1-861848 (h)
234-1-860456 (CLO)
Date:September 30 1999
Subject: Re: THIS TINUBU PALAVER
Dear Ayo
I got your response to the message I circulated on September 29, 1999.
I
thank you most immensely for responding to the message. At least my message
elicited a response rather than the graveyard silence pervading the human
rights community since the story broke.
There are basically two issues involved in the Tinubu affair. The first
issue is whether Senator Bola Tinubu swore to an affidavit on December 29,
1998? The second issue is whether Senator Bola Tinubu made declarations in
the INEC form, which he filled before he was elected as the Executive
Governor of Lagos State? If we answer these questions in the affirmative,
the other question we need to answer is whether the information contained
in the affidavit of December 29, 1998 which was made on oath and the
information contained in the INEC forms are correct. If the information
supplied in these two documents are correct and the Senator attended all
the schools listed against his name and possesses all the qualifications listed
therein there won’t be any basis to challenge him. The best thing Senator
Tinubu would have done in the circumstances would have been to address a
press conference, present all his credentials, call the bluff of his
critics and take some of them to court for defamation and libel.
If on the other hand the affidavit of December 29 1998 and the INEC forms
contain false statements the question is whether those false statements
contravenes any section of the Criminal Code.
I have gone through section 191 and 192 of the Criminal Code, cap 32 of the
Laws of Lagos State of Nigeria. Section 192 of the Code states that any
person who, on any occasion on which he is permitted or required by law to
make a statement or declaration before any person authorized by law to
permit it to be made before him, makes a statement or declaration before
that person which, in any material particular is to his knowledge false, is
guilty of felony, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
It is clear that Senator Tinubu did not attend Government College Ibadan as
he claimed in his affidavit and his INEC forms. It is clear that Senator
Tinubu did not attend University of Chicago as he claimed and did not
obtain some of the qualifications contained in his sworn declaration on oath and
in his INEC forms. If this is so, does his action on the face of it constitute
a criminal offence under the relevant laws of Lagos State? This hurdle must
be crossed before we talk of mitigating factors in relation to his not
having gained any advantage from the false declarations.
I have gone through the report of the ad-hoc committee set up by the Lagos
State House of Assembly and the Committee found as a matter of fact that
Senator Bola Tinubu provided false information on oath. That to me is
sufficient. The Committee being a quasi-judicial body cannot go beyond that
as it did to exonerate the Governor on the basis that the false declaration
did not confer any special advantage on the Governor in his bid for the
Governorship of Lagos State. Whether the Governor nursed the intention to
deceive or defraud by the false statements contained in the INEC forms and
his sworn affidavit is immaterial to the work of the so-called committee.
It is only a properly constituted court of law that can make such a
pronouncement.
I also think that if the Tinubu Palaver had taken place before that of
Buhari, Buhari would still be the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I also wonder whether we would have the moral right to still pursue the
Senate President in his sneaky moves at hiding the truth about his past.
I am also predisposed to support people in the pro democracy constituency
when they do the right things and people want to hound them out of their
positions because of their pro democracy activities. I would however find
it difficult to support what Tinubu did only on the basis of his pro democracy
past or pro democracy activities. We asked Buhari to forget legal
technicalities and address the allegations against him. We asked Evan or
Evans Enwerem to leave legal technicalities and address the Nigerian
people, which he did. Now it is the turn of Tunubu and we are the ones now hiding behind
legal technicalities to shield him from exposure.
I respect Olisa Agbakoba for all his achievements but in the case of Tinubu
I want to say that he is not a legal expert but an interested party having
served in Tinubu’s transition committee. The same thing goes for Professor
Itse Sagay who appeared as counsel to Tokunbo Afikuyomi. Nurudeen Ogbara of
the National Association of Democratic Lawyers is an interested party
considering his relationship with Femi Falana and NADL. This leaves one
with the impression that the Lagos House of Assembly gathered interested parties
to support the findings it had already predetermined.
I want to confess that I don’t know Senator Bola Tinubu or Adekunle Tinubu.
I have never worked with him. I don’t know about his antecedents other than
what I have read in the newspapers and I don’t have any interest in seeing
him thrown out of office. I would have preferred a situation where those
who are in support of the man because of his pro democracy activities would
come out in the open and support him rather than keeping quiet and giving the
impression that we have something to hide.
You are welcome back
With warm regards
Festus Okoye Esq.
Executive Director
Human Rights Monitor
October 4, 1999
Dear Festus,
I'm afraid that I'm rushing off again, but will be back on Wednesday morning
(and straight to court), but am just responding so that you don't think that
the graveyard has descended again.
The Lagos State House of Assembly Report was said to contain annextures. I
expect that these go to clear up a lot of the confusion. I don't think that
there is any real substance in the difference between University of Chicago
and Chicago State University, although I understand that one is "Ivy League"
and the other is not. My confusion remains however because there is so much
confusion about what the governor actually said, wrote and did. Not helped
as I was on my way to Kampala, when one of the party swore blind that he had
lived in Chicago and that there was nothing like "Chicago State University"
(That was Sam of Afrigov). Then Jibrin Ibrahim says that he has taught
there, and that there is indeed a CSU. But he is equally adamant that no US
university will issue a statement "To whom it may concern". It seems that
we tend to be rather too categorical about what is not within our personal
experience ...
I don't know if you are aware of the discussion on the matter going on in
another e-mailing group, but as Beko Ransome-Kuti said there, the matter is
now in the courts: Gani will produce the actual evidence, the actual claims
and the actual counter-claims, and we can hope to see more light than is
presently available in the current heat.
I'll forward some of the correspondence to you when I return if you haven't
received it yet, but am dashing off now to battle with my ISP in the hope
that at least this acknowledgement will get to you while I'm away.
Best wishes,
Ayo
October 9, 1999
