President Tinubu Versus Pearse’s Chicago State University Conundrum: When Political Animus Subverts The Elementary Canons Of Logic

The pursuit of political relevance must never become an excuse for intellectual abdication.

There is a particularly disconcerting phenomenon in contemporary Nigerian opposition politics — the apparent propensity of certain political actors to subordinate elementary reasoning, documentary evidence and even chronological consistency to the imperatives of partisan antagonism.

The latest exhibition of this tendency came courtesy of Dr. Gabriel Adetokunbo Pearse, a People’s Democratic Party chieftain, whose television appearance has rekindled the controversy surrounding President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s academic credentials and his attendance at Chicago State University (CSU), Illinois, United States. Just when people with discerning minds had thought Mr. President’s credentials had been overflogged and it holds no basis going forward, the opposition in its usual empty and vacuous rhetoric would never stop its obsession.

With considerable certitude, Pearse declared that President Tinubu never attended the institution, asserting that his own association with the university between 1985 and 1990, during which he allegedly directed the programme the President claimed to have attended, afforded him sufficient knowledge to pronounce conclusively on the matter.

One would ordinarily expect such a consequential allegation to be accompanied by documentary substantiation commensurate with its gravity. Instead, Nigerians are confronted with a rather curious proposition — that a former academic’s professed institutional familiarity should somehow supersede the university’s official records, its registrar’s sworn testimony and its formal institutional communication.

But before interrogating the substance of Pearse’s allegation, perhaps it is instructive to interrogate the chronology and professional particulars of the septuagenarian himself.

THE BIOGRAPHICAL DISCREPANCY THAT WARRANTS EXPLANATION

A published biographical entry on Dr. Pearse, maintained by the Biographical Legacy and Research Foundation and last updated in May 2017, identifies his association with Chicago State University’s University Without Walls programme as spanning 1986 to 1989.

That is three years.

His television account, however, places his employment at the institution between 1985 and 1990, a period of five years.

To be intellectually scrupulous, these two accounts do not necessarily contradict each other — the three-year entry specifically identifies his association with the University Without Walls programme, whereas his television statement concerns his broader claimed employment at CSU.

Nevertheless, the discrepancy deserves clarification, particularly because he has invoked his position within that programme as the foundation of his extraordinary claims.

What exactly was his appointment? What were his precise responsibilities? And what documentary evidence establishes the extent of his access to the institution’s historical student records? These are legitimate questions, not political persecution.

THE LINGUISTICS-ACCOUNTING CONUNDRUM

There is another dimension to this entire spectacle that deserves considerably more than a passing examination.

Pearse’s published professional biography identifies him principally as a linguist and lecturer, with academic appointments in English, Literature and related disciplines. His listed academic engagements include positions at Bayero University, the University of Sheffield, Mercy College and Brooklyn College.

President Tinubu’s recorded qualification at Chicago State University, however, was a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration, with Accounting as his major.

This distinction is relevant, although it must not be exaggerated. Chicago State University’s University Without Walls was an interdisciplinary programme that accommodated different fields of study, including business management. Consequently, a background in Linguistics would not, by itself, disqualify Pearse from directing such a programme or having knowledge of its administrative records. But directing an interdisciplinary programme is not synonymous with personally supervising every student, teaching every discipline or possessing comprehensive knowledge of every historical academic record.

The pertinent question, therefore, is not whether a linguist can administer a programme accommodating business students. The question is whether Pearse’s particular responsibilities and the records he claims to have examined provide a defensible evidentiary foundation for declaring that Tinubu never attended CSU.

Indeed, there is an even more consequential chronological consideration. Tinubu’s documented attendance at Chicago State University was between August 1977 and June 1979. Pearse’s biographical entry places his association with the University Without Walls programme between 1986 and 1989. If, as he claims, he directed the very programme Tinubu attended, how does that assertion reconcile with the university’s records placing Tinubu’s attendance approximately seven years before the commencement of Pearse’s documented association with that programme?

Did Pearse have access to the historical records of an earlier programme? Was his claimed directorship concerned with a programme that existed in a different form before his appointment? What precisely is the institutional relationship he is describing?

