The Education Rights Campaign (ERC), University of Ibadan branch, has criticised the stance of the University of Ibadan Students’ Union (UI’SU) President over the recent Federal High Court judgment nullifying the suspension of three student activists, widely known as the UI3.
In a press statement dated May 5, 2026, the ERC described the President’s reaction to the ruling as “troubling” and indicative of a disconnect between the Union leadership and student interests.
The controversy follows a judgment delivered on April 15, 2026, in which the Federal High Court in Ibadan declared the suspension of Aduwo Ayodele, Mide Gbadegesin, and Nice Linus unconstitutional, null, and void. The court held that the University of Ibadan administration had violated the students’ fundamental rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as guaranteed under Sections 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution.
Reacting to the ruling, the UI-SU President reportedly questioned its validity on the grounds that the university administration was not present in court at the time the judgment was delivered. The ERC, however, dismissed this position, arguing that it reflected a misunderstanding of legal procedure.
“The reaction suggests a lack of basic understanding of how court proceedings work,” the group stated, expressing concern that such a view was coming from a student leader.
Beyond the legal argument, the ERC accused the Union leadership of failing to demonstrate solidarity with students who, according to the group, were sanctioned for opposing policies perceived as unfavourable to student welfare. It argued that the President’s position signals a broader pattern of alignment with university authorities rather than advocacy for students.
The group further described the court’s decision as a significant milestone, not only for the affected students but for the wider student body. According to the ERC, the ruling establishes limits on the use of disciplinary measures by university administrations, particularly in matters involving student expression and protest.
“This judgment is a victory for all students. It reinforces the principle that disciplinary actions cannot be used to suppress dissent or silence opposition,” the statement noted.
The ERC also rejected claims that the affected students failed to carry the Students’ Union along in pursuing the legal action, describing such arguments as “baseless.” It maintained that students reserve the right to seek legal redress independently, without requiring formal approval from Union leadership.
In its statement, the group emphasised what it described as the core responsibility of student leadership; to defend students against victimisation and ensure their interests are protected. It warned that failure to uphold this role could further erode confidence in the Union, particularly at a time when students are grappling with welfare challenges across campus.
While acknowledging the Union leadership’s decision to convene a stakeholders’ meeting to address ongoing issues, the ERC argued that such a forum is insufficient. It insisted that only a full Students’ Union Congress can provide the level of inclusivity and democratic participation required to address the current situation.
“A stakeholders’ meeting can never substitute for a Congress,” the group stated, noting that Congress offers a platform for broader student engagement and collective decision-making.
The ERC linked the issue to wider concerns affecting students, including persistent power outages in hostels such as Mellanby, Tedder, and Queen’s Hall, urging that these challenges be addressed collectively rather than in isolation.
As part of its demands, the group called for the immediate retraction of the UI’SU President’s statement, full compliance by the university administration with the court ruling: including the unconditional reinstatement of the affected students and the urgent convocation of a Students’ Union Congress.
The statement was signed by Ochi M.N., Branch Secretary of the Education Rights Campaign, who reiterated the group’s commitment to defending student rights and mobilising against what it described as victimisation and suppression within the university system.
