The controversies surrounding the selection of the next Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ibadan seem to be destined to remain with no resolvable point in the cloudy sky as the allegations against the level of extent the incumbent Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Idowu Olayinka is going to influence the emergence of his ‘anointed’ candidate, Prof. Kayode Adebowale continue to wax stronger.
OYOINSIGHT.COM had earlier reported that following the conduct of the election to pick two members of the congregation assembly to join the Joint Senate Selection Committee that will in turn appoint the next VC, two of the contestants who lost out petitioned the chairman of the Governing Council. They called for a cancellation of the process, citing various issues of fraud, malpractice and lack of transparency in the process as the basis for their calls.
Even though one of the contestants, Prof.Akinsola, in his own petition, had argued that the election was free and fair, the silent murmurs about the level of extent the VC is going to allegedly install his DVC as his successor continues to dominate the scene.
These silent murmurs became ignited when the Senior Staff Association of the institution, SSANU, in a strongly worded letter to the Governing Council, also called for a cancellation of the process. The union maintained that even though Olayinka has the right to support any candidate, he is supposed to remain impartial as ‘a father to all’.
However, these controversies climaxed after this newspaper gathered from an impeccable source that the petitions submitted to the Governing Council will be addressed by the Senate under the leadership of Olayinka, the same man who has been alleged of bias.
The source explained that this latest twist raises a lot of questions about the credibility of the process. Seven of these questions, according to sources who spoke with OYOINSIGHT.COM, are:
1. Who is the primary recipient of the petitions?
2. Does the Senate alone have the power to attend to the issue of the petitions?
3. Should the Senate have procedural rights to attend to the matter, does the Chairman/VC have the moral obligation to stand in a case in which he is already implicated as an interested party?
4. Would it not be less complicated if the VC excused himself from the grounds of discourse as an umpire?
5. Would it not therefore be more dignifying if the VC acts accordingly to his own conscience as a free supporter of his own candidate and camp?
6. Is impartiality possible in the face of noted partisanship?
7. If the election, which caused the petitions, was conducted for the Joint Council/Senate (Selection) Board, would it not be most apposite to have the representation of both Council and Senate in any investigative exploration of the controverted electoral process?
Giving credence to the findings by this newspaper, a copy of another petition to the council by one of the earlier petitioners, Prof. Demola Dasylva exclusively obtained by OYOINSIGHT.COM also raised these questions.
The new petition dated 5th October read in parts:
Sir, recall that on 22 September 2020, I forwarded to you and to the members of the University of Ibadan Governing Council a petition with the above-stated title. Since then, I have been looking forward to your response and/or intervention. About noon of Friday, 2 September, 2020, I received an internal memo from the Registrar in acknowledgment of receipt of my petition to the Governing Council through you as Chairman. The memo also added that, “the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council has directed that Senate should look into the matter and report accordingly.”
On Saturday, 3 October, 2020, there was a notice of meeting of Senate scheduled for Thursday, 8 September, 2020. The sole Agendum reads: “Petitions in Respect of the Election of Two Representatives of Senate on the Selection Board for the Appointment of the Vice-Chancellor.” The Notice and Agendum of Senate Meeting was signed by the Deputy Registrar on behalf of the Registrar. The mail reads as follows:
There will be a special Senate as follows: Date: Thursday, 8 October, 2020 Time: 10:00 am Venue: Main Hall, International Conference Centre, University of Ibadan AGENDUM: Petitions in Respect of the Election of Two Representatives of Senate on the Selection Board for the Appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. Note: (I) The agendum papers are herewith circulated (II) Kindly bring along your laptop. Please attend and be punctual. Thank you.
The first attachment to the email was the Vice-Chancellor’s memo to the Registrar dated 29 September 2020, with the caption: “PETITIONS AGAINST THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION OF TWO REPRESENTATIVES OF SENATE ON THE JOINT COUNCIL/SENATE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF A VICE-CHANCELLOR.”
Sir, permit me to draw your kind attention to paragraphs three and four of the Vice-Chancellor’s memo:
You will recall further that in company with your good self and the Bursar, I immediately arranged a meeting with the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council at about 9:45 am that morning before our flight from Jos to Lagos. I briefed the Pro-Chancellor on Professor Dasylva’s petition. I advised the Pro-Chancellor and he accepted that Senate should deal with the petition.