These questions require documentary answers. One cannot simply invoke the authority of a professional designation and expect the public to dispense with the obligation to interrogate chronology.

WHAT THE INSTITUTION ITSELF HAS ESTABLISHED

Perhaps the most significant element of this controversy is the fact that Chicago State University has not been silent on Tinubu’s academic history.

On October 4, 2023, the institution published a formal communication confirming that President Tinubu attended Chicago State University and graduated in 1979 with a bachelor’s degree.

The university further declared its confidence in the veracity and integrity of its records concerning his attendance and completion of graduation requirements. This was not an informal statement by a political associate, a party spokesperson or an administration sympathiser. It was an official institutional communication from the university whose records were being challenged.

More significantly, on October 3, 2023, CSU Registrar Caleb Westberg gave sworn testimony in proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The registrar testified that the university’s official transcript established that Bola Ahmed Tinubu graduated and was awarded a degree on June 22, 1979.

The university’s records identified the qualification as a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, with Accounting as the major. What Nigerians must therefore examine is the actual evidence produced by the university, rather than attribute conclusions to the American court that it did not reach.

THE 1999 CLAIM: ANOTHER QUESTION PEARSE MUST ANSWER

Pearse reportedly introduced another dimension to his television intervention by claiming that he was contacted in 1999 when individuals were seeking information concerning Tinubu’s academic history.

He further asserted that he possessed the relevant information and handed it over to those who approached him. This claim raises an additional evidentiary question.

What exactly were the documents he allegedly possessed? Were they original institutional records, copies of correspondence, personal notes or information obtained through another source? Who requested them, and in what official capacity did he respond?

If he had access to documentary material in 1999 that contradicted the university’s present position, why has that material not been produced and subjected to independent scrutiny? An assertion that one once possessed information is not equivalent to producing the information itself.

The burden of substantiation becomes even more imperative when the allegation is that an institution’s own registrar and official records are fundamentally wrong.

OPPOSITION IS NOT A LICENCE FOR INTELLECTUAL ABDICATION

Let nobody misunderstand the argument.

Nigeria needs a credible, articulate and intellectually robust opposition. Democracy is impoverished when political actors are unable to scrutinise the incumbent administration, challenge its policies or demand accountability.

However, opposition politics must not become an intellectual sanctuary for unsubstantiated allegations. There is a profound distinction between political dissent and the abandonment of evidentiary discipline.

One can oppose President Tinubu, disagree with his economic policies, criticise his administration’s decisions and challenge his political philosophy without attempting to dismantle established institutional records through assertions that have not been adequately substantiated.

Indeed, the more consequential the allegation, the greater the responsibility to demonstrate its veracity.

Dr. Pearse is entitled to his political convictions. He is equally entitled to question the President’s academic history. But the public is also entitled to interrogate the internal consistency of his account, the chronology of his professional engagements and the documentary foundation of his conclusions.

A television studio is not an evidentiary tribunal. Eloquence is not proof. Professional titles are not substitutes for primary records. And personal conviction, however forcefully articulated, does not acquire the status of institutional fact merely by being repeated.

If Pearse possesses evidence capable of displacing Chicago State University’s official records, he should publish it, identify its provenance and subject it to independent verification.

Until then, his categorical declaration remains an allegation requiring substantiation, not an established historical fact.

Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of this entire episode is that the desperation to find another avenue of political confrontation appears to have eclipsed the elementary discipline of interrogating one’s own premises before challenging those of another.

When political animus begins to dictate the terms of intellectual inquiry, what emerges is not necessarily a cogent argument but an elaborate exercise in epistemological confusion — a veritable excursion into political jabberwocky.

Nigeria’s political discourse deserves better. Its citizens deserve better. And the pursuit of political relevance should never be allowed to become an excuse for the abdication of reason. Dr. Pearse therefore has further clarifications to make to Nigerians. Otherwise, it may be misconstrued that he’s suffered delirium tremens or that he’s gone non compos mentis

 

Omogbolahan L.A. BABAWALE
Public Affairs Analyst
Life Camp, Abuja

officialczar2@gmail.com