In respect of the ongoing victimisation of the UI3, which has led to the suspension of Aduwo Ayodele and Mide Gbadegesin, the Union of Campus Journalists, University of Ibadan, recently held an interview with the president of the University of Ibadan Students’ Union. This interview has been made into a two-part series.
UCJ 1: So, to the subject of the issue, I think a good place to begin would be a question about the delay in the release from the students’ union body. It came about 10 days after the suspension of Aduwo and Mide Gbadegesin by the Students’ Disciplinary Committee. Between the time the suspension was officially issued and when the SU released its own standpoint about the issue, we already had the students’ union body of FUOYE, Amnesty International, and several other bodies make their releases. It became, a ridicule and a lag on the part of our students’ union, that they didn’t say anything for days. What do you have to say about this?
Covenant: To begin with, I will say that this is a very important conversation we are having and as much as possible, I will be very honest. Of course, I’m always an honest person. I’ll be very honest and fair. To start with, even before the issue, which is a complex one, the entire case even predates my tenure as president, and when we came in, we started evaluating what’s on the ground, knowing where this issue stands and all of that. So, we did as much as possible to step in before it got to the Central SDC and before the verdict came out. And, then, that day, looking at how things turned out, we also commenced work immediately to see how we can actually — because, in fact, the process is still ongoing. The process is not a dead end yet. It is still an ongoing process and because of that, we commenced or resumed the ongoing work. But, to comment about the release, the delay was particularly because at the time we were still trying to see how we could sort out the issue. Yes, we owe the students’ community that open government, accountability, and feedback, all well and good. But on the other hand, too, we cannot be reactionary. We can’t be reactionary with how we approach issues. That’s why it may have seemed as though the statements or the press release that went out were a little bit delayed. And, yeah, I understand the perspective of talking about the fact that other institutions had made certain releases and all of that. I also understand them, I think that maybe they did that, of course, from the point of solidarity, but maybe they may not have had all the details. But, long story short, the press release was delayed, particularly because we could not afford to be reactionary at the time and because certain processes were ongoing that we needed to fine-tune, and we also sorted out certain details before we eventually put out a communication to the students’ body. So, that’s it. And, I think we addressed all of these in the release as well.
UCJ 1: Alright. I think it’s important for us to be very clear here. I mean, in terms of the choice of words. That’s the primary reason why we have initiated this conversation. Based on what you said, I cannot exactly say that these are the particular reasons why the release was delayed. So, would you mind explaining?
Covenant: So, the release was delayed because, one, a process was still ongoing. After the verdict, we are still trying to sort out certain things.
UCJ 1: What process?
Covenant: We are also trying to establish communication with the affected individuals, which actually proved abortive, and we cannot do certain things outside of communication with these individuals. That’s what is responsible for the entire delay in the communication with the entire body of students.
UCJ 1: So, how frequently did you try to establish communication with them because a couple of the victims in this instance mentioned categorically that between that time and during the whole process, there was no contact from the Students’ Union body to any of them?
Covenant: Well, as much as I can confirm, I interacted with these people. My first interaction, particularly on issues like this, was even as far back as March, around the inauguration period. But, I mean after this time, because they wouldn’t listen to us. That’s the truth. We have instances when we have reached out to them and they wouldn’t listen to us. So, we have to speak to people that we know they have their ears, that they listen to — past presidents and all that — and I can confirm that these people instructed that they come to us to have a meeting with us. They declined. We didn’t see them, but we still continued to do all we could from our end. That’s it.They insisted that they are still not going to have any conversation with us and I believe that as it is, there is nothing we can do if we don’t have some level of cooperation from their end.
UCJ 1: What would the communication with them have done? What would it have changed in terms of the release that was made, or how did it impact the release that was to be made, or how would it have impacted?
