Following the victimisation of the UI’3 which has led to the four semesters suspension of Mide Gbadegesin and Aduwo Ayodele, UCJUI held and interview with the president of the Students’ Union on the stance of the union. This interview has been published in two parts, with this being the second part. This section explores what the union has done so far in rightly representing and fighting for the victimised students.
UCJ 1: Okay, then. If you think it was irrational – I mean, you were part of that protest, if I remember correctly; you were there, were you not? –
Covenant: Yes. I was. I was there.
UCJ 1: Based on that, do you think we should all be, you know, probably suspended for engaging in that protest?
Covenant: No, no. Now, this is it —
UCJ 1: Because that protest, particularly, disrupted (events)… and I think you would have to equally talk about, comment on how the protest should be carried out…
Covenant: Yes. I agree with you. And, this is where I’m going. So, first, two truths can exist and secondly, it’s not here nor there. Because, I think while you’re focused on the, should I say, on the medium, the message is also important. And, this is what I mean, the message is to say “we don’t want this,” “we want this”, “we think this is wrong”, “we think this is right”. Yes. And the medium is the power of the people, absolutely. The power of the people, that’s our strength, we also should not let it be our weakness. What do I mean? I mean, in the sense that when people come together in their numbers, that’s what unifies us as a Union and our strength and all of that. Right? We should then not sabotage it by, should I say, maybe some actions that may end up becoming, because, for instance, I don’t think it’s right, while I also understand we want to protest that, I don’t think it’s right to damage properties. I’m not saying anybody did. I don’t think it’s right to, for instance, block the road. I know that these things are actually very very good. They show the seriousness of things. I also understand that we are in a system where if things are not pushed beyond limits, maybe the government will not take us seriously. I mean, we understand how things work when the system is not working. We need to do much more showmanship to show that these things are right. But, I still believe that’s where we must meet in the middle. That’s where I don’t want to use the word “moderation” because that’s not the word, but I can’t find the right word now. But, while we are showcasing the strength of our power, we should not also sabotage our efforts. That’s the truth. So, basically, to say it and to address that question, and that’s where… should I say, leadership then comes in. Students come out to protest in their numbers, in thousands. I mean, that’s where the leadership of the Union then comes in. We have had your complaints. These are the issues we are facing. All well and good. And, that’s why we are here, because eventually, the whole student populace. I will also come to that, you know, institutional accountability. While it is true that sometimes everybody wants to hear from the leaders, core leaders themselves, but that’s why we also have intermediaries first, to relay the complaints of the students to the leaders or to the management, so to speak. Because that is the role we play, we play that role most importantly during those periods – that intermediary role, most importantly. “So, this is what [they’re] saying,” comes back to give them feedback. “What do we think?” Everybody gives an opinion. So, everybody sees it as a concerted effort. Not that some people are doing certain things to halt it [and] everybody then thinks it becomes like, you know, an agenda, or some people want to sabotage the efforts of other people. So, I think probably…
UCJ 1: Would you tell the students’ body that, for example, the protest we had at UCH about lights, where students were on the road, will you tell students’ body that it was wrong to have done that because I mean we offended other people who —
Covenant: No, now. That’s it. I was part of that protest. And, in fact, I would say that’s what a protest should represent. Coordination. We didn’t block the roads. We didn’t prevent cars from moving —
UCJ 1: Motorists were prevented from…they had to go through alternative routes.
Covenant: No, no, no. I don’t think so.
UCJ 1: I was there.
Covenant: I recall that’s what they did, because that’s another thing. For that protest —
UCJ 1: Cars were…for more than two hours.
