On 23rd of May 2025, the Department of Geology was scheduled to conduct a by-election to fill the vacant position of Social Director for the 2024/2025 academic session, with the intention of completing the executive structure for the session.
Two aspirants contested the position. In the days leading up to the election, rivalry existed between supporters of both candidates. However, the situation took a decisive turn on the night preceding the election.
The Electoral Committee had clearly stated that, in accordance with the electoral guidelines, neither aspirant nor their supporters were permitted to circulate campaign materials after 12:00 a.m. on election day.
However, both candidates violated this directive by posting campaign materials after the stipulated deadline. Although the posts were subsequently deleted by the candidates themselves, the violation had already occurred.
Consequently, both aspirants were disqualified for disobeying the rules. Ordinarily, the next step should have been determined by the relevant constitutional and electoral provisions.
However, the Department did not have a functioning Student Representative Council (SRC), which would ordinarily provide an institutional structure for matters requiring legislative scrutiny, including budgets and other departmental affairs.
The Department had also recently welcomed a new Head of Department and, consequently, a new Staff Adviser. Upon becoming aware of the situation, the Staff Adviser, Professor O. C Adeigbe intervened.
Rather than following a clearly defined electoral procedure, a student who had neither contested the election nor publicly expressed an intention to occupy the position was selected and appointed as Social Director.
At the time, the decision appeared unusual to many students. However, in the absence of an SRC and given the Staff Adviser’s institutional authority, the decision was eventually accepted, and the appointee proceeded to serve.
The scenario resurfaced during the next administration. The press night for the session exposed the incompetence of the incoming PRO, and eventually, she opted out.
The position of Public Relations Officer remained vacant and a by-election was conducted. The election ended in a tie between the two candidates.
In accordance with the applicable constitutional framework, SRC votes should have been the tie-breaker. However, because the Department did not have an SRC, the matter once again went to the Staff Adviser.
The candidates reportedly appeared before him, where they were expected to present their manifestos, plans and intentions for the office. Yet, rather than subjecting the matter to a transparent electoral resolution, the Staff Adviser selected one of the candidates to fill the position.
This was the second instance where an elective departmental position was ultimately determined by the Staff Adviser’s direct selection.
The concern, therefore, is no longer simply about individual appointments. It is about the precedent such actions establish for departmental democracy.
On previous Press night issue
The controversy surrounding the Department’s press night was sentimental.
During the previous administration’s Press Night, the atmosphere became heated. Following the event, concerns were raised, including by the Staff Adviser, about alleged bias among members of the press.
It was argued that some pressmen appeared to direct greater attention towards particular candidates or ask questions that seemed unfavourable to them.
However, the purpose of Press Night was never merely to provide candidates with an opportunity to advertise themselves. It was also an opportunity for students to see the response of the aspirant to their manifesto.
The Press’s responsibility is not to make candidates comfortable. It is to ask the questions that students may otherwise fail to ask and scrutinise their so-called plans.
In particular, the manifestos of the current Vice President and Social Director attracted significant scrutiny. The press questioned the feasibility of several promises contained in their manifestos and raised concerns about the absence of clear implementation strategies.
Those concerns were not raised simply because the candidates were unpopular with the press. They were raised because promises made during elections create expectations among students.
When those promises are subsequently not fulfilled, the press has every legitimate reason to revisit them.
A revisit to the manifesto showed the future pressmen were trying to stop, a place of large promises but no results. It was a manifesto that was planned to just sweet-talk students without the need to fulfil it.
On current press night exclusion
The same concerns have now resurfaced during the current electoral process.
The Electoral Committee released its timetable for the election, which excludes Press Night as part of the scheduled activities, with the electoral committee stating it was the staff adviser’s orders, and members of the press subsequently received information from students that the Staff Adviser had decided that Press Night would no longer be held.
Seeking clarification, it was found out that members of the editorial board reportedly attempted to meet with the Staff Adviser. However, the request for engagement was declined, maintaining his position that Press Night had been cancelled and it was not open for discussion.
If the constitution does not have it stated under a certain code of conduct, under what circumstance does one individual unilaterally cancel an activity within that process?
More importantly, what mechanisms exist for students to question or appeal such a decision?
The absence of an SRC may create a legitimate administrative vacuum, but that should not automatically become a vacuum of accountability.
This discussion should not be reduced to whether the Staff Adviser supports one candidate or another. The more fundamental question is: what justifies an individual who is not a member of the society dictating its democratic affairs when it is the students who ultimately bear the consequences of those decisions?
According to the constitution, the press night is a compulsory prerequisite to assess candidates’ capabilities.
Elections are not merely about selecting names to occupy offices. They are about establishing procedures. Even if the results are adorable and the procedure is faulty, to what extent do we accept it?
Editor Note:2
