ASUU. AAU Chapter Ekpoma Writes The Council, Accuses VC of Maladministration And Spending Of Billions Of Naira Without Due Process

ASUU. AAU Chapter Ekpoma Writes The Council, Accuses VC of Maladministration And Spending Of Billions Of Naira Without Due Process

The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Ambrose Ali University,
Ekpoma in Edo State, Southern Nigeria dangles the noose at Prof Ignatius
Onimawo, the Vice Chancellor of the university for allegedly
misappropriating severely billions of TETFUND allocation meant for the
development of the university. The union, in its letter to the council
roasts the the VC for warding contracts without due process, advertisement
or tender board, promoting his unqualified wife to lecturing position and
other tyrannical acts that violate the laws the established the
university.

The ASUU letter to the council goes thus: “To begin with, it is not the
Unions intention to begin engagement with the new Council of our University
with a call to carry out a thorough and painstaking investigation into the
Vice-Chancellors activities since he assumed duty more than two years ago.
The exigency and circumstance of the present have constrained the Union to
sound an alert at this critical time so soon after the suspension of a
nationwide strike especially on the increasing desperation of the
Vice-Chancellor to decimate the Union Branch and its leadership.

It may interest the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to note that our
University, AAU Ekpoma, has been a great beneficiary of ASUU struggles. In
fact, the current Vice-Chancellor has been superintending over a lot of
projects in the University, sponsored with funds produced by ASUU
struggles. The recently constructed magnificent Faculty of Life Sciences
building, the Faculty of Social Sciences, and the Cordelia Agbebaku
Auditorium complex, to mention but a few  are all there for all to see.
The funds used to carry out all these projects are from the Tertiary
Education Trust Fund (TETFUND). TETFUND is a fall-out of the struggle of
ASUU, through a strike like the one we just suspended.

For the avoidance of doubt, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may
wish to further note that in the past four years, AAU, Ekpoma, has
received/collected more than 4.2 billion (between 2015 and 2018) from
TETFUND for its physical development. To be specific, the current
University Administration under Prof. Ignatius Onimawo has received more
than 3.4 billion naira from TETFUND. In addition, the current
Vice-Chancellor has been able to engage in over nine (9) projects with
funds from the Needs Assessment Intervention Fund.  Again, the Needs
Assessment Intervention Fund is a fund made possible by ASUU national
struggle. The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may also wish to
further note that our dear University during the period of the current
Vice-Chancellor has received more than 1.2 billion naira from this fund out
of which more than N400,000,000.00 (Four hundred million naira) was for
staff development. We can continue on and on.

We have said this little to inform the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of
Council on the need to know and appreciate the fact that ASUU strikes
including the just suspended one are not targeted at bringing down our
University, neither are they actions to undo the Council or the government
of Edo State. As a matter of fact, the just suspended strike is completely
a struggle to revitalize public universities through increased funding and
better condition of service. We are of the strong view, sir, that while
ASUU AAU, Ekpoma was unable to meet with the Council after its recent
inauguration because of the ongoing nationwide strike action, a diligent
Vice-Chancellor ought to brief the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council
about the accruable benefits of the struggles of ASUU to public
Universities with particular reference to AAU Ekpoma – the
Vice-Chancellor/AAU Ekpoma having being a direct beneficiary of funds, i.e.
TETFUND and Needs Assessment Fund.

Thus, instead of appreciating the just suspended ASUU struggle or strike in
its progressive perspective, the University Administration under the
leadership of Prof. Ignatius Onimawo, used it as a political tool to get
back at the Union, divide the Union, scuttle the successful prosecution of
the strike in the Branch and give the Council a very wrong impression that
he had the interest of the University at heart and that the Unions strike
action was antiuniversity.  We urge the Council and the Pro-Chancellor and
Chairman of Council, in particular, to be wary of the Vice-Chancellors
steps, actions and advice because of his antics to divert attention and
cover up before the Council the so many issues needing investigation by the
Council in the running and management of this University in the past two
years, issues for which the Union has been pushing for redress.