Covenant: The police were carried along. There were two protests and I was part of both. The police were carried along and they monitored everything. The major reason why police are carried along is to ensure that while students want to actually express their rights, they don’t, in a bid to do that, then disrupt the normal activities and all that. Right. So that’s why, if you recall very well, one lane was left for the protesters and the other lane was used for motorists. So, they had to divert cars to ensure that all of them stayed in one lane to prevent all of this. So, in all, this is what I’m saying. I’m trying to say that it is very legitimate. In fact, it’s our strength and I’ll never speak against protest. I will never speak against expressing rights, but I still think that you have to do it within the ambit, like every right has a guideline to it, and that’s what makes it effective. For example, I mean, imagine, imagine maybe, maybe the police weren’t carried along, and then maybe there was a little bit of a roadblock or something. While it is true that it is legitimate that we are doing the right thing, it is also important to do it right. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Or, two, one right and one wrong does not make it right. I’m just trying to say, to prevent a lot of talk, while it shows that, I mean, students have the legitimate rights to protest, absolutely amazing, and, I would again emphasize that that’s our strength, I just think that to effectively, now that’s the clause, to achieve the goal for why we are protesting, and not just make it an outreach burn, we have to actually do it within the ambit of guidelines and also be able to, should I say, understand when we can make room for compromises to solve the actual problem because protest in itself is just a demonstration to show displeasure, it’s not exactly a solution, but will bring the solution. So, that’s it.
UCJ 2: Okay. From what you said now, you mentioned that the July 17th Protest was not legitimate?
Covenant: I didn’t say that. I never said that.
UCJ 2: You said it was irrational?
Covenant: I didn’t say that. I did not say that. I did not say that. You can probably even check the recording after. I never said that.
UCJ 2: Okay, so, in your opinion, from what you just said, is the July 17th protest effective or not? There was a disruption of activities in the university during the protest. There was a time the UI main gate was locked before it was reopened for motorists to move in and out. So was it effective, from what you just said now?
Covenant: I see. I get it. Well, such answers, I can’t say yes or no, right? But I still believe overall. So, because I cannot judge the effectiveness of that protest by just the nuances you gave, but overall, the protest was effective, absolutely, because it demonstrated the power of people. It brought people together, it showed the strength of our numbers and all that. So, yes, it was an effective one.
UCJ 1: Back to the release, you said that the affected students did not engage, embrace engagement in a way that would have strengthened your hand in the struggle (that’s the hand of the Students’ Union body leadership in the struggle). How do you mean by that?
Covenant: Okay, so, I think it’s basically reiterating what I said earlier. Unfortunately, every effort to reach the students because, like I said earlier, we reach them for informal means, try to get people to speak to them so that we can have, you know, a conversation with them, but they never honoured a conversation actually.
UCJ 1: In the release, in trying to defend the delay, you said that you guys have chosen diplomacy over public drama. Apart from reaching out to, because the issue is not just with the victims, I mean, you said that you tried to reach out to people whom the victims deflect to. But in relation to the victims, the students, and the school, what means of engagement did you try?
Covenant: Okay. Like I said, you will not forget that this case predates our tenure, that’s one. Secondly, when we resumed as early as possible, I can confirm that we had a lot of, this is part of the conversations we brought up during our, should I say engagement with the management. We brought up this conversation and we maintained our stance that these students are part of us and in their right, what they did, they did for the students’ community and because of that, we stand with them. We know that there is a case proceeding, but we believe that these students should not be unjustly punished. We did all of that before the meeting. Every engagement we put out with the management, we did before the meeting. But, unfortunately, we couldn’t have any possible engagement with these people. And, I must also say that, these guys go all out, they speak – this is even about me – I find it sad that these are people, while I understand earlier that they are fighting for the cause of students, but they go on to say negative things about the Students’ Union, as they consistently speak ill of the Students’ Union. I believe that, while I understand that they may be doing all they are doing in the interests of students, I still believe that there is a place for the Students’ Union to work together in the struggle towards the goal they are trying to achieve. So, that’s it. So, to answer your question, we effectively engaged the management on this case before this period and all through, we also ensured to reach out to the affected individuals, but we didn’t get them.
