In criminal law, he who accuses another of a crime, must prove it. Otherwise, the accused shall remain presumed innocent, until declared not guilty. In a court of law, he who alleges must bear the burden of proof. These are general concept people have used in discussing the allegations against President  Bola Tinubu for certificate forgery. The President’s supporters are quick to say: "Forgery has not yet been proven", and they are right. But how appropriate is that approach?

First, there is a difference between being innocent and being presumed innocent. They normally don’t teach that in law schools. So, even the best lawyers often don’t realize that there is a difference between the two. An accused person is not really innocent. He is only presumed innocent. This is particularly so where the process of indictment is done honestly and fairly. However, where, as in Nigeria, the process of accusing a person formally is corrupt and riddled with all manner of intrigues, to be accused could actually mean many things.

Second, the above concepts only apply in court cases, especially criminal cases. They do not apply in moral parlance or politics. There are certain allegations which, by the circumstances of the accused,  are so damaging that the accused must endeavor to disprove them immediately. Let’s run these scenarios:

A pastor is accused of worshipping in a shrine or in a mosque,

A teacher is accused of raping a minor in his class,

A president of Nigeria is accused of forging his certificate.

In these scenarios, these are very weighty allegations, and the accused has the following options:

1. The accused should just relax and wait for the accuser to prove the allegations,

2. The accused should take steps to disprove the allegations,

3. The accused should  block the accuser from proving the allegations.

Which of these options should you recommend to the accused in any of these scenarios?

As regards the case of Tinubu, because he is the President of Nigeria, presumed to be the greatest country of fraudsters, for him to be accused of certificate forgery is so serious a problem that he should not wait for the accusers to prove their case. He should do everything humanly possible to disprove these allegations. But what did Tinubu try to do? He tried to block the accusers from proving the allegations. He applied to the Court and begged the court to hide his academic record. Even after the court told him that the records should be released, he applied to the Court on appeal and said that releasing the record was so dangerous that it exposed him to the risk of death. That is where we are.

Now, use your head and ask yourself again: Is this the type of case where the accused should just wait for the accuser to prove his allegation or is this a case where the accused must take steps to clear his name?

Please, as you answer this question, forget that Tinubu came from any particular tribe in Nigeria. Assume he does not belong to any particular tribe.