University records and sworn testimony outweigh personal recollections; academic authority demands factual accuracy
By Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser, MFR
The National Patriots reject Dr Adetokunbo Pearse’s assertion that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu never attended Chicago State University. The university’s documented confirmation and its registrar’s sworn testimony contradict that categorical claim.
An academic making allegations on national television must examine the records before presenting personal assertions as established fact. Political disagreement does not excuse factual inaccuracy.
During a News Central Television interview reported on November 8 and 9, Pearse denied Tinubu’s attendance and invoked his employment at the university between 1985 and 1990 as authority for his position.
But those dates expose a fundamental weakness: CSU places Tinubu’s attendance between August 1977 and June 1979—approximately six years before Pearse says his employment began.
THE UNIVERSITY’S RECORDS ARE CLEAR
In June 2022, responding directly to an enquiry from the International Centre for Investigative Reporting, CSU registrar Caleb Westberg confirmed Tinubu’s attendance from August 1977 to June 1979.
He confirmed the award of a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration with honours on June 22, 1979, with accounting as his major. This was an institutional response from the university’s records office.
The confirmation was also tested under oath. During his October 3, 2023 deposition, Westberg was specifically questioned about the evidence supporting Tinubu’s attendance, degree and accounting major. He identified the student transcript.
He further testified that the university’s review of its records led it to believe that the former student was President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. This was documentary evidence examined through questioning under oath.
Consequently, not personally knowing or encountering Tinubu would not establish that Tinubu never attended CSU—particularly when Pearse’s stated employment began years after Tinubu’s documented graduation.
The relevant question is whether the university’s records establish attendance and graduation. CSU has affirmed both. Pearse must produce contrary evidence and explain why it should outweigh the transcript and sworn testimony.
Personal unfamiliarity cannot substitute for documentary proof.
WHAT PROGRAMME DID PEARSE DIRECT?
Pearse’s claim that he directed “the same programme” Tinubu attended requires documentary substantiation.
A biographical entry published in 2017 identifies him as director of CSU’s University Without Walls programme between 1986 and 1989. Tinubu’s documented qualification is in Business Administration, majoring in accounting, awarded in June 1979.
The biography does not establish that Tinubu studied through University Without Walls or that Pearse directed his studies.
Pearse’s listed directorship began approximately seven years after Tinubu graduated. Directing a programme subsequently does not establish personal knowledge of every earlier student.
If Pearse relies on historical records rather than personal acquaintance, he should produce those records and explain how they support his denial despite CSU’s confirmation.
Until he substantiates the connection, his programme claim provides no demonstrated basis for declaring that Tinubu never attended the university.
ACADEMIC CLAIMS REQUIRE CONSISTENT STANDARDS
Pearse should apply to his assertions the documentary standards he demands of others.
His published biography lists BA, MA and PhD qualifications and several institutions, including the University of Wisconsin–Madison, but does not clearly identify the qualification obtained from each. The Wisconsin entry specifies no qualification. These biographical details have not been independently verified against university registry records.
A separate bibliographic listing identifies a 1985 University of Sheffield thesis under his name, titled Aspects of Madness in Contemporary African Literature. That evidence must be acknowledged, although it differs from direct confirmation by the awarding university.
These are documentation gaps, not proof that his qualifications are false. The same fairness must extend to Tinubu.
Pearse cannot expect careful assessment of his academic history while dismissing CSU’s documentary confirmation without contrary records.
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Academic authority demands consistent standards.
CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE ADDRESSING THE PUBLIC
UNESCO’s 1997 Recommendation concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel sets out this responsibility:
“to base their research and scholarship on an honest search for knowledge with due respect for evidence, impartial reasoning and honesty in reporting”
— UNESCO, paragraph 34(c).
That standard reinforces our demand: Pearse should substantiate his denial and address the records contradicting it.
Dr Pearse is formally put on notice that, should he persist in repeating unsupported allegations, the National Patriots will seek legal advice on submitting a documented complaint to any appropriate institution in Nigeria or the United States with jurisdiction. Any complaint will identify the statements, present contrary evidence and request a fair assessment.
We recognise the distinction between confirmation of attendance and the separate controversy concerning the particular diploma submitted to INEC. Questions about that document require their own evidence; they do not justify claiming CSU denied Tinubu’s attendance. Its registrar affirmed it.
Allegations can be researched, sources examined and assertions checked against original records. Academic credentials increase the responsibility to be accurate.
PUBLIC DEBATE REQUIRES RESPONSIBILITY
Published reporting attributes this statement to Pearse:
“Maybe Amupitan and Tinubu, both of them, will die in the same cell.”
Reports place this in a warning against alleged future election rigging. That context must be preserved. Nevertheless, invoking imprisonment and death contributes little to evidence-based assessment of electoral conduct.
Criminal liability is determined through lawful proceedings, with evidence and an opportunity for defence.
The National Patriots regard false allegations and personal abuse aimed at damaging a President seeking re-election as wicked and politically irresponsible. Electoral competition does not excuse falsehood.
The legal maxim, “He who asserts must prove,” captures the responsibility accompanying serious allegations. Pearse should identify his supporting records and explain how they withstand comparison with CSU’s confirmation.
Respect for public office does not remove the right to question its occupant. It does require critics to distinguish verified facts from suspicion, and broadcasters to challenge categorical allegations when available institutional records point clearly towards a different factual conclusion.
RETRACTION, APOLOGY AND LEGAL REVIEW
The National Patriots call on Pearse to retract his categorical denial, address the documentary evidence and publicly apologise for the accompanying personal disparagement.
We make this request in good faith and urge prompt correction with comparable prominence to the original broadcast.
Failing a satisfactory response, we will refer the complete broadcast and supporting documents to our solicitors for assessment of possible defamation and onward referral to the President’s legal team for consideration of appropriate action.
News Central should provide an opportunity for the university’s documented position to be presented and scrutinised.
The presidency deserves respect. Democratic scrutiny must remain robust, but factual accusations require evidence.
Cicero’s principle for historical writing remains instructive:
“Ne quid falsi dicere audeat; deinde ne quid veri non audeat.”
“Let him dare to say nothing false; next, let him not lack the courage to say what is true.”
— Cicero, De Oratore, Book II, section 62.
NATIONAL PATRIOTS’ POSITION
The National Patriots defend robust political debate and insist on factual responsibility. Chicago State University’s records and its registrar’s sworn testimony contradict Pearse’s categorical denial of Tinubu’s attendance. We call for documentary substantiation, correction of unsupported assertions and a responsible right of reply. Public confidence is strengthened when allegations are tested against evidence and errors are acknowledged promptly and openly.
Princess Gloria Adebajo-Fraser, MFR, MBA, MIoD, FIPMD
President, National Patriots
Member, APC-PCC Strategic Communications Team 2027