UCJ 1: Now, during the July 16-17 Protest and other subsequent protests we had during that time, one of the demands that we made to the school, that the students’ body made to the school was that no students should be victimized for the May 17th Protest, to which the school accepted to, and it was released in a release by the previous tenure. Did you at any point in time make known to the school management and the disciplinary council, particularly, even at the ultimate stage, that this decision was one that the school had given their word that they would not punish anybody?
Covenant: Absolutely, yes! Yes, we did! That’s why I’m saying that in fact, I must re-emphasise again to repeat that, that all of these issues should have been visited primarily before they got the summons for the Central Disciplinary meeting. Yes. I can confirm that.
UCJ 1: So, are you now saying that the school management violated its own agreement with the students’ body?
Covenant: I didn’t say that. I wouldn’t say that. I would probably not comment about that, but I can confirm that as much as possible, the Union did their best on this issue to ensure that, I mean these students would… the case would be sorted out and no students would be punished unjustly. But, you know, to be honest, they were fighting on their own. That’s the truth. Unfortunately, they fought the fight on their own, and then every attempt to harmonise their efforts was not fruitful.
UCJ 1: Before my last question, you said that the affected students were on several media platforms and made several press releases. Are you saying that the fault is going to speak to the media about the issues that affect the students, and did they say anything that is in any way false?
Covenant: No. I’m not saying that. I’m not saying that. I possibly don’t even know how many they went to, though I saw some; I probably didn’t catch up on everything…
UCJ 1: But, from the one you saw —
Covenant: But, what I’m saying is this. This is what I imply by that statement is the fact that, we absolutely understand and appreciate the activism and advocacy their about their plight, which is fine, but I feel like – I think is, what’s the word, what’s the perfect word I can use – I think it’s out of place that while they are doing all of that, they never deflected to the Students’ Union and even when the Students’ Union offered invitations for conversations, even on this issue, they never honoured it. That’s what I’m trying to say. So, it’s very important that they do all of that outside, but they never honoured any form of invitation to reach out to them at all on this issue. They never did. So, it makes things complicated for us both.
UCJ 1: So, one of the things people said is that, the Students’ Union wanted the affected students to beg or to seek forgiveness from the school management. Is that true?
Covenant: So, now, how would we have said that to people we never met? That’s the question I am gonna ask, because everybody keeps on flying that narrative. I don’t know, they possibly, I don’t know who flew those words or where they originated from, but the truth is, at least for us to even pitch that, we need to meet them. We never even met them. They never even honoured any invitation. So, why would…where did that come from? So, that’s my response to that. People that we never even had the chance to interact with, how come they go on saying what the Students’ Union said, because I recalled that I read one of the articles written by the Press and they clearly said that the Students’ Union told them to beg, but the truth is, we never met them. So, they should quote their source for that.
UCJ 1: As a member of the Press, I can personally confirm that a member of the representatives council who may have been privy to discussions at certain levels; I mean the Students’ Union, should I say the leadership or what you call stakeholders have denominations around and [this person] who has been privy to some of these stakeholders meeting said that one of the resolutions, or agreements they were trying to follow between that stakeholder-denomination and the Students’ Union was to seek the forgiveness of the school management.
Covenant: Okay, well, I do not know your correspondence, but one thing, and quoting you said from the Student Representatives Council, I mean SRC at large. I mean that’s under the Speaker. So, I can’t speak for that, and I don’t think that represents the, should I say, resolutions – you used that word – of the executive council of the Union by extension. So, I can’t confirm any of that in the release.
UCJ 1: In the release, you said that, as of now, that the Students’ Union is still making certain steps to ensure that the decision is reviewed, and here you still said that certain processes are ongoing. Could you reveal what processes are ongoing?
Covenant: As much as I can confirm, we spoke with a lot of people on this issue. A lot. When I mean a lot, a lot on this issue. The legal counsel, you know, a lot of people, even beyond the University community, on this issue. And, while it is true that we are here, we’re also working to get out of here. And, how do I mean? Procedures. Now, what we know is that when a certain verdict is given and a student is not satisfied with it, they have the right to appeal. And, that’s the next option we are exploring for that. So, I think that’s all I can say.