The Unions warning is that the recent desperation of the Vice-Chancellor to
truncate the national strike in the Branch and balkanize the Union should
be perceived as what it truly is:  play-acting as a good boy. His attitude
should be viewed with utmost suspicion. In fact, the Union views the
Vice-Chancellors recent actions as a calculated attempt to cause
disaffection between the Union and the Council, a Council which the
Vice-Chancellor never wanted to be in place as he has been totally
exhilarated running the University as a sole administrator. The Union can
justifiably argue that the current Council of the University is a product
of the struggle of the Union in the Branch, having repeatedly engaged the
Visitor to the University and Executive Governor of Edo State coupled with
intense pressure on the Visitor, on the need to constitute a new Governing
Council for the University after more than one year of the expiration of
the previous one. In fact, the Union had to resort to the declaration of a
trade dispute with the Government in order to achieve this. In fact, the
Vice-Chancellor was not and is still not pleased with the Union till date
because of the Unions position and agitation for the constitution of the
present Governing Council of the University. The vacuum created by the
absence of a Council for more than one year made a dictator out of the
Vice-Chancellor during which period he managed the University like an
emperor whose words were laws and who could do anything without recourse to
due process, regulations, rules and laws establishing the University. In
many cases, recruitment and conversion of staff were arbitrarily carried
out during the period and indeed approvals were not sought from appropriate
higher authority. There was and still is a reign of intimidation and
oppression of staff, impunity and a collapse of the Committee System of the
university administration.

It is for the foregoing explained reasons that the Union strongly appeals
to the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to take time to understand
the University in its past and recent history with particular reference to
the relationship between the Vice-Chancellor and ASUU in the Branch. In
other words, the Union urges the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to
understand that the existing frosty relationship between the Union and the
Vice-Chancellor, and his consequent overt and covert aggression against the
Union, the incumbent Chairman and members of the Executive Committee of the
Branch, could best be understood in the context of the past and current
perceived outrageous misdeeds of the Vice-Chancellor since he assumed duty
more than two years ago.

We, as a Union, have pointed out these outrageous misdeeds and
maladministration for which the Union is not willing or ready to
compromise. The Vice-Chancellor had made several unsuccessful overtures to
the Branch Chairperson and some members of the Branch EXCO to play down on
these vexatious issues. Rather than choose the path of honour, the
Vice-Chancellor preferred blackmail, intimidation, repression, oppression,
dictatorship and outright decimation of the Union in the Branch.

Thus, the frosty relationship between the Union on one hand and the
Vice-Chancellor and his few supporters on the other, has been on even
before your Council was constituted.

Sir, it is germane at this juncture to itemise some of the worrisome
developments and actions in the University in the past two years for which
the Union has insisted that the higher authorities of the University should
address. It is the perceived hard stance of the Union on these issues by
the Vice-Chancellor that is at the basis of the festering crisis and the
reason why the Vice-Chancellor is after the leadership of ASUU in the
Branch.

The Issues at stake and the Desperation of the Vice-Chancellor to balkanize
our Union and crucify Union Leaders to divert attention.

1. The first identifiable source of disagreement between the Union and the
current Vice-Chancellor is Irregular employments/appointments, placement
and conversion, in the University. Sir, our Union observed with dismay that
within the time space/limit of one year in office, our institution was hit
by a gale of random employment/recruitment of staff into the University. In
particular, the Union was inundated with reports that wives/relatives of
the cronies of the Vice-Chancellor were massively recruited and that well
over 90 appointments had been secretly made in the University without
internal and external advertisement as stipulated by the law, thus
foreclosing competitiveness and transparency in the entire process. Closely
related to this were the worrisome reports of arbitrary creation of the
office of the Deputy Provost of the College of Medicine that is not known
to the University Law and the placement or ranking of appointments as
evident in the decision of the University Administration, for instance, to
offer academic appointment to a clear beginner in academics to the rank of
Lecturer 1. The wife of the Vice-Chancellor was incidentally one of such
cases of arbitrariness of conversion, placement or ranking of staff. By the
extant Staff Regulation and Schemes of Service for Senior Staff of the
University, for a freshly appointed academic staff to get a direct
appointment to the rank of Lecturer 1, he/she must possess a Ph.D in the
relevant discipline in addition to certain number of publications as well
as have garnered university teaching experience for a period of not less
than 3 years as a Lecturer 11. Available records indicate that the
Vice-Chancellors wife so appointed to the rank of Lecturer 1 then did not
possess a Ph.D and the required publications to merit such an appointment.
Having reviewed the qualifying conditions for the accession to the rank of
Lecturer 1 as contained in our extant staff regulation and schemes of
service, the Union felt that Mrs. Jane Onimawo did not possess the
requisite qualifications and experience for that position. The said Mrs.
Jane Onimawo was until her current appointment, a Chief Instructor, which
is not known to our Universitys Law and regulation and schemes of service
in the University. Furthermore, the said Mrs. Onimawo has no academic
Masters Degree. She possesses Masters of Public Administration (MPA), not
Masters of Science (M.SC) which the law recognizes as an academic masters
degree. The Union views the information that she was a Chief Tutor and
holder of MPA degree as inadequate to merit her movement straight to
Lecturer 1. In fact, it can easily be confirmed that some other lecturers
appointed at the same time (2016) and with MA/MSC degrees, were placed as
Assistant Lecturers. The Union therefore wonders what criterion/criteria
was/were used in the circumstance. On receipt of all these, the Union felt
compelled to write through the Vice-Chancellor to the Pro-Chancellor and
Chairman of Council then on the need to respect the University Laws, rules
and regulations on matters of appointments, conversion/placements and
promotions in the University without any sense of favouritism, nepotism and
other primordial considerations (see annexure I, sir, for the Unions letter
on Irregular Appointments and Promotions in the University: A Call for
Return to due Process. There were other similar cases.

