Connect with us

Headline

UNILAG: Trouble in the Ivory Tower

Published

on

By Eric Elezuo

The anticlimax of a series of skirmishes involving the Pro-Chancellor, Prof Wale Babalakin and Vice Chancellor, Prof Oluwatoyin Ogundipe of the University of Lagos, came to a head during the week when the Registrar, and Secretary of the Governing Council of the apex institution, Oladejo Azeez Esq, released a notice, intimating the general public of the removal of Prof. Ogundipe as the Vice Chancellor.

The notice stated that “the decision was based on council’s investigation of serious acts of wrong doing, gross misconduct, financial recklessness and abuse of office” against the VC.

The council’s meeting, which was held at the headquarters of the National Universities Commission, Abuja, had in attendance at least 11 council members, including Ogundipe. Reports available to the Boss, says majority of the attendees voted for the removal of Ogundipe.

A source told The Boss that both the university’s governing council and the management have been embroiled in irreconcilable conflicts for as long as one can remember, but the whole thing reached a climax in March when its week-long 2020 convocation was abruptly cancelled just before it started.

The cancellation, which was ordered by the NUC, Nigerian universities’ regulatory body, was reportedly in response to a directive by the Minister of Education, Adamu Adamu.

Adamu’s directive, the Boss was told, was in response to a letter written to the vice-chancellor by the council chairman, accusing Ogundipe of keeping the council in the dark as regards important details about the ceremony. The postponement of the most important ceremony in the school’s academic calendar brought to the open the unhealthy rivalry that bedeviled the administration of the cherished institution.

Shortly after the council’s letter made the rounds, Prof. Ogundipe circulated a rebuttal, rubbishing the sack notice, saying it was untrue and a figment of the imagination of the writer. He urged stakeholders to disregard the ‘mischievous disinformation’, affirming that he was still in charge. Meanwhile, the council had named a replacement in Prof Omololu Soyombo, being emboldened by the Federal Government’s assertion that the council has the right and power to hire and fire.

“My dear colleagues, the Federal ministry of Education wishes to state that it is yet to be briefed on the developments at the University of Lagos regarding the purported removal of the VC.

“While the ministry awaits proper briefing from the university authorities, it is important to reaffirm that council has the power to hire and fire but that due process must be followed in doing so,” the FG noted.

When The Boss reached out to the Lagos Chairman of the UNILAG Alumni Association, Dr. Lukumon Adeoti, he mentioned that though the process of the removal can be questioned, the council is authorised to take such decision. He hinted that with the announcement of an acting VC, it is almost certain that the Ogundipe era is over.

“However”, he said, “the senate is in a session at the moment and everyone should await the outcome of the meeting while the Alumni will be meeting tomorrow (Friday) after which a definite statement will be made on the next step to be taken.”

Consequent upon the meeting, the Senate rose to reject the removal of Ogundipe as Vice Chancellor by the Governing Council. The emergency meeting which hosted over 80 members and chaired by former Dean of the Faculty of Law, Prof. Chioma Ago, agreed that the removal of Ogundipe was in contravention of UNILAG’s regulation, as the Council removed the VC without giving him the opportunity to defend himself. They also rejected the appointment of Prof. Soyombo as Acting Vice Chancellor.

Among those who also kicked against Ogundipe’s removal were the academic and non-academic unions of the university as they went a step further by calling on President Muhammadu Buhari to dissolve the governing council. In condemning the appointment of an acting vice chancellor, the groups stated that there’s no room for any “surrogate VC”.

But Babalakin on Friday insisted that the sacking of Professor Oluwatoyin Ogundipe as the school’s Vice-Chancellor by the Governing Council was fair and followed due process, adding that it was in the best interest of the university.

“I assure you that there was full compliance with the law in the removal of the Vice-Chancellor,” he said.

Efforts made by The Boss to speak with the Chairman, UNILAG branch of the Academic Staff Union of Universities, Dr. Dele Ashiru, was not successful as his phone rang out without being picked. He however sent a message promising to call back, but never did.

The unions, in their statements faulted the process, saying that it is unheard of that a principal officer could just be removed on flimsy excuses without regard to laws. They said the UNILAG Act, as well as laws and practice of other universities not only in Nigeria but also in other civilised climes, prohibit such and subsequently held that Ogundipe’s sack is illegal based on the fact “that there was no notification to the vice chancellor concerning the allegations against him, no investigation panel set up to investigate the allegations in line with the university’s Act, lack of fair-hearing, no formal report from any investigative committee and no consideration of report of an investigative committee since none was set up as provided in the law.”

But the last has not been heard as while Prof Soyombo has declared himself acting VC and has assumed duties, the embattled vice chancellor have headed for the court in protest of the removal. Reports say that Ogundipe has briefed a leading constitutional lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome to challenge the purported removal from office and replacement.

He claimed that the Council breached all known rules of natural justice and Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution in purportedly removing him as VC.

“The present situation in our university should not be allowed to further degenerate. We craved and agitated for university autonomy. Now that we have it, we must not throw the bad water with the baby. We must avoid further degeneration of the present conundrum.”

But lending their voice to the matter, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors of Universities (CVC), speaking through its Secretary General, Yakubu Ochefu, also condemned the removal of the Vice-Chancellor and the appointment of Soyombo, saying it was without due process. It further frowned at the fact that appointed Acting VC was even chosen from outside the university’s three deputy Vice-Chancellors.

He said:

“The chairman of the council knows that the tenure of two members of the council has expired, so he waited for the members not to be in council to get the majority vote.