Covenant: At least, if we had the opportunity to speak together and work on this as the union, I believed we would have made tremendous progress even before all of these had happened. Right? Maybe they feel like the Union is not important, or they feel like they can fight without the Union. So, most of the stuff they did was solo efforts. They had a lot of press releases, a lot of interviews, and all that, which is actually fine, but I feel like if we had had a meeting, we would have been able to discuss how we can both track a way forward on this entire issue. We would have discussed how better we can see issues and all of that, but all of that didn’t happen because of their body language.
UCJ 2: Okay. Before I proceed to my question, you said you made efforts to reach out to them and it was futile. Did they also make efforts to reach out to you?
Covenant: Not that I can confirm, there was no effort from any of the affected students at any point to reach out to the Students’ Union on this issue. They never did. I cannot confirm any.
UCJ 1: Okay. So, back to the issue at hand, do you think that their dissent should be punished, and at this level?
Covenant: For me, I have my opinion about all of this. Even for me at the panel, because I am a member of the students’ disciplinary panel –
UCJ 1: At what stage, sorry? I think that was at the final stage, when the decision had already been compiled?
Covenant: (Do I continue?) So, I am a member of the Central Students Disciplinary Council and I recalled that I made my firm stand on the fact that what they did was not wrong. For me, it is a right and this is a university. Every student has the right to express their ideologies freely. In fact, the university mantra says that for a mind that knows is a mind that’s free. So, I made clear that as a Students’ Union, we strongly believe that what they have done, by dissenting, there’s nothing wrong about it. However, I know, the major issues that we have here are the fact that maybe a little bit of procedural breaches, actually. Maybe a little bit of procedural breaches when we consider certain factors. That’s where you can trace the fault to. So, for me, I believe that dissent, everybody has the right to fully express freedom of expression as entrenched in the Constitution. And even the Students’ Union fully, you know, as a Union, these are the things we stand for, these are the things we represent, this is how we represent interest. Even the press itself, this is what we all do. So, I don’t think personally, that dissent should be clamped down. No, but we are basically digging around procedural breaches. That’s it. That’s my two cents on it.
UCJ 1: Are you saying they were punished for procedural breaches and not for dissent?
Covenant: Well, I cannot say exactly. I cannot comment on that, because… Yeah, I cannot comment on that. That’s basically it. I cannot comment on that.
UCJ 2: Okay. As a follow-up to that, what are the procedural breaches, or what they should have done?
Covenant: Well, when it comes to gatherings generally, I mean, there are guidelines around or should I say conduct. It is enshrined in our handbook and all that. So, disrupting a university gathering is a university offence in itself. That’s the major challenge here. What they did in itself, I still maintain, protesting, is not an offence. To protest is not an offence, but disrupting a university event is an offence in itself, which is the procedural breach I’m referring to.
UCJ 2: On the verdict of the committee, was it a democratic verdict of the committee? Was it that the members of the committee voted on that day, or was it a verdict that had been prepared before?
Covenant: I choose not to comment on that. But basically, there are two stages to the hearing. The first stage before it gets to the central. That means they have to face the first hearing and then the final hearing, but on that, I choose not to comment. So, that’s all I’ll say about that.
UCJ 1: Alright. I have two or three questions about what you have said, but back to the issue of your presence at the Central Disciplinary Council, I think it is also necessary to be clear about things. At what point were you a part of the Central Students’ Disciplinary Council? At what point were you part of the meeting, I mean, physically there, because I know that there have been several stages and if you were only there at the end stage, then it means that you couldn’t have substantially made…
Covenant: Do you mean that morning? Or the day of the meeting? I think you should rephrase your question.
UCJ 1: I mean that before the central gathering [of the Disciplinary Council], there have been several or subsequent meetings that led up to that. That is ‘meetings of the SDC’. Now, if you weren’t part of those subsequent meetings and you were only there at the final stage, it means that you couldn’t have been able to have made substantial arguments for the sake of the victimized students, which sort of betrays the position or role of the Students’ Union body in this kind of situation. I mean, when you are making the arguments at the last stage, where they have already achieved their own conclusion about the whole thing.