Sequel to this Unions letter, the Governing Council then decided to set up
a Council Committee to investigate all Appointments made in the University
then in the previous 12 months. The Report of that Committee is yet to be
seen or implemented and the issues raised by the Union have not been
conclusively addressed, not even by an unfulfilled promise of the
University Administration to look into the matters and report back to the
Union.

The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to know that even after
this inconclusive intervention of the then Governing Council on this matter
there have been reports of several other controversial
employments/conversions made in the University that are offensive to the
law, rules and regulations of the University. In short, these irregular
appointments/conversions have continued unabated in the University.

Sir, the Union had affirmed and reiterated, again and again, that it was
not against employment and recruitment of new staff into the University
particularly those of academic staff where there is presently a high degree
of shortage based on NUC requirements. The Unions point of departure with
the University Administration was that such appointments should comply with
best practices by following the laid down procedure for appointment of
staff which would lead to attraction of the best hands into the system. As
a Union, we felt that competent staff could be employed through a
competitive interview process, heralded by both internal and external
employment advertisements, just as it happened in our University in 1988,
1989, 2006 and 2015 respectively. We had long been agitating for
competitive process in the employment/appointment of academic staff, given
its deriving benefits of making it possible to attract best hands into
academics. Added to this is the abuse in the engagement of contract staff
in the University. It is done for political patronage in the University
rather than to meet deficiency in critical areas of staff need in the
University. This problem cut across academic and non-academic cadres in the
University. In fact, this has been an issue for which the Vice-Chancellor
has vowed to deal ruthlessly with the Union for daring to challenge the
University Administration, to the extent that the Vice-Chancellor
threatened to deal decisively with the Chairperson of the Union and other
vocal members, including Professors F. I. Esumeh and S. O. Ighalo. The
persons in question had to formally write letters of protest to the then
Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council for protection of their lives and
job.

The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to note that till date
in order to realize his threat, the Vice-Chancellor is still searching for
incriminating report(s) and sponsoring petitions to incriminate the Branch
Chairperson of the Union. This threat to deal with the Union and members of
its leadership has manifested in the unceremonious removal from office of
vocal union members as Directors, Heads of Units and Heads of Departments.
To mention a few, the Secretary of the Branch was removed as Ag. HOD,
before a query was ever served on him over an argument between him and the
Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) on the floor of the Unions Congress
meeting. The Vice-Chairperson and the immediate past Secretary of the
Branch were issued queries for carrying out union assignments and the
Financial Secretary was removed as a Unit head for reasons not disclosed.
The three officers mentioned were arraigned before panels with unknown
outcomes till date. As a matter of fact, the Vice-Chancellor has not
relented on this highhandedness and desperation to silence the Union from
acting as a watchdog in the University.

The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to cause an
investigation into this issue with particular reference to staff
employments/conversions/contract staff appointments profile of the
University to ascertain their compliance with relevant university laws and
rules and the extent of irregularity, impunity, favouritism, nepotism and
primordial sentiments in the process(es).

