|
The Appointment of a Vice Chancellor for Ahmadu Bello University Subverted By Usman, Sule Machika The tenure of Prof Shehu Usman Abdullahi ended on the May 23rd, 2009. It is in the practice of the Ivory Towers to ensure that a substantive Vice Chancellor is appointed for university in good stead to avoid a leadership vacuum. At its 131st special meeting held on Monday 18th May, 2009, the Governing Council’s effort to appoint a substantive VC was subverted. Many of us were taking aback, yet not surprised. According the official release of the university, published in Bulletin Vol: 1 No. 206 of Tuesday, May 19, 2009, the Governing Council discovered some irregularities in the procedural processes of appointing the VC. There was the ‘non-presentation of scoring sheets’ by each member of the Selection Board. They also noted with ‘dismay the non-involvement’ of the Council Secretariat in the process. And there was a systemic ‘leakage of the Board’s recommendation to the general public before the Council’s meeting.’ As expected this generated congratulations and thanks giving for those in the want and apprehension for those against. This shoddy and clumsy handling or mishandling of the appointment process almost punctured the peace that was stabilizing in the university for over decade now. The university’s Chaplain quickly submitted a paper to the Committee for the Inter and Intra University Community Relationship, titled ‘Major Problems that can Affect Peace within the University Community’. In quick succession the Samaru Community Zaria responded with a letter to the Chairman of the Governing Council, titled ‘Security Situation in Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria’. The crises that engulf many universities over the succession palaver were acknowledged in an attempt to averting same in A.B.U. The circulated leaflets did not help matters, so also was the clumsy way the Selection Committee handled the process. These imminently threaten the peace of the university. The Council has no option but to put a check on Vice Chancellor’s appointment. The outcome is an interim VC. The manifest threat is politics intertwined with ethnic and religious considerations because of nothing but high degree of a stupid phobia. Members of the university community overnight were all turned into political analysts, for every group of two or more have nothing to talk about than the debacle over the succession bid. As a normal human phenomenon, some are happy while some are angry without actually knowing the full story. The sentiments of the matter beclouded what should have been a sound sense of judgement, what do you expect when religious undertone has been smuggled into the matter, how sad? I never minced words when I stated that the assertion that minds of members of the ivory tower’s are liberated, therefore could be rational, meticulous and pedantic in dealing with issues is a mere claim. Or how would one explain the manipulations and blatant violations of set standards by the Selection Committee? The truth of the matter is that in the flagrant abuse of the guidelines for appointing the VC, caution indeed was thrown to the dogs. How can one explain the non-transparent scoring of candidates? This is beyond rigging it was a stupendous insult to the intelligence of the Governing Council and the entire university community. Thank God they did not getaway with it. Thank God that there was one or more persons in that Council who were courageous and gracious enough to stand up to challenge that breach of promise by the Selection Committee without the fear of losing reputation. I have no option but to thank him/them for discharging their duties and responsibilities for the common good of the university. This was part of my postulations that the selection committee should properly allow all stakeholders to vent their views and for them to also properly sieve the views to avoid rashness in handling such a sensitive issue in an attempt to abating the allegations of playing out a prewritten script. This allegation is now substantiated by their actions or inactions. For now the university must make do with an interim Acting Vice Chancellor for the university with effect from 23rd May, 2009, was appointed. Prof. J.U. Umoh now occupies that unenviable position. Prof. Umoh is now laden with the responsibility of convening an emergency meeting of the University Senate as soon as possible in order to appoint a substantive Acting Vice Chancellor in accordance with Section 5 (13) of University [Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment)] Act 2003. Umoh may be too much in a hurry to offload this burden that if care is not taken more problems would be created. So also must he be careful not to overstay his welcome. The only remedy for Umoh is to ensure that laid down rules and guidelines are judiciously followed. Umoh is really in an unenviable position, because skirmishes are already underway for the position of the Ag. VC as if nothing is amiss. The historic colossal failure of appointing a substantive Vice Chancellor would remain with us, particularly it would linger with those charge with that responsibility for the rest of their lives. However, this was least expected considering the Chairman of the Selection Committee. I spelt in golden letters the indubitable integrity of Malam Adamu Ciroma, CFR. I said, ‘He is a man of proven integrity, a man whose legacies of a lifetime cannot be sacrificed at this stage by allowing anybody to toy with his well guarded principles.’ Dr Kabir Chafe puts it much better when he said that ‘Adamu Ciroma is not only a household name, but indeed the name Adamu Ciroma is an institution in Nigeria.’ These credentials in addition to being one of the few surviving member of the prominent ‘Kaduna Mafia’ and the legendary Secretary to the Committee that prepared the groundwork for establishing ABU, there was too high expectations from a man that is but only human. Adamu Ciroma who has always been seen to be an ‘untiring gentleman’ has been proved by this assignment to be very tired indeed. It is also a pointer to reassess appointing one Pro Chancellor for a university of ABU’s standard. Universities of this repute nowadays have more than one Pro Chancellors, in fact as many as five in the case of first class universities like Cambridge. This would have possibly eliminated the sense of feeling the Pro Chancellor had that some ‘naughty’ Council members were tinkering with his integrity. But there is no iota of doubt that the Pro Chancellor is out of touch with the realities of the politics of the Ivory Towers. He was not in the know that the partisan politics of the larger society is not applicable to the academic setting. That rigging is not ‘possible’ here even though imposing a candidate is quite possible. That tantrum over being challenged on issues is not allowed in the university base on position, age or any status. That every mind is a liberated mind in the university and can be challenged over issues without being rude or disrespectful. This indeed is one of the revered cultures of the academic environment. It is the definition of the Ivory Tower. The Pro Chancellor was not happy that he was challenged for abdicating all his responsibilities of overseeing the proper conduct of the Selection Committee. This alone is a great indicator that the Pro Chancellor should as a matter of honour, abdicate his position of the Pro Chancellor to give ways to a more accommodating, a more vibrant technocrats – a man more adept with the cultures of the ivory towers and a man abreast with modernity. That was why some of us felt that the diplomatic and subtle approach of Amb. (Engr.) Bunu Sherif Musa should be invigorated, even though the approach was effective this time around. The Ambassador should be informed that the Alumni are the principal stakeholders in the matters of appointing a VC for the university. The Alumni as bystanders should be the unbiased referees and should not hesitate to dole out their yellow or even a red card where necessary. It is significant to ensure that the Alumni are not silent or onlookers on important issue like this, their position must be made crystal clear. This I said with pride over Bunu’s contribution in subverting the VC’s appointed which seems to be an imposition by a kangaroo court of the Selection Committee. We are proud to have a worthy representative as the Chairman of Alumni. The Alumni should insist in ensuring that the reputation of the university is not put at risk Similarly worthy thanks are here extended to the representative of the Honourable Minister of Education for holding her own in that tense atmosphere, your contribution was part of the saving grace. As for Dr Kabi Chafe, who was alleged to have set the ball rolling in insisting on producing the transparent and accountable procedural process the Selection Committee used, his is a double edge sword. While proud of his fearless courage, I stand to challenge the system, which he is part and parcel of that allows things like this to degenerate to a catastrophic level before ‘Saving Our Souls’ (SOS). One of my grudge with Chafe, is he should not have been the one to assume such a poise. Our difficulty now is where and to whom do we report Chafe to? Should it have been one of his disciples, we would have comfortably gone to Dr Chafe to report the radical approach of his ‘boys’. This reminded me of Chief Odumegu Ojukwu’s rebuking Raphael the MOSOP leader. Ojukwu told the young man, what you are doing is fanatical, but at your age one can do anything and think is right. But at my age now I know different, what I did at thirty three (33) I cannot do now at sixty six (66). Chafe may not be 66 but is above that which is just a number. The point is, this is the essence of grooming natural successors. The challenges before Chafe are multi, apart from grooming successors that would come to the aid to the university in their absence, the Chafes must evolve a system like that of the Armed Forces, though there would be one or two grumblings, the appointment of a Service Chief is incontestable. You see, in the military there are category of officers even as Generals that cannot be a Service Chief. That pyramid for promotion and apex appointment must be jealously guarded. The consequence of lack of a concrete and sacred system, not just a mere well spelt out criteria, but an implementable succession policy is the dirty politicking of religious and ethnic pressure groups presently going on. This takes me back to the issue of circulated leaflets by the Chaplain, Rev. Ishaya Baba. After going through the piece, I fail to grasp the objective of the paper. I also queried its timing. Without taking away anything from the paper, in his position of a clergy – a leader of a congregation, it was wrong to circulate that paper. As a man who receive complaints, worries and others problems from his brethren, he can in his official capacity