Covenant: So, to comment on that, well, I can’t reach a conclusion on that, but basically, I’m customarily, this is not even about the Students now, because it is a committee make-up. The only part where the committee makeup for the students’ disciplinary committee, where the students’ representatives are, is the Central [SDC]. To be clear, I can confirm that to a large extent, to what I know, students are always involved at different stages, even in faculty students’ disciplinary cases; we have the Faculty president representing the students. There is a student representative at each level. So, I am a member of the Central Students’ Disciplinary Committee and I was there. I think that is the only clarification I can give to answer that question.
UCJ1: Do you think it is fair that the victimised students cannot be represented at the meetings before the ultimate stage?
Covenant: Well, to comment about that, I think it depends on the nuances actually, because disciplinary cases vary. There are those that happen at faculty levels, and there are those at the student affairs level. I think that they are different. I mean for the one that I participated in at the central level, I know that they give room for the student leaders to speak. Everybody has equal speaking rights at the committee level. I think that’s fair, because the makeup of every committee involved representatives from each place and all of that. I think, to the best of my knowledge, I represent the students’ interests as much as possible where I am built to do that.
UCJ 1: Alright. You talked about procedural breaches. You said that there are probably procedural breaches they (the victimised students) didn’t follow (before embarking on the protest). You have been a member of the students’ body, right before your tenure and this issue had started before then, and even when your tenure started, this issue has been there. So, now, one of the procedures is calling for Congress, which there have been attempts to call even under your tenure, which is a procedure, but I don’t think any Congress has been held under your tenure. For the congress that should have been held, there was no adequate mobilisation on the part of the Students’ Union. This has been reported by several press releases, and it’s not the first time it’s happened. It happened in previous tenures where student leaders failed to adequately mobilise students for Congress. Now, it appears that even the “procedure” that should give confidence to students, so that they can work through those “procedures”, the administration of the students’ union has always incapacitated it — and we saw an example in the last Congress that was meant to hold. So, how should we have faith in trying to call for Congress, which will be intentionally sabotaged by those who should actually spearhead the Congress?
Covenant: I think it all depends on perspective, actually, because as much as I can confirm, I cannot speak for the previous administration, but as much as I can confirm, even the Press -at least I recall that day, there were a couple of press members on the ground that morning. They saw the effort that was going into all that. While it may appear that some lines are blurred, we have a strong commitment to not just doing things we should do, but doing them right. As much as possible we do this, even though, or even in instances where it seems like certain things may be difficult to put together. About the last Congress, we did our best to mobilise, but I think that day, there were a couple of challenges. There was no light; I recalled that the weather was cloudy, and it was about to rain. Unfortunately, we had not reached quorum at about that time, and then the rain had started falling. The only best thing as at the time was to postpone the Congress and further plan for it.
UCJ 1: Were buses provided to mobilize students?
Covenant: Well, unfortunately, that day, the bus was not available early enough. But, yes, I recall that the black bus, one of our buses, was not around, but the other bus was, though it was a little late because they had a fault & they had to repair one or two things. Eventually, they mobilised people. I can confirm and even press members that day, if you engage them can confirm that too.
UCJ 1: What should be the procedure for students (who have a right to express themselves) — whether dissenting opinion or not? What should be the procedure for students in expressing themselves on the campus?
Covenant: Well, I feel like this question, there is no hard or fast rule to it, because definitely we understand the role of the Students’ Union serves as an intermediary and that’s even why the Students’ Union was actually instituted; to ensure that complains, feedbacks from students are actually represented, and that intermediary role when interfacing the management. But, you know, sometimes I understand that we may have very passionate people, to be honest and fair & square, they are doing that not just for themselves. It is not a selfish interest, nor is it for a selfish cause. They are doing that for the interest of the student community that they belong to. But the Students’ Union is actually a foremost body to represent the interests of all students on campus. Like I said, the major challenge here is disrupting an event. Students can feel free to share their complaints with their fellow students on campus. There are student leaders on campus. That’s why student leaders are there to represent students. So, that’s what I’ll say about that.