UCJ: So, how long would this process take before people see official confirmation?
Covenant: Well. I can’t speak to that, but I know that all of these depend on the extension, the posture, and the body language we get from the affected individuals. If we continue to get a posture that handicaps our efforts, to be honest, there is only so much we can do. I don’t know how to say that, you cannot do something outside the persons involved. So, while we are trying as much as we can, we need a concerted engagement of the affected individuals, and if we don’t get this, I can’t predict the timeline of things. That’s it. I can’t say anything about that.
UCJ 1: Right. Do you think that the Students’ Union have a say in the decisions made by the school management as regards the Students’ Union or the Students’ Body?
Covenant: Absolutely. Yes. It may be debatable, but I think to a large extent. Right. Because, I know that we may not be privy to all the decisions made. I mean, some may be high-level decisions. The university has a council. The university has a senate. The university has all these tiers that make up the university. But I can confirm from being in office that as much as possible, as much as I can confirm that, every issue that affects students’ lives, students’ engagement on campus, the student union is represented and then we also get to input and also disagree on these issues. So, that’s one thing that’s very…for instance. I’ll give an instance. This session, particularly, you know, with the whole school fees hike as evidenced in some departments or faculties; we all started out and we checked papers. We did all that. We’re able to see where the lapses were reversed out. And even with the late fee reversal, which is one thing that we achieved, it was not instrumental at a point, and it could not work. We fought it down and we’re able to achieve that. So, as much as I can confirm, and if you would even interact on every level, even faculty level, I know that for many decisions that are made, there’s a lot of student input that goes into it.
UCJ 1: Now you have said that, so many factors, you know, were considered in the suspension verdict that they got, and it was not just because of the expression of dissenting opinion. Now it’s important to sort of trace a trend on the part of the school management in this situation because this is not the first case in which the school is punishing dissent. For example, we had the case of Kunle Adebajo and then we have, I know that there’s the case of a student who said a couple of things on Twitter about the issue in her hostel where she was punished, where (it was reported that) she had to face the disciplinary council for her expressions. Now, the case at hands is equally of such nature – expression of dissent So, when you now see that the decisions reached was not just because of expressing dissenting opinions but because of other factors, you make it seem like it’s a singular thing or it’s not something that has trend or it’s not because the school is not exactly out there to punish dissenting voices — which trends do not agree with.
Covenant: Well, I can say that, yeah, you’ve established the pattern, but I can’t speak for those instances. Why? Because, I was not at the forefront. I didn’t have access to all the details and probably even interacted with the affected. I can’t speak exactly on all of that, but for this case, like I said earlier, I think we are at the crossroads, because this is a place where… like I said earlier, I can confirm that the Union has a stance on all of these, and that’s the fact that the students were protesting against the projected hike in fee at the time and all of that. They have the right to do it, and they are doing that in the best interest of the students, which is absolutely fine. So, other nuances of that context of different cases have different context advances in which they happen.
UCJ 1: In the first summoning letter they got from the SDC, the school described what they did as “gross misconduct” and “expressing scandalous inscriptions against the fee increment.” Do you agree with this? We need to lay down these things so that things don’t get lost or the facts of the case do not get lost in the interpretations we are giving to it. Yeah, I mean, the school took a posture and most of what the school said in that summoning was about the exercise of expressing themselves. I mean the school described their inscriptions as “scandalous”. So, is it that you equally subscribe to that?
Covenant: Well, for one, I don’t remember the exact thing they wrote, but I possibly would believe that, I mean, students of the University of Ibadan, they probably wouldn’t write anything scandalous, right? And, like I said, it’s a case of procedural breach. That’s it. And by virtue of that, a lot of context and nuances that I’ll possibly not want to talk about, to be honest, at least not now. So, that’s it.
UCJ 2: In what way would you have helped their case if they had carried the Students’ Union along? And also, what is your opinion about the length of the punishment?