2. The second issue on which the Union has insisted that the right thing be
done concerns the alleged existence of fake certificates in the University.
Sir, sometimes in July 2016, the present Vice-Chancellor raised a very
disturbing alarm on the floor of Senate meeting of the University about the
alleged possession of fake certificates, with particular reference to Ph.D
degrees, by some staff in the University. On receipt of the information,
our Union felt disturbed and listed the matter for discussion at our
Congress meeting of August 30, 2016. After exhaustive deliberation on it,
our Congress expressed worry on receipt of the news about the alleged
possession of fake Ph.D certificates by some of its members and resolved
that EXCO should write to the University Administration to do the needful
to fish out the culprits. In the view of Congress, this matter cannot and
should not be swept under the carpet and resolved to monitor developments
on it. This was immediately communicated to the Vice-Chancellor. Shortly
after this, the Union received a letter from the University Administration
conveying the setting up of a Committee to carry out investigation into
staff certificates in the University and requested the Union to send its
nominee-member. This we swiftly did.

It may interest the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to note that
having waited for so long without hearing anything concrete on the matter
of fake certificates, the Union again met on Tuesday 24th January, 2017 to
review developments on fake certificates. Recalling its resolution of
August 30, 2016 on the alleged possession of fake Ph.D certificates by some
of its members, we expressed serious concern over the seeming silence in
investigating the alleged possession of fake (Ph.D) certificates by some
staff in the University. Consequently, Congress resolved that a letter of
reminder should be written to the University Administration to immediately
act decisively (See annexure II, sir, for this letter). We further resolved
to do everything legally possible to ensure that the matter was not swept
under the carpet. With this undisguised cooperation of the Union with the
University Administration to sanitise the University, it is sad to inform
the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council that nothing concrete had been
heard about this matter even now.

The Union has been insisting on the need for the University Administration
to follow up its allegation of the existence of fake Ph.D degrees in the
University with concrete action, but to no avail. The Union has it on good
authority that the Vice-Chancellor may be covering up for certain staff in
the University with questionable certificates/Curriculum Vitae and who have
been promoted to the rank of Professor but are cooperating with the
Vice-Chancellor to run the University with iron fists. For instance,
questions the Union raised and other new issues of contention include (a)
why should AAU have a Professor of Law without a Ph.D degree in Law?
Indeed, Prof. Sunday Edeko, the current Dean of the Faculty of Law and a
strong ally of the Vice-Chancellor should be asked to present the Ph.D
degree in Law on the basis of which he was promoted to the rank of a
Professor; (b) how can the announcement of a Professorial promotion be made
without due process of having the input of the Faculty Board concerned?
This is the controversy that had trailed the promotion of Engr. Osadalor
Odia of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
and Technology. This is possible because Engr. O. Odia is the right- hand
man of the Vice-Chancellor, why should a Lecturer without or against a
Faculty panels recommendation or input be promoted? (c) Why should some
Acting Heads of department be unlawfully given third term-tenures which is
not recognized in the regulations? (d) Why has the Dean of Faculty of Basic
Medical Sciences (Prof. Luke Anyanwu) retained his appointment for about 15
(fifteen) years running? (e) Why should a Principal House Keeper II (Mr.
Precious Ehikioya), with a security report (since 2017) of alleged
involvement in extortion and sales of hostel bed spaces, still not been
arraigned before an Administrative Panel? Instead he was converted last
year to an academic staff in the Department of Public Administration, and
he is currently a chief actor for the Vice-Chancellor in the disruption of
ASUU meetings (f) Non-transparency in the disbursements and administration
of TETFUND monies, years now, the funds for staff development in terms of
sponsorship of attendance at conferences (local and international) has been
characterized by extreme lack of transparency, favouritism and
irregularity. The Union is of the strong view that these contentions are
part of the reasons why the Vice-Chancellor abhors the existence of the
Union, particularly the leadership of the Branch. He wants to eliminate all
opposition so that he can successfully sweep these issues under the carpet
and continue his illegalities.

It is incumbent on the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to cause an
investigation into this long-standing allegation made by the
Vice-Chancellor and the refusal of the same Vice-Chancellor to fish out
fake certificate holders, the successful completion of screening of all
certificates in the University and other related matters, including a
promotion without faculty input and a Professor who used a certain Ph.D
degree for his promotion to the rank of Professor and withdrew it in place
of a Ph.D degree in a different area of study, and similar irregularities
mentioned.