Sir, my objection to the holding of the scheduled Senate meeting stems from the following observations:
The Election of the Two Representatives of Senate on the Joint Council/Senate Selection Board for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor was directed by the Governing Council, and the petitions under reference were addressed to the Governing Council through you as the Chairman. Therefore, the Governing Council, not Senate, is the primary recipient.
I addressed the petition to the Governing Council with the awareness and understanding that, procedurally, the Council has its designated Committee that attends to petitions. Therefore, the question of directing the Vice-Chancellor or the Senate to look into the matter should not arise.
Put differently, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council cannot devolve the powers to deal with the petition solely meant for the Governing Council to the Senate. An official matter of grave importance and magnitude such as this should remain a Governing Council matter as the petition was intended to be.
As the Returning Officer in the Election of which the process and conduct were allegedly compromised technically, fraught with procedural improprieties, as well as lacking in transparency, the Registrar is implicated in the petitions. Also implicated in my petition is the Vice-Chancellor who has not hidden his desperation to install, by all means, Prof. Adebowale, one of the aspirants and the current Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Admin.) as the next Vice-Chancellor. All the people mentioned in my petition are the Vice-Chancellor’s foot soldiers. They are the ones strategically positioned to ensure that the process is compromised in favour of Prof. Adebowale, an aspirant, and the Vice-Chancellor’s anointed candidate.
The suggestion made by the Vice-Chancellor that the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Senate should allow Senate to handle the petition is morally and procedurally inappropriate. This is because the petition was addressed to Council, not Senate. The two bodies (Council and Senate) do not have the same powers and areas of jurisdiction. I suppose that the Vice-Chancellor is not oblivious of this when he noted, in his interview with News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) on 1 October 2020, that,Since this matter has already been laid before the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, it is only decent that I do not comment any further at this point on the merit or otherwise of the grievances of the two colleagues who are members of the University Senate.
One would, therefore, expect that the Vice-Chancellor should continue to maintain a considerable distance from the petitions, which are laid, neither before him nor Senate, but before the Pro-Chancellor and Council members.
The petition is technically against the proceedings, action and inaction of the Electoral Committee of the Senate of which the Vice-Chancellor is the Chairman. This is because the Senate is the body that conducted the election and its members were the electorates that voted, including the Vice-Chancellor himself.
Accordingly, it is legally and logically right to assume that ‘all members’ of Senate are interested parties. Therefore, the petition can only be entertained and addressed by disinterested parties, and I find that in the Council, not Senate. It was on this understanding and consideration that I ab initio sent my petition to Council, not Senate.
Besides, the Vice-Chancellor who is also the Chairman of Senate, has already shown evidence of bias and prejudice. This is evident, and all the more telling, in the two Press interviews he granted on the Election of 21 September, 2020, and on the petitions. In the interview he granted to the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN), for instance, on 1 October 2020, he was quoted as having said as follows:
From the foregoing, electronic voting has worked very well at the University of Ibadan since it was first introduced in July 2019 for all the six elections conducted…. The vast majority of members of senate are very happy with the outcome of all the elections conducted by electronic voting, including the one held on 21st Sept., 2020.
The above submission by the Vice-Chancellor is indicative of the fact that he has ipso facto formed an opinion about the election and has, therefore, lacked the capacity to be objective in dealing with any petitions against the election which he has already adjudged transparent. To restate the point, sir, the Vice Chancellor is not qualified to serve as an umpire in this matter.
The two major Press interviews he has granted so far, clearly implicate his orchestrated plan to replace fair play with illegitimate action. I am aware that he has continued to vilify my person and others who advocate transparency and level playing ground for all aspirants. My resolve is not to be silent in the face of outright calumny and injustice. Sir, I appeal to you based on the foregoing to use your good offices to prevail on the Vice-Chancellor, also chairman of the Senate, to refrain from holding the scheduled Senate meeting over my petition which is formally before Council and not before Senate and in which the Vice-Chancellor and members of Senate are interested parties. The scheduled Senate meeting (to discuss the petition duly served) is illegal and procedurally wrong, and it shows desperation on the part of the Vice-Chancellor and those scheming the agenda together with him. On the ground of evident logic, I maintain that both the Registrar and the Vice-Chancellor have been implicated, therefore, they do not have the moral obligation to stand in a case in which they are already implicated as interested parties. More significantly, on the part of the Vice-Chancellor, impartiality is impossible in the face of noted partisanship. My prayer is hinged on the dictum that one cannot and should not adjudicate in one’s own case.