Covenant: For the students, the first question I believe, and I maintain that if, truly, they are fighting in the interest of students, I don’t think it’s too much to engage the Students’ Union on this, either before, during or after all of that. So I repeat, if truly they were fighting in… I mean to say they were bold enough to represent the interests of students, it’s not bad. So, I think it’s not out of place to engage the Students’ Union. So, that’s the major challenge. The fact that the Students’ Union and the affected individual do not seem to have had a conversation on this, courtesy of them. So, that’s the challenge we have. And, then, my opinion on the verdict, I think that it was a decision made by the committee, right, based on certain factors, but anything I say is going to be, what’s the word now, don’t know how best to put it, extensive. So, I choose not to say anything about it. I have the right not to offer my opinion. It’s my opinion. I think I don’t want to let that out.
UCJ 2: Okay, you’ve not really answered the first question. If they had worked with the Students’ Union, would it have decreased their sentence or wouldn’t they have been taken for any disciplinary case?
Covenant: Yes. I believe that if we had had some sort of cooperation right from the start, if the students had adequately carried the Students’ Union along, that’s even before…I’m not even talking about my tenure. If the students engage with the Students’ Union before, during, and after all of this, I believe that we may not have even gotten to this place where we have gotten to. That’s what I think.
UCJ 1: While it didn’t start from your tenure, we’re taking it back to the last tenure so that we can also be clear with regards to the facts of things now. Before the event happened, that’s the protest. Were there attempts to call Congress before that protest?
Covenant: I can’t speak for… are you talking about the protest by the victimized students)?
UCJ 1: Yes. Yes.
Covenant: Okay. So I can’t speak for them, and I can’t speak for the tenure then, because if you recall, that was the inauguration of a new tenure. So, that means that was probably the end of a tenure and the beginning of another. And, I know that constitutionally, every tenure is expected to constitute a Congress before the handover. So I want to believe that one of the requirements for that tenure to have been able to hand over was that they called the Congress.
UCJ 1: Now, I remember correctly, the tenure before that inauguration, which was the inauguration of Aweda, was Host’s. There were attempts to call Congress which didn’t go as planned —
Covenant: I definitely can confirm that a Congress was held.
UCJ 1: Yeah. About two.
Covenant: During that tenure, right? So, I don’t know what you mean by “didn’t go as planned.” But I feel like if certain things had been done before then
UCJ 1: My question is that if, and I believe this is certain, but if there were attempts to call Congress and this issue was raised and was not adequately treated, would you still fault the victimised students by saying they did not go through proper procedures?
Covenant: Well, I understand that dilemma, actually. And, this is not just even about…I understand, maybe you feel like you’re trying to get at something, and then you’re exploring multiple channels, which is totally fine. I mean, in their rights, and I feel like everybody has the right to express dissent, as we call it, you know, all of that. But, I just think that irrespective, irrespective, they should have engaged the Students’ Union before, let’s say they didn’t do before, let’s even say they didn’t do —
UCJ 1: I think we are still saying the same thing. That the Congress was a means of engaging, which —
Covenant: I don’t know. I believe, I mean, public service, anybody has the right to engage their democratically elected officials. I don’t know. I can’t confirm. I don’t know if they did. I can’t say categorically, but all I’m saying in essence is that, the affected individuals, if truly fighting for the interest of the students, (and they belong to the students’ community), I think it’s not out of place to engage the leadership of the students’ body which they are actually fighting for, because eventually, we are working together. We are all working together towards solving that problem. So, if they think, I mean, they are —?
UCJ 1: Are you casting doubt on whether or not they are fighting for the sake of the students..?
Covenant: I’m not saying that. I’m actually not saying that. I believe if anybody is bold enough to protest, it’s definitely genuine enough to speak for other students. I’m not saying that they are doing that. I’m not casting doubt, I mean…. That’s it.
UCJ: Okay. I don’t think I have questions. Thank you very much.
Covenant: Absolutely. Thank you so much. Alright.