intercede, negotiate and appeal on behalf of his follows without necessary disclosing such to the public mob. It is quite right to even put it on paper to the governing authority. If that was what he did, I won’t hesitate to categorically state here that it was mischievous for the authority to circulate that paper. They have broken the seal of confidentiality of their official capacities, it was a sacrilege. Certainly, the paper is instigating the Christians and provoking the Muslims. This can never be the intention of a Chaplain especially some of the things raise were indeed wrongly viewed. This was one of the concerns of the Sardauna of Sokoto as the founding father of the university, who was quoted by all the papers. The Sardauna appealed to those handling issues ‘at least to show some standard of honesty. I wish also to appeal to them not mislead the public, particularly the young in educational institutions, by giving half truths. I have great hope in the future of our youth and I think that is a very wrong act to incite them to acts of rashness, and irresponsibility without knowing the full story. I have only contempt for those who do this. Ahmadu Bello, March 6, 1965 The Chaplain complained of discrimination of admissions without putting forward the admission policy of the university as approved by the Federal Government which was contravened. In the same vain, he alleged ‘discrimination in appointments’ and ‘selective administration of discipline’ without properly illustrating any. In his capacity, such allegation which are not personal to him but for the common good of the society in general and his followers who he represent in particular, need to be spelt out as mark of integrity and honesty. Otherwise, they would be scandalized as they are now justifiably so. By the time such issues are made public, the Chaplain could have made a number of confidential approaches to the authorities within and in fact even without, but had fail to goad any positive change. Those steps were not included in that paper. The Chaplain need to underscore the prompt response to his paper by the Samaru Community Zaria, rightly or wrongly, they provided him with the university ‘admission formula’. They were also quick to add that most of the Deans and Heads of departments in the university of recent are Christians. Should he have provided the real statistics, this wouldn’t have been so. In fact, using the last convocation order of proceedings, I counted eight to nine Christian Deans out of the fourteen in the booklet. In as much as I commended the prompt response of the Samaru Community Zaria, I doubt if they consulted with the Chaplain before re-circulating the Chaplain’s paper which they attached with theirs. If they haven’t, that was immature. It means they jumped to conclusion that the Chaplain circulated the paper himself. Re-circulating that paper was a threat to the peace of the university on its own. I was particularly worried that both papers were without typed dates. In the wrong hands, they can easily be re-circulated to score some cheap points over VC’s succession bid. While it is right and should be encouraged for the public to take their problems to their leaders, it is wrong and should be condemn for leaders to display inciting and provoking problems to the mob. There is however one aspect which I agreed with the Chaplain, ‘the proliferation of mosques on campus and residential area’. It is understandable that this is particularly an infuriating issue to the Chaplain. The Chaplain would possibly prefer the agitations of fellow workers that Islamic congregational prayers take to much time due the distances of mosques far way from work centres. This is with the assumption that the Chaplain would not be inferring that such prayers should be completely done away with in the university. Has the Chaplain thought of how frustrating the Muslim brother would hold the university with long absence due the distances of their worship centres during offices hours? Even this, the Chaplain should have had a close and matured discussion with his Islamic counterpart and the authority. These are some of the privileged information that he should have in tacking matters arising in his official position of a peacemaker. In fact I view this worrisome issue to him in a different light. I see it as disadvantage to the Muslim Umma. The proliferation of mosques fragments the authoritative chain of command of the Muslim Umma. Islamically, two or more people can perform Jam’i (congregational prayers). Let me illustrate, during the life time of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.), people could easily perform their congregational prayers in twos or in mosques closer to their homes, but they don’t. While their Jam’i prayers would be accepted by Allah (S.W.A.), they would miss two cardinal religious acts. They would miss the Holy Prophet’s supplications to Allah on behalf of the Umma and the fatwa, which only the Prophet can proclaim. The fatwa comprises of commands, directives, clarifications and explanations of some Qur’anic verses and other religious matters. Fatwas also included strategies of the day on how to propagate Islam or overcome the enemies of Islam at the time. It was common that it was during such instances that the Prophet appoints Commanding Officers on different missions. These were as important to the Muslims as the Jam’i. It was this central principle that made the Sultan Bello Mosque famous today. Because