3. The third area of concern for which the Union has been having serious
engagements with the University Administration  has to do with the payment
of monthly salaries without remittance of the check-off dues of staff
unions, workers cooperative deductions and voluntary savings of staff to
their welfare associations.  What the Union always hears from the
Vice-Chancellor is that what comes from the Government is not adequate to
pay full salary in the University and that the University is made to source
for money internally, including borrowing from the Banks, to pay net
salaries at the first instance before looking for more money to pay
deductions from staff salaries in form of savings and contributions to
staff welfare associations and the Universitys cooperative society. As a
result, our University we understand owes Banks varying huge sums in form
of loans all in the name of augmentation of monthly subvention from the
state government. We had, as a Union, discussed this all-important matter
of unremitted deductions with the University Administration with little or
no hope of resolution of the problem.

The consequence of the foregoing is that all the welfare activities of the
Universitys Cooperative Society, the Welfare Associations and the various
Unions in the University are being crippled and paralyzed with devastating
effects on the morale of members of staff. This is one issue that our Union
had resolved to take industrial action on. We are aware that the
Vice-Chancellor, instead of giving a true picture of the financial
situation to the government, has decided to engage in blatant falsehood
that he is paying full salaries as and when due and that all is well
financially with the University, just as the Vice-Chancellor did during a
stakeholders meeting with the University community and the Visitor to the
University and Executive Governor of Edo State in December 2017. The Union
is aware that the Vice-Chancellor is till date, unhappy with the Union for
speaking the truth to the Governor about the state of affairs in the
University.

However, no one knows the exact amount that is being generated from
Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), neither is the University community
aware with certainty the amount of money the University, as at today, is
owing banks. There has not been any official information or statement as to
what IGR is being collected on monthly, quarterly or annual basis in the
University for the appreciation of the university community. The Union is
not unaware of some sources of IGR, including the payment of school fees,
the issuance of local and international transcripts (ranging from N3,
000.00 to N10, 000.00), the payment for issuance of certificates (ranging
from N7, 000.00 to N30, 000.00), the sales of water and fish to the public,
rents from kiosks on campus, bakery sale of bread to the public, sales of
sachet and bottled water to the public, and other sundry sources. There are
also profit-yielding Departments and Divisions in the University, including
General Studies and Entrepreneurship Divisions.

As it has been underscored in the introductory section of this letter, the
University has received well over 5.5 billion naira in the past four years
from TETFUND and Needs Assessment Fund.

Stories abound in the University about bogus spending, award of contracts
without due process or approval as well as huge expenditures without
approvals.

As a Union, we believe that the issue of the management of finance is
strategic to the survival of any system. The Union believes that there has
not been a transparent and clear picture of what is being received, being
generated internally, the expenditures of the University, as well as the
manner the monies of TETFUND and Needs Assessment funds are being expended.
For instance, the Union had course to protest the relocation of the Faculty
of Social Sciences to its permanent site of an uncompleted
TETFUND-sponsored building complex (see annexure III), after an uproar in
the University between the Union and the University Administration over the
forceful movement of our members to the new Faculty of Social Sciences
TETFUND-sponsored building that was not completed.  The Union felt it was
wrong to have forcefully moved our members into the building that was not
completed as evident in the absence of fittings, lighting systems,
furniture, protectors, tiles and plumbing fittings. Some parts of the
building then were neither painted nor completed for habitation. As a
matter of fact, the Union wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to register its
worries and demanded explanations as to the faithful execution/completion
of the project by the handlers or contractors. Rather than give cogent
explanations, the Vice-Chancellor resorted to blackmail and misinformation
that the Union accused him of embezzling 100 million naira and in the
process attempted to divide the ranks of our Union for daring to write the
letter. The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to know that
till date, many of the inadequacies complained about the Faculty complex
have not been completely redressed.

Apart from this, the issue of ever-increasing monthly wage bill in the
University calls for explanation and possible investigation. We are no
longer comfortable with the usual rhetoric from the University
Administration on the question of payment of net or half salary vis-a-vis
what the State government is sending to the University. It is the seeming
hard position of the Union on the aforementioned issues that has largely
informed a long-standing antagonism and the overt and covert desperation of
the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the balkanization of ASUU in the Branch,
using his cronies among us.

The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council will do well to cause a
comprehensive audit of the University financial profile in the past years
to ascertain a financial credibility and project for the future.

