Olu Allen
Last week, the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) published the personal particulars of presidential candidates for the 2027 election, as required by Section 29(3) of the Electoral Act.
Among the documents that subsequently drew public attention, including comments by former Senator Dino Melaye, was President Bola Tinubu’s Form EC9, which listed only his Bachelor of Science degree from Chicago State University, while the sections for primary and secondary school education were left blank.
Supporters argue that an omission on a form does not by itself prove dishonesty, that there is a distinction between “this deserves an explanation” and “this establishes wrongdoing.” I understand their point. Legally, they are correct. But I think they miss something more fundamental.
The Principle, Not the Paper
This is not, and has never been, about whether a university degree makes someone a better leader. I have said this repeatedly, and I will say it again: a person without extensive formal schooling can become an excellent president. Education and wisdom are not the same thing. Character and competence are not conferred by certificates.
But that is not the question before us.
The question is about consistency and truthfulness in official declarations. When a candidate swears to an affidavit and submits documents to INEC, those documents are not casual social media posts; they are statutory declarations made under oath.
The Constitution requires that a presidential candidate be “educated up to at least School Certificate level or its equivalent”. If the form is incomplete, or if it contradicts previous filings, citizens have every right to ask: Why?
That is not hostility. That is accountability.
Jacob Zuma and the Honesty of Modesty
I brought him up not to praise his presidency; his record is complicated, to say the least, but to make a narrower point. Zuma had no formal education as a child.
He grew up without schooling, became active in the ANC’s military wing, and eventually became President of South Africa. His educational background was known. It was acknowledged. There was no pretense.
That is the distinction I am trying to draw. If a leader attended no school, or left school early, and says so openly, the public can evaluate that honestly.
But when official records are incomplete, or when they shift over time, the public is left to speculate. And speculation erodes trust far more than a modest truth ever could.
Zuma’s example, whatever one thinks of his presidency, shows that acknowledging one’s educational history, even when modest, is a form of honesty that is easier to defend than changing or incomplete declarations.
What the INEC Documents Actually Show
Let us be precise about what we know. INEC published Tinubu’s Form EC9 showing blank entries under Primary School and Secondary School, while the Higher Education section listed a B.Sc. from Chicago State University.
By contrast, Vice President Shettima’s form provided a detailed educational history beginning from primary school, complete with certificates and years attended. Peter Obi’s form similarly showed a complete educational progression from primary school through university.
The contrast is striking—not because Tinubu is necessarily guilty of anything, but because the inconsistency demands an explanation. As former Minister Solomon Dalung put it: “Why leave those sections blank?”
Dalung stressed that he was not making an allegation, but an observation: “Public office, especially the presidency, is built on public trust. Trust flourishes where there is openness, not ambiguity”.
I agree entirely.
Accountability Cannot Be Selective
Dalung also made a point that resonates with me: this administration and its supporters have repeatedly demanded explanations from political opponents over omissions and discrepancies in public documents.
“Accountability should indeed be taken seriously,” he said. “But accountability cannot become selective”.
If we demand full disclosure from opposition candidates, we must demand the same from the incumbent. The same standard applied to every other candidate should apply to the President. No more, no less.
This is not about partisan politics. This is about the integrity of our democratic process.
When the occupant of the nation’s highest office submits a form with blank spaces in the sections designated for primary and secondary school education, and no explanation is offered, it sends a message, whether intended or not, that the rules apply differently to those at the top.
What I Would Say to Many Supporters
Many of them are thoughtful people, and I respect their caution. They are right that an omission does not automatically prove perjury. They are right that we should be careful about the conclusions we draw from incomplete evidence.
But I would say this to them: transparency should never be feared. If a public record raises questions, the answer should be more openness, not less.
Citizens should be able to ask these questions respectfully, and leaders should recognize that answering them is part of earning and maintaining public trust.
I am not calling for disqualification. I am not declaring guilt. I am calling for clarity. I am calling for the same standard of disclosure that we demand of every other candidate, every public servant, every ordinary Nigerian who fills out a form for a job, a scholarship, or a security clearance.
For Posterity
The timing, whether this should be a campaign issue. I believe it should. Not as a weapon, but as a matter of public record.
The opposition has a duty to ask these questions, not because they expect a gotcha moment, but because posterity will judge us by whether we held power to account.
Democracies do not die in a single day. They erode when citizens stop asking questions, when inconsistencies are waved away, when the powerful are exempted from the scrutiny that applies to everyone else.
So I will keep asking. Not because I have made up my mind about guilt or innocence, but because I believe that integrity in public life is measured not by the certificates one possesses, but by the honesty and consistency one brings to official declarations.
That is the standard we should demand. That is the standard we deserve.
