Category: Opinion

From Tehran to Tel Aviv: Escalation, Resilience, and the Fragile Road to Diplomacy

By Elijah J. Magnier

As the Israel–Iran confrontation intensifies into a full-scale war, Tehran is no longer merely absorbing attacks—it is asserting itself as a strategic force capable of inflicting sustained and multidimensional damage. Through a calibrated combination of ballistic, hypersonic, and drone-based assaults, alongside the continuous dismantling of clandestine intelligence networks, Iran is not only retaliating against Israel but shaping the battlefield on its own terms. The message to Washington is unmistakable: any U.S. decision to formally enter the war will carry enormous consequences.

Unlike Israel, the United States maintains a vast network of military bases encircling Iran—in Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, and Syria—all well within range of Iran’s expanding missile arsenal. The recent integration of hypersonic capabilities into Iran’s arsenal has amplified these vulnerabilities, transforming the U.S. footprint from a deterrent force into a potential liability in the event of escalation.

Amid this precarious landscape, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi is scheduled to travel to Switzerland for urgent consultations with European counterparts in an effort to de-escalate the crisis. However, in response to a U.S. diplomatic initiative—spearheaded by presidential envoy Steve Witkoff—Tehran has drawn a clear red line: no negotiations on nuclear issues will take place while Iranian territory remains under military attack.

Advertisement
For Tehran, the destruction of its nuclear facilities—however significant—is not tantamount to the end of its nuclear programme. Iran’s scientific and technical expertise is dispersed, resilient, and deeply institutionalised. The Islamic Republic has made it clear that it can rebuild its enrichment and missile capabilities with greater sophistication, shaped by wartime experience and new security protocols. Even the much-vaunted U.S. GBU-57 “bunker buster” bomb, designed to target fortified installations like Fordo, may not guarantee total destruction. But even if it did, it would not neutralise Iran’s long-term capabilities and nuclear knowledge.

This war has reinforced a critical strategic lesson for Tehran: it cannot rely on imported uranium or externally mediated agreements to preserve its national security. The earlier U.S. proposal for Iran to purchase enriched uranium on the open market is now perceived as untenable. Instead, Tehran views domestic enrichment as the only viable—and negotiable—platform going forward. The breakdown of trust, fuelled by Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 JCPOA and Israel’s ongoing military aggression in coordination with Washington, has only hardened Iran’s resolve to fortify its sovereign control over its nuclear future.

Meanwhile, Israel finds itself increasingly overextended—militarily, economically, and

By Farooq A. Kperogi

The President Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration likes to psychologically anesthetize Nigerians who are grieving from the hurt of its economic policies (petrol price spike, electricity tariff hike, devaluation of the naira, etc.) by saying Nigerians are only undergoing transitory pains in the service of a forthcoming permanent prosperity.

I have repeatedly called this an intentional lie. I have done so from the benefit of my knowledge of the outcomes of such policies in other countries, including in Nigeria from 1986 to 1993 when Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida implemented a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) as dictated by the World Bank and the IMF, which is similar to Tinubu’s “reforms.”

I have also made recurrent references in the past to countries that have made progress precisely because they defied the economic template Tinubu is implementing now. I highlight the case of Malaysia in the late 1990s to support my point.

But let’s start with SAP in Nigeria. In 1986, self-described military president Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida was persuaded by the IMF and the World Bank to “restructure and diversify” Nigeria’s economy.

The restructuring and diversification led to the removal of subsidies on petrol (all past regimes called petrol price spikes “subsidy removal”), devaluation of the naira (now it’s known by the fancy term “floating of the naira”), deregulation (that is, allowing market forces to regulate the economy while the government takes the back seat), privatization (i.e., selling off of Nigeria’s national patrimony to a few moneybags), etc.

The immediate aftereffect of this IMF-endorsed “restructuring” (Tinubu calls his “reform”) of the economy was a never-before-seen inflationary conflagration, which eroded the purchasing power of the average Nigerian. It produced widespread hardship similar to what Nigerians are going through at this moment.

Petrol price spike and privatization led to job losses and a deepening of the unemployment crisis. Reduction in government spending, particularly on social services, led to declines in healthcare and education quality. Poverty rates also increased as a direct consequence of the removal of subsidies for fuel and basic services.