4. The fourth area of concern is the style of the present University
Administration in the management of the affairs of the University.  The
Union believes that the right way to run and manage our University is best
captured or envisioned in the laws establishing it and the various extant
Regulations and Schemes Governing the Service of Staff of the University.
In fact, Nigerian universities are structured to be governed by the
Committee System, with the University Governing Council sitting at the
peak. Our university should not be an exemption. However currently, in our
University, decisions are unilaterally taken and imposed on the various
units, divisions, departments and faculties. In fact, the University Senate
where there should be robust debates on academic matters has been reduced
to a one-man show and more of a rubber-stamp process for issues that
ordinarily require contributions from members. It is now a case of the
Vice-Chancellor reeling out decisions and directives on academic issues
without inputs from Senators. Apparently to sustain the alien practice, the
Vice-Chancellor has engaged in the appointment of subservient Heads of
Departments and Deans of Faculties against the rules and regulations as
well as the tradition of the University. The Union and the University
Administration had been on each others necks over the impunity and
irregularity that had characterized the emergence of Heads of Departments
and Deans in the University. The Union had written several protest letters
(see annexure IV for these) on the infractions in the appointment of Heads
of Departments and illegal appointment of Deans and it is one unresolved
sour issue in the University till date. For instance, the Senate meeting
that saw the election of the present three Senate representatives to the
Governing Council (Professors Sunny Adagbonyin, Momoh Rilwane and Osadalor
Odia) was hastily convened without the election agendum advertised, all to
actualize the grand plan of the Vice-Chancellor to place his men in the new
Council to ensure constant support of his decisions and plans, a
controversial Senate/election that the Union also protested (see annexure
V).
As a matter of fact, it is the underestimation of the role of the
University Senate and the present lack of robust debates by the Senate on
academic matters that has led to another unresolved dispute between the
Union and the University Administration over the recently introduced mode
of examining students in the University – Computer Based Examination (CBE).
The Union expressed its view unequivocally that the CBE as a mode of
examination is faulty in the University because of the lack of proper
debate on CBE as a mode of examination before it was imposed on the
University. The Union had advised the Vice-Chancellor to narrow the CBE to
general courses as a first step to test-run it instead of applying it full
blown to all courses at the 100 and 200 levels. The Vice-Chancellor bluntly
refused, but today the CBE in our University is a near failure, having been
characterized by examination question leakages, allegation of money
collection by some members of the CBE Committee, delayed release of results
and all sorts of malpractices that were not associated with the old method
of examination. Worried by these developments, the Union had written to the
Vice-Chancellor to express deep concern, calling for full investigation
into the examination leakages (see annexure VI for the Unions letter on
it). Instead of the desired investigation, the University Administration
resorted to blackmail and issuance of queries to innocent lecturers and
till date nothing concrete came out of it. While so many results have not
been released, several months after examinations against the promise of the
University Administration to harvest results within 24 hours, some are
enmeshed in the controversy of indiscriminate upgrading of scores. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Union is not against CBE. The Unions concern is a
well-thought out scheme and an experimentation of the method with general
courses.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to act, given that  the
mockery of CBE in our University if not checked is a potential danger to
the production of quality graduates by the University.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to call for full
investigation into the scandal of CBE and the reappraisal of CBE as a mode
of examining students.

We can go on and on. But suffice it to conclude that in the light of all
these, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may no longer be in doubt
of the reason(s) for the desperation on the part of the Vice-Chancellor for
his actions, particularly his Administrations repressive antics,
intimidation and institution of a reign of terror towards our Union and
members of its EXCO, and other vocal union members. We had before now
written to the Vice-Chancellor numerous letters of protest over his
highhandedness, his installation of a reign of intimidation and despotism
in the University (see annexure VII for letters)

Sir, the Union believes that this is a good background for the Council to
begin its onerous assignment and duty.

For the avoidance of doubt, this memo is written for and on behalf of all
members of ASUU AAU, Ekpoma. Be assured of the Unions cooperation at all
times.

Thank you and God bless the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council and the
Council members.

Yours in the struggle,
Aluta Continua, Vicoria acerta.

M. L. Igbafen, Ph.D    A.A Aizebioje-Coker, Ph.D
Chairperson, ASUU AAU, Ekpoma.                                Secretary,
ASUU AAU, Ekpoma.

CC:
Visitor to AAU, Ekpoma.
Commissioner for Education, Edo State.
All External Members of the Governing Council of AAU, Ekpoma.

Post source : James Idowu

About The Author

Related posts

Leave a Reply

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