“It is like a hatchet job, we don’t want it to appear like that because of the integrity of (the) University of Lagos.

“The integrity is very high and we don’t want council members to degenerate to that situation.

“As it is now, we have a stalemate and it is looking more in favour of the university senate than the council.”

Ochefu’s stand bothered on the inability of the council to bypass due process in both removing the VC and appointing another in acting capacity.

“Unilag has three deputies, none of them was appointed as acting vice-chancellor but somebody else entirely.

“This is going to pose another problem, senate members will not allow such a person to chair their meeting because they don’t know him within the context of laws establishing universities,” he said.

He went further to explain to process to removing a sitting VC as follows:

“In the procedure for removing a vice-chancellor, you have to set up a joint council/senate committee.
“The vice-chancellor will be given the opportunity to defend himself; from there, a submission will be made to the council which will take a decision.

“As CVC, we advise the council to take a step back and allow the process of removing a vice chancellor, as established by the law, to take its course.

“It is a simple process. If it finds the man guilty, the council can remove him, but it should go through the normal process,” he said.

As things are, it is a trying period for the foremost university as daggers are drawn, ready to draw blood, thereby heightening the tension and trouble in the ivory tower.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Headline

Peter Obi Weeps for Nigerian Workers, Says Minimum Wage Can no Longer Guarantee Modest Living

Published

on

By

A frontline presidential aspirant on the platform of the opposition African Democratic Congress (ADC), Peter Obi, has regretted that the minimum wage can no longer guarantee a most modest standard of living in Nigeria.

In a post on his X handle on Friday to mark Workers’ Day, the former Governor of Anambra State said this has happened as inflation, rising food prices, transportation costs, and economic hardship continue to erode the value of honest work.

He said no nation can truly develop beyond the strength, productivity, and wellbeing of its workforce, stressing that the progress of any society rests on the quality of its human capital, the skill of its people, and the commitment of its workers.

‘When workers suffer, the nation suffers. When workers are empowered, the nation prospers,” he noted.

The presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 general elections said a productive nation must be built on justice, fairness, and respect for labour, adding that “it is the Nigeria we must work together to achieve.”

Obi said through democratic participation, the Nigerian workers have the power to shape governance and determine the future direction of the nation.

He, therefore, urged Nigerian workers to recognise the strength they hold collectively.

“But beyond their labour, workers also possess another powerful tool, their voice and their vote.

“They owe it to themselves, their children, and future generations to support and demand leadership built on competence, character, capacity, credibility, and compassion. By refusing to reward failure, corruption, ethnic division, and bad governance, they can help build a nation where hard work is respected and rewarded with dignity.

“With the support and participation of Nigerian workers, a new Nigeria is possible,” said Obi.

He saluted workers across the world, especially Nigerian workers whose daily sacrifices continue to sustain our families, communities, institutions, and national economy in the face of severe hardship and uncertainty.

Continue Reading

Headline

Attorney-General Asks Court to Deregister ADC, Accord, Three Other Parties

Published

on

By

The Attorney-General of the Federation has urged the Federal High Court in Abuja to compel the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister five political parties, arguing that their continued existence violates constitutional provisions and undermines Nigeria’s electoral integrity.

In court filings, the Attorney General contended that unless the court intervenes, INEC would “continue to act in breach of its constitutional duty” by retaining parties that have failed to meet the minimum requirements prescribed by law.

The filing stressed that the right to associate as a political party is not absolute and must be exercised within constitutional limits. It further argued that it is in the interest of justice for the court to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026 and filed at the Abuja Judicial Division of the Federal High Court, lists the Incorporated Trustees of the National Forum of Former Legislators as the plaintiff.

The defendants include INEC as the first defendant and the Attorney General of the Federation as the second defendant, alongside five political parties: African Democratic Congress (ADC), Action Alliance (AA), Action Peoples Party (APP), Accord (A), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

At the center of the issue in the case is whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove parties that fail to meet electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s own regulations.

The plaintiffs argue that the affected parties have persistently failed to satisfy the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration. These include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state or local government level.

They contend that the parties performed poorly in the 2023 general elections and subsequent by-elections, failing to win seats across key tiers of government, yet continue to be recognised by INEC as eligible political platforms.

The plaintiffs maintain that this continued recognition is unlawful and undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s electoral system.

In the affidavit supporting the suit, the forum’s national coordinator, Igbokwe Raphael Nnanna, states that allowing parties that have not met constitutional requirements to remain on the register “is unconstitutional, illegal and a violation” of the governing legal framework.

The suit asks the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties and to compel the commission to do so before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiffs are also seeking far-reaching orders that would bar the affected parties from participating in the next general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies and primaries. They further request injunctions restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they comply strictly with constitutional provisions.

Central to the plaintiffs’ argument is their interpretation of the law as imposing a mandatory duty on INEC. They argue that the use of the word “shall” in the Constitution leaves no room for discretion once a party fails to meet the stipulated thresholds.

In their written address, they rely on statutory provisions and judicial precedents to contend that electoral performance is an objective condition that must be enforced to maintain discipline, transparency, and accountability in the political system.

Tribune

Continue Reading

Headline

Supreme Court to Rule on ADC, PDP Leadership Crises Today

Published

on

By

Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).

A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.

Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.

The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.

However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.

The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.

It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.

“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”

At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”

During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.

It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.

In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.

On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.

Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.

The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.

The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).

It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.

The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.

After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.

Continue Reading

Trending