I distinctly remember all the rhetorical maneuvers that officials of the IBB regime used to fray nerves, and they are awfully similar to what honchos of the Tinubu regime now use: it will get worse before it gets better, there is light at the end of the tunnel, there is no gain without pain, Nigeria simply can’t afford to fund subsidies, our economy would collapse if we don’t restructure the economy, the current system is unsustainable, we’ll all smile and appreciate the wisdom of this temporary sacrifice when the gains start coming, etc.

By 1993 when IBB left power, Nigeria became firmly secured in the economic toilet. Manufacturing collapsed, social unrest rose, and brain drain (which is now called “japa”) started and blossomed, and hopelessness was democratized.

Someone very close to IBB who nonetheless opposed his IMF-backed economic “restructuring” told me he asked one of IBB’s IMF/World Bank-appointed finance ministers a few years ago what happened to the “gains” they promised would replace the “pains” people underwent between 1986 and 1993?

He reported him as saying the gains didn’t materialize because the “restructuring” wasn’t implemented faithfully. Meanwhile, thousands of people died, and millions of people were destabilized because of this “restructuring.” I can bet that Tinubu and his defenders would give the same excuse when they dig Nigeria deeper into the depths of despair at the end of their “reforms.”

In a 1995 report titled “Structural Adjustment and the Spreading Crisis In Latin America,” we see the same scenario repeated throughout the developing countries of South and Central America. Everywhere subsidies were removed, currency devalued, and so-called market forces given a free reign, the result is always the same: devastation, poverty, hopelessness, death of the middle class, etc.

The report instructively noted: “Mexico is one of many cases worldwide where adjustment and the free market have not only failed to alleviate poverty, but have further polarized the country and led to disaster, economic and social. World Bank and IMF officials continued to say — right up to the current crisis — that adjustment’s attack on poverty would take time, but, after more than a dozen years of adjustment in Mexico, things have never been worse than they are today, and there is no light at the end of the tunnel. There must be a point at which these institutions acknowledge that their strategy has failed and needs to be abandoned, and that a new, more democratically determined approach to the country’s development has to be taken.”

But it’s not inevitable that governments in developing countries should follow the IMF/World Bank’s ruinous prescriptions. Many countries with leaders who have guts and who care for the welfare of their people resist these institutions. And it often turns out that the only countries that are witnessing inclusive growth and development are countries that have chosen to depart from the hell-paved path created by the IMF and the World Bank.

For example, in 1997, when Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, and South Korea faced economic headwinds and turned to the IMF and the World Bank for financial bailout, they were offered help with the usual conditionalities attached: budget cuts, subsidy removal, currency devaluation, etc.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed rejected the conditions. He said they would choke off economic growth, bankrupt companies, and cause massive unemployment in his country. So, he went counter to the counsel of the IMF. Instead of budget cuts, he increased government spending. Instead of currency devaluation, he defended the ringgit, Malaysia’s currency, by fixing it to the US dollar. Malaysia recovered from the economic crisis faster than its IMF-obedient neighbors.

During “A Meeting of Minds” dialogue organized by Forbes magazine in 2009, the magazine’s chief executive officer and editor-in-chief, Steve Forbes, asked Mahathir how and why he bucked the IMF and did better than countries that slavishly obeyed it.

“Fortunately, I am not a financier,” he said. “I know very little about economics, so I do things which are not quite off props. When people tell me that the right way to handle a crisis like that is to obey the IMF and the World Bank, I thought otherwise. I actually examined their prescriptions, and I found that those prescriptions would actually make matters worse, so I didn’t see why I should be following them.”

I am glad Mahathir attributed his success in standing up to the IMF to his not being a financier and knowing “very little about economics.” It’s as if he was talking about Nigeria’s gaggle of slavish, brain-dead, self-impressed, IMF-controlled know-things who pass themselves off as “economic experts” and who have popularized the aggravating idiocy that subsidies are bad and must be removed because they are supposedly bad for the economy and don’t benefit the poor.

Now we know the truth. We need more people who “know very little about economics” and a lot about commonsense to make economic decisions for Nigeria.

The questions people with lots of common sense and very little knowledge of “economics” should ask are, what does it profit a national economy if a government increases the cost of production for manufacturing companies through sharp spikes in the cost of petrol and electricity?

What benefits does a country derive from a policy that causes mass pauperization, which ensures that everyday citizens can’t afford the basic things of life, not to talk of discretionary spending? Recession kicks in when people have no money to spend.