UCJ 1: Again, are you saying they were punished for disrupting an event and not for expressing themselves?
Covenant: I wouldn’t comment on that —
UCJ 1: You know you have repeatedly mentioned “disrupting an event”.
Covenant: I was talking about procedural breaches —
UCJ 1: It’s an offshoot of what you have said.
Covenant: Yes, of course. Discussing procedural breeches, thats’s where I have stopped. But talking about the decision or the rationale; it was a discretion of the committee based on a couple of factors that I may not want to go into now.
UCJ 1: Do you mind going into them?
Covenant: No.
UCJ 1: So you are saying that it is not because of expressing themselves that they were punished?
Covenant: No. I would, because…in fact, I’m saying it again that I, for one, particularly made it clear – asserted that day – that if anything, these students cannot be punished for protesting because what they are doing is in their rights. That’s the truth.
UCJ 1: If you are saying that you don’t think they should have been published for expressing themselves, let’s assume for the sake of this conversation they disrupted an event, which I should still come back to, do you think that it is fair that they should be handed a four-semester suspension when students who engaged in exam malpractice are handed as little as a two-semester suspension?
Covenant: Well, like I said, the final verdict is hinged upon a lot of factors and that is the discretion of the committee based on a lot of factors.
UCJ 1: You are a member of the committee.
Covenant: Yes, of course.
UCJ 1: So, I think it will be better for you to tell the students’ populace what factors were considered.
Covenant: I think I’ll just not comment on that (repeated).
UCJ 1: Don’t you think you leave the students’ union in the dark?
Covenant: I don’t think so. I don’t think so, and that is because, as much as possible, one of the things that characterise government is open governance and accountability, which we do as much as possible. And of course, while the onus is on us, the Students’ Union Leaders, to carry the students along, there are some things that I would rather not say now.
UCJ 1: So you think the students’ union should not know more about these thing?
Covenant: I didn’t say that. I feel like every other information that needs…, and in fact, that press release was expository enough in a bid to actually communicate what’s happening to the students. That why we put out the four-page release to actually communicate with the students. That was an intentional act showing our commitment to accountability.
UCJ 1: So, when do you think your administration will let the students’ union know about these things?
Covenant: Like I said, it is still a process and I think it would be too early to conclude certain things. If you recall, you will agree with me that I said that this is still a process and it is still ongoing. I think we are still in the process and we cannot give a conclusion to something that has not been concluded. So, it is still a process. And with time, as things unfold, we will definitely revisit it. I can assure you about that.
UCJ 1: So, do you think they disrupted the event, the swearing-in ceremony?
Covenant: I wasn’t there, actually. I wasn’t there, but from reports from themselves that I read, that I saw, that I heard, findings that I gathered and by virtue of the fact that it may pass actually.
UCJ 1: That they disrupted the event?
Covenant: Yes.
UCJ 1: Is this an assumption or a statement of fact?
Covenant: Like I said, I wasn’t there. Maybe, I would advise…, like I said, it is a complex issue. It predates my tenure and it is not an issue that happened right during my administration, which is part of the complexities. I think that’s all I would say. Probably the previous president or the previous tenure would have known of this and would have been able to defend if it was a disruption or not.
UCJ 2: Okay. My next question will come from the release. In the first page, page one, the third paragraph said, it was said that “the core issues before us are not merely the action of two students, but the legitimacy and limits of students’ expression in a democratic institution.” So, in your opinion and the opinion of the executive members, is the expression of the students legitimate, or did they go beyond their limits?