How does a country get light at the end of the tunnel when its policies trigger inflation and a once-in-a-generation cost-of-living crisis because it devalued its currency under the instruction of far-flung economic institutions notorious for instigating mass misery in developing countries and that are concerned more for “their loans, not on growth,” as Mahathir once put it? How can a country surrender its economic sovereignty to a foreign entity and tell its citizens to expect a bumper harvest in an undefined future?

The only benefit of the ongoing “economic reforms,” according to Tinubu and his officials, is that it is bringing in more money for the government. And what does the government do with the money? Fritter it away in frivolities while people starve and die.

Even if the money will be used to build or renew infrastructure—we all know it won’t—if this is achieved at the expense of pauperizing the great majority of our people, it is still worthless.

Only people who are alive and healthy use infrastructure. The time to know very little economics and have lots of commonsense is now because the lofty “tomorrow” Tinubu’s IMF economic policies are promising will never come. It never came for countries that implemented similar policies.

Dr. Nasir Sani Gwarzo: A Visionary Leader Driving Nigeria’s Progress by Farouq Gagarawa

Introduction:
Dr. Nasir Sani Gwarzo is a name that resonates with progress, innovation, and dedication. During his time as the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment in Nigeria, Dr. Gwarzo has been instrumental in spearheading numerous initiatives that have propelled the country towards economic growth and industrial development. His visionary leadership and unwavering commitment have made him a driving force behind Nigeria’s progress.

Digitalization of Records:
One of the remarkable achievements of Dr. Gwarzo’s tenure has been the digitalization of the Ministry’s records. By modernizing and automating the registry system, Dr. Gwarzo has paved the way for efficient and streamlined processes. From trademarks to patents dating back to 1914, the preservation of historical information is now secure, while the Ministry can adapt to the demands of the digital age.

Economic Stability during COVID-19:
In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Gwarzo showcased his exceptional leadership skills by establishing an ‘Emergency Operation Centre.’ This initiative was aimed at maintaining economic stability and ensuring the uninterrupted supply of essential commodities. Dr. Gwarzo’s strategic approach not only reduced costs significantly but also safeguarded the well-being of the Nigerian people during these challenging times.

Expansion of Commodities Councils:
Under Dr. Gwarzo’s guidance, the Ministry has seen a remarkable expansion of the Commodities Councils. From 12 to 48, these councils now play a pivotal role in improving operational standards and developing strategic plans at both national and state levels. This expansion has created a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to promoting Nigeria’s economic growth and development.

Ease-of-Doing-Business:
Dr. Gwarzo’s commitment to enhancing the parameters for ease-of-doing business in Nigeria is commendable. With consistent monitoring by the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC), he has created an environment that fosters entrepreneurship and attracts investment. This initiative is a testament to Dr. Gwarzo’s vision of a business-friendly Nigeria that encourages economic prosperity.

Conclusion:
Dr. Nasir Sani Gwarzo’s remarkable achievements as the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Investment have had a profound impact on Nigeria’s growth and progress. From digitalizing records to ensuring economic stability during challenging times, Dr. Gwarzo’s visionary leadership and unwavering dedication have paved the way for a more efficient and prosperous Nigeria. His commitment to fostering innovation, promoting investment, and improving the ease of doing business sets a shining example for leaders across the country. With Dr. Gwarzo at the helm, Nigeria’s future is undoubtedly bright.

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), one of Nigeria’s most prominent pro-democracy NGOs, invited me to make a virtual presentation from my base in Atlanta to a national seminar it organized last Thursday on “targeted judicial reforms and enhanced judicial integrity in post-election litigation.” Unfortunately, I couldn’t make it, but here are the thoughts I would have shared on the topic.

It’s oddly ironic that the judiciary, which should be the bulwark of democracy, has become such a dreadful terror to democracy that people are seeking to protect democracy from it. The courts have become the graveyards of electoral mandates. Judges have not only descended to being common purchasable judicial rogues, but they have also become juridical coup plotters.

The major preoccupation of pro-democracy activists is no longer how to keep the military from politics and governance but how to save democracy from the judiciary. In other words, in Nigeria, our problem is no longer the fear of military coups but the cold reality of frighteningly escalating judicial coups.

A “judicial coup,” also called a juridical coup d’état, refers to a situation where judicial or legal processes are deployed to subvert the choice of the electorate or to unfairly change the power structure of an existing government.

In other words, a judicial coup occurs when the courts are used to achieve political ends that would not be possible through standard political processes. In a judicial coup, the courts make rulings or interpretations of the law that drastically alter the balance of power, often favoring a particular political group or leader.

This can include invalidating election results, removing elected officials from office, altering the constitution through interpretive tyranny, or other significant legal actions that have profound political implications.

Before 2023, judicial coups happened in trickles and were barely perceptible. The big, bad bugaboo used to be INEC. When the Supreme Court made Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi the governor of Rivers State on October 25, 2007, without winning a single vote, we thought it was merely a curious, one-off democratic anomaly that was nonetheless morally justified because Celestine Omehia—who won the actual votes cast on April 14, 2007, and sworn in as the governor on May 29—was illegally replaced as PDP’s candidate after Amaechi won the party’s primary election.

Our collective toleration of this strange supersession of normal democratic procedures to produce a governor conduced to more aberrations.

On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court produced its first unofficial “Supreme Court governor” in Hope Uzodimma of Imo State when it used dazzlingly fraudulent judicial abracadabra to subvert the outcome of the governorship election in the state.

The Supreme Court’s judicial helicopter zoomed past PDP’s Emeka Ihedioha who won 273,404 votes to emerge as the winner of the election; flew past Action Alliance’s Uche Nwosu who came second with 190,364 votes; zipped past APGA’s Ifeanyi Ararume who came third with 114,676 votes; and glided gently into the yard of fourth-place finisher Uzodimma of APC with only 96,458 votes.

It then declared that the fourth shall be the first, enthroned Uzodimma as the governor, and dethroned Ihedioha whom Imo voters and INEC had chosen as the legitimate governor.

I recall being too numb by the scandal of the judgment to even experience any sensation of righteous indignation. Then came the Ahmed Lawan judgment, and I was jolted to my very bones. A man who didn’t run for an election, who admitted he didn’t run for an election, and who gave up trying to steal an election that he himself admitted he didn’t run for, much less win, was declared the “winner” of the election by the Supreme Court.

Because I closely followed the case and shaped public discourse on it, I was so incensed by the judgment that, in a viral February 6 social media post, I called Supreme Court justices “a rotten gaggle of useless, purchasable judicial bandits,” which prompted an unexampled official response from the Supreme Court that dripped wet with undiluted bile.

However, many judges, including some conscientious Supreme Court judges, agreed with me. For example, in his farewell speech last month, Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad re-echoed my sentiments about the Supreme Court and cited former Court of Appeal justice Oludotun Adefope-Okojie who, in her own farewell speech, approvingly quoted my description of Supreme Court justices as “a rotten gaggle of useless, purchasable judicial bandits.”

The judicial banditry I talked about has assumed a different, worrying dimension. It has now become full-on judicial sabotage against the soul of democracy itself. In unprecedented judicial roguery, the Appeal Court has invalidated the election of all 16 PDP lawmakers in the Plateau State House of Assembly and handed unearned victories to APC candidates. It also nullified the victory of PDP’s Governor Caleb Mutfwang and asked that APC’s Nentawe Yilwatda Goshwe, who lost in the actual election, be declared the winner.

The case of the judicial theft of Kano State’s governorship election from NNPP to APC is too well-known to warrant restating. In all these cases, the judiciary invoked matters that were extraneous to the actual vote (called “technicalities”) to decide whom to crown as winners of the elections.

It’s now so bad that courting the votes of the electorates is no longer an important component of the democratic process since politicians can get from the courts what they lost at the ballot box. That’s a dangerous state for any democracy to be in.

The judiciary is becoming an unacceptably treacherous but overpampered monster that is exercising powers that are beyond the bounds of reason. It needs to be stopped through a holistic reworking of the electoral act.

The first thing that needs to be spelled out more clearly and more forcefully in a revised electoral act is that pre-election matters are not litigable after the winner of an election has been announced. All pre-election petitions should be litigated before the conduct of elections. Post-election litigations should be limited to the conduct of the elections. Since this happens once in four years, it should not be too much of a burden for the judiciary.

The second change that needs to be enshrined in a revised electoral act is a provision that divests courts of the powers to declare winners and losers of electoral contests. I am the first to admit that this is problematic because it limits the mechanism for redress available to politicians in cases of INEC-engineered electoral robberies. But in situations where courts can glibly overrule the will of the electorate by invoking procedural inanities that are extrinsic to elections to declare winners and losers, I would rather deal with INEC alone.