Covenant: Okay. So, thank you very much. This issue, speaking in a broader context, is not just limited to the University of Ibadan. These are issues, emerging issues, affecting the realities of students in recent times. And, basically I’m of the opinion that students have the right to express themselves. I mean, I’ve emphasized this here and there, again and again even before this conversation came up to this point. I’m not a law student and from my little understanding of law, I know that there are rights and there are guidelines to rights. That’s just one thing I’ve come to realize; that while it is true that I have the right to express myself, certain things guide the expression of my rights. And, I believe that’s one of the things that upholds the law. So, if I have a right to certain things, certain things inform how my rights are expressed. So, that was what that was trying to say. I do not think that students’ voices should be clamped down. I do not think that. I mean, in fact, that’s our strength. We’re a pressure group and that’s one of the things that, should I say, we use to potency and the strength of our voice is in our numbers. So that’s our greatest strength and I strongly believe we’ll continue to explore it, to speak truth to power and you know injustice and all of that. I just think that in all of this, there are still guidelines that define how these rights should be expressed. So, that’s it.
UCJ 1: My question is anchored in the fact that this interview here is for us to clarify certain things and must not be a failure for us to leave here without certain issues unaddressed. Now, you said that they were not only punished for certain things and there are myriad of factors that have informed the decision to suspend them and one of which you have hinted at is a “disruption of event”. Now, in a university setting, on a day-to-day basis, we have several events ongoing, such as classes (going to classes). That’s almost the most important event that occurs on campus because that’s the fundamental reason the university exists, for students to learn, and the medium through which they learn is going to classes. Now, when the students’ union as a whole protests, don’t we disrupt the event, don’t we disrupt the classes?
Covenant: I’m more of the opinion that – now, this is my personal opinion –
UCJ 1: I think the question is a straight-forward one.
Covenant: (I’m going somewhere). I think, like I emphasised (which will lead me to answer this question), why we do certain things, and that’s why unionism, of course, the core and fundamental ideology of unionism remains intact, but because we are in an evolving world, we have to put certain things into context. And, that’s why I feel like, yes, back in those days it could be a thing, people could race down cars, people could burn down buildings, people could damage properties in the name of protest. But, all of that does not solve any problem, and I’ll strongly maintain that stance. So, that’s the same way. I believe that, fine, it’s true, we want to express dissent. We want to do all of these things. I still believe that there is still some, should I say, there’s a way to do it. That’s why we even pride ourselves, University of Ibadan Students’ Union, Father of Intellectual Unionism, who would do it differently, maybe from how some people would rather do it rashly and all of that. And maybe just do it, should I say in a reactionary manner and all of these things.
UCJ 1: Was their protest irrational?
Covenant: I’m not saying that. I’m just giving an overview of…that’s why I started with in my opinion. So, bringing it home now…
UCJ 1: Sorry, let me interrupt you. I think that it’s important that we keep it within the context of what is being discussed.
Covenant: Alright. Yeah. You would let me, you know, speak broadly and then bring it home. So, bringing it home now, I feel like answering your question, do people disrupt classes? Maybe they do that, right? Maybe people go and disrupt activities just to slow things down. Yes. I understand people do that and I’ll be lying if I say people don’t do that, but that doesn’t make it the right thing in some instances. And that’s why we’re shifting from building to building a Union where students can…, you know, our strength is in our unity. And when we say this is what we’re doing, everybody follows it and, you know, we achieve the same purpose of what we want to do. So, two truths can exist. Yes. I’m trying to say that it’s very important for us to realise that while it’s sure that certain things used to be obtainable, it does not exactly fundamentally endorse, should I say, the authenticity of these things that have been done. So, yes, I fully agree, the students’ union, as President we are supposed to express ourselves, you know, show this dissent. But, we still have to do this within the ambit of, I don’t know if I can use the word “sanity”. I’m not saying anything is being done outside is insanity, I’m just trying to say that we should do this in a coordinated manner, in a coordinated approach, to actually achieve the purpose for which it was started
UCJ 1: Alright, again, trying to reduce it to the current situation, my question still stands, when we protest, for example, the July 17 protest, was it irrational?
Covenant: Absolutely. Yes.
UCJ 1: It was irrational?
Covenant: Absolutely yes. And, I’ll explain why. But I think you should go ahead.
This interview is the first of a two part interview held with Covenant Odedele as regards the victimisation of 3 UI students and the Students’ Union delayed response. The second interview would be made available to the public soon.