The conduct of elections can be improved in the future to the point that manipulations can be significantly reduced. But I can’t say the same for a rapacious, unjust, and mercenary judiciary such as we have today.

In any case, in all functional democracies, it is voters, not the courts, who elect and remove people from positions of political power. If the courts find sufficient evidence of irregularities in the conduct of elections, they can order a rerun. But they should never be invested with the power to declare winners and losers.

The last suggestion I have for the revision of the electoral act is to constitutionalize the imperative to finalize the adjudication of all election petitions before the inauguration of elected officials into their offices. There are two reasons for this.

First, it is disruptive to put elected officials through the hassles of post-election litigation while they are already officially in office. Governance is often put on hold during the pendency of litigations, and lots of state resources are expended to bribe judges, hire lawyers, and bring witnesses. That’s unfair to Nigerians.

Second, at least at the presidential level, once someone has been declared the president and is inaugurated, they automatically assume enormous symbolic power that is almost impossible to reverse. They also have access to enormous resources that they can deploy to influence the course of justice.

Whatever we do, we must curb the excesses of our out-of-control judiciary before it finally murders what remains of our democracy.

As I have stressed repeatedly, I have no partisan emotional investment in the political brawl between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, or in who is and is not president of Nigeria. My only partisan affinity is with the truth or, to reecho iconic Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein, the best obtainable version of the truth.

This intervention is for people who genuinely want clarity from the blinding maze of propaganda and intentional falsehoods flying around. It’s not for sentimental partisan hacks and political devotees who just want an affirmation of and a comfort to their prejudices and preconceptions.

As an American citizen, a graduate of two American universities, and a professor in one, I can tell the reader three major things Atiku’s Nigerian lawyers and his supporters on social media— and in some openly partisan news sites— are getting wrong.

The major one is the idea that because Tinubu presented a certificate (called a “diploma” in America) to INEC that didn’t emanate from Chicago State University, whose registrar affirmed under oath that Tinubu graduated from there, he has committed forgery in the legal sense of the term. That thinking betrays ignorance of the American university system—and results from people using their limited Nigerian lenses to refract an American phenomenon that’s beyond their experiential reality.

Certificates are not used as legal proof of graduation from any school in America and therefore can’t be forged in the legal sense of the term. Only transcripts can be used as legal documents to validate the genuineness of claims to have attended institutions, including secondary schools. Had Tinubu presented a counterfeit transcript to support his claim of graduating from CSU when he didn’t, or merely to claim a higher GPA than he actually earned even when he graduated from there, that would have been forgery in the legal sense of the term, which is understood to mean “Criminal falsification by making or altering an instrument with intent to defraud.”

In this context, “intent to defraud” would mean Tinubu wanted to pass himself off as a university graduate when he wasn’t. But he is. His transcript says he is. The registrar of the university said under oath that he is. A classmate of his said under oath that they graduated from the school the same year. That’s all that matters.

One indication of the legal worthlessness of certificates in America came from the CSU registrar’s admission in court that the school had many uncollected diplomas going as far back as the 1930s. Certificates are not required to prove graduation here. That’s why people can afford to ignore them.

Intriguingly, the registrar said Tinubu also didn’t collect his original certificate from the school and that it is still lying there. Why did he say he lost it?

In the United States, a certificate is in many ways similar to a graduation ceremony. Most people attend it and listen to the president of the university formally confer diplomas on them with “all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.” But it has no force of law. Not attending a graduation ceremony doesn’t deprive you of “all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto.”

If you organize your own graduation ceremony, invite friends and family, and ask your father to confer your degree on you, it’s fine so long as you validly earned the degree. Incidentally, an American family friend of mine did exactly that last May. His autistic son can’t tolerate the sensory overload of large crowds. So, he organized his son’s graduation and invited friends and family. He dressed as the president, and his wife was the provost. His eldest daughter was the graduation speaker.

In America, the diploma is the printed version—or fixed extension—of a graduation ceremony. It’s merely ceremonial and can be tweaked or individualized by anyone without legal consequences.

It betrays a stupendous poverty of legal and logical imagination to say that the “forgery” (unauthorized redesign is a better expression) of a non-legally-binding ceremonial document of a validly earned degree invalidates the degree. It’s never mentioned in CSU’s diplomas that alteration of the documents renders them invalid because they have no validity beyond being decorative documents.

You find that kind of language here only on transcripts. On Tinubu’s CSU transcript, for instance, we find such legal language twice. The left-hand side of the transcript says, “Explanatory legend and authenticity confirmation information on back.” On the right-hand side, it says, “THIS RECORD IS NOT OFFICIAL UNLESS IT BEARS A SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF THE UNIVERSITY.”

The diploma does not have such language because in America the diploma is no more important than a school’s academic gown. For example, I use a cheaper, “forged” version of the academic gown of the university that awarded me a doctoral degree (that I ordered from a third-party vendor online) to attend graduation ceremonies at the school where I teach now. At the time I graduated with my doctoral degree, I could only afford to rent the gown. Most people here do the same. It doesn’t invalidate our degrees because we’re using the unofficial academic gown of our universities.

I admit, though, that Tinubu was careless. He is in Nigeria where certificates have a different meaning and valence from the United States. He should have submitted CSU’s official diploma to INEC. But what he did does not, by even the most feverish stretch of conspiratorial fantasy, rise to the level of a Salisu-Buhari-type criminal forgery.

Unlike Salisu Buhari who forged a University of Toronto degree that he didn’t earn, Tinubu attended and earned a degree from Chicago State University. What Tinubu did with his certificate is pointlessly self-harming in reputational terms in Nigeria, but it’s not illegal.

The second major misconception of America came from Atiku’s lawyer by the name of Kalu Kalu. He said at a news conference on October 5 that “the Chicago State University admission application form has a claim that… the owner of that document is a Black American, and the document Bola Ahmed Tinubu submitted to INEC, he denied having dual citizenship which means it doesn’t belong to him.”

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t help myself from letting out a burst of deep, loud, hearty laughter when I read that. It’s pure hilarious ignorance! You see, America has an enduringly irresistible impulse to taxonomize humanity into discrete racial categories. Every official form here requests you to identify your race. The modern options are “White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.”

In the mid-1970s when Tinubu applied to study at CSU, what is now “Black or African American” on official forms in America was simply “Black American,” particularly in historically Black Universities like CSU.

The US Census Bureau has historically defined “Black or African American” as “A person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa.”

“Black American” was the only category that closely applied to Tinubu, so he chose it because the form instructed him to “CHECK ONE BOX.” Checking the “Black American” box didn’t mean he called himself a Black American or that he impersonated a Black American. It only meant he identified HIS RACE as “Black American.” No more, no less.

The other options in the form were barely decipherable, but I could pick out “American Indian or Alaska Native,” something that looks like “Spanish Surname American,” another that looks like “Eurasian American,” etc. Although the form gave the option for “Other (explain),” most Africans here typically choose Black American as the closest description of their race.

Finally, a Dr. Abimbola Adenike Tinubu, who lives in a small town called Opelousas in the state of Louisiana, is being touted by social media trolls as the woman whose identity Bola Tinubu allegedly stole. The problem is that the lady was born in 1971, just 4 years before Tinubu enrolled at Southwest College. She graduated from the University of Ilorin in 1998 and came to the US later.

It’s chronologically and rationally impossible for Tinubu to steal the identity of a 4-year-old Nigerian preschooler (who came to America decades after Tinubu left it) and then present himself as an adult male to enroll at a community college!

Plus, Dr. Abimbola’s Whitepages information shows that she has never lived in Virginia where the social security number associated with President Tinubu was issued or Chicago where he went to school. She has only lived in Tennessee, Texas, and Louisiana.

Look, Tinubu’s life is wrapped in multiple layers of mind-bogglingly intricate fraud, but you can’t peel off these layers of fraud with fraud. You do it with the truth.

And Atiku can actually inflict fatal moral wounds on Tinubu and potentially immobilize him in 2027 if he pursues the leads that came out from his “fishing expedition” in Chicago. A low-hanging fruit is Tinubu’s obviously fraudulent secondary school attendance claim.

He can write to Cambridge University to verify the GCE A-level result that Tinubu presented to Southwest College. If it turns out that it’s fake or belongs to someone else, he can cause Daley College to rescind his associate degree. If his associate degree is rescinded, his bachelor’s degree from Chicago State University will automatically follow. With no qualifications to present to INEC to prove that he has at least the equivalent of a secondary school certificate, he’d be legally ineligible to run again.