during the life of the Sardauna, once he was in Kaduna, he performs all the Jam’i prayers with his fellow cabinet officers and other Muslims in the Sultan Bello Mosque. And the entire Muslim workers within that vicinity all troop to worship with the Sardauna, if for nothing, they all move to the Sardauna and shake hands with him after the prayers. Such was the life of the Sardauna with his motto of ‘work and worship’. But unfortunately, today every upcoming Islamic scholar want be an Imam, to lead supplication prayers as well as to give fatwa. This is not good for the Muslim Umma. It worries many of us, not only the Chaplain. Efforts are underway to address this issue. Muslims now have vehicles that can afford them to move faster and easier to the designated places of worship. Would the Chaplain be comfortable to being seeing the entire Muslims move to the central mosques in throngs led by the VC? Possibly not! He would have possibly raise another complain. In Toto, I agree with the Chaplain that mosques should not be erected in residential quarters with out the permission of the authority. Similarly, no mosques should be tempered with without the intervention of the authorities and the Muslim leadership involved. The Chaplain is well aware that even the Federal Government has stopped religious and political organizations from using public facilities like stadia. As such the Chaplain should well appreciate that there is nothing wrong with stopping all religious groups from using the university facilities. This is always what happens when religious connotations are smuggled into issues, they distract you completely from the main course. The foregoing seem completely disconnected to the issue of the VC succession, but they are not only connected, indeed they are intertwined and interwoven. That was why one wonders if the Chaplains paper was meant to advance the cause of Christians in general and VC succession bid in particular. It did not in both counts. The paper’s timing was wrong and so was its approach. It made the clumsy handling of the VC’s appointment process by the Selection Committee looked like acting ‘a script that is being unfolded’ according to the Samaru Community Zaria. The underground politicking also which the Chaplain is alleged to be fully involved, serious undermined the candidature of Prof Andrew Nok. A world class scientist of repute had been reduced to an ethnic and religious champion. They probably conveniently misremembered that the VC’s record to beat, is the Chaplains brother, late Prof Ishaya Audu. If he claims that his brother became the VC because at that time there was no any Muslim challenger, we all know how meticulous Ahmadu Bello was, he wouldn’t have appointed a Christian as the first VC, when there were competent hands in the Islamic world then. But Bello had established a reputation for religious toleration. On Christmas Day 1959 he stated, in a broadcast: ‘I always remind people of our firmly rooted policy of religious tolerance. We have no intention of favouring one religion at the expense of another. Subject to the overriding need to preserve law and order, it is our determination that everyone should have absolute liberty to practice his belief according to the dictates of his conscience….’ Or have we so soon forgotten Prof Daniel Saro? He was also a Christian. They all had one thing in common; they enjoy the unalloyed support of the Muslim Umma. For Prof Ishaya Audu, to his deathbed, the Muslim Umma had been with him and to this day, he still enjoys lavish encomiums from them, to them, they had a VC and a brother without a religious label even though they knew he was a Reverend. Grumblings in line of ethno-religious path is what I equate as dons who lack competence or simply the conduct to breeze the contest on merit. They cannot on their own mobilize nor stimulate support or command the confidence and the respect of the people without ethno-religious support-base, what a tragedy. But then one is not surprise that is expected from mere upstarts in the intricate game of politics of number. They only succeeded in complicating matters for the university. At a similar crossroad the great Zik once described his party thus: My comrades, our great Party is passing through troubulous times. The leadership is confused and the followership is very much perplexed. Tumultuous outbursts of emotions are the order of the day. Our standpats are employing destructive techniques not against a common foe but against the Party. There are conflicts which indicate that fear and uncertainties have gripped the imagination of our stalwarts. Instead of building up the Party they are wrecking it. Nnamdi Azikiwe, July 14, 1958; (I: 95) pg 197 Words cannot describe ABU better than this, considering the fact that the leading contenders all were representing one ‘big-family’. Profs. Andrew Nok and Idris Isa Funtua were members of Governing Council, with Prof. Zakari Mohammed in Attendance. Prof. Nasidi on the other is already becoming legendary in the matters of the university. As the Zik described the party in the above quote, with a common harmony, Nok, Zakari and Funtua should have a common front by presenting one candidate. But Zakari and Nok remained silent onlookers as Funtua was being prepared to take the mantle of leadership from S U Abdullahi. Instead of voicing and sorting out issues, they were all rehearsing their hidden agendas, afterall they are all Professors and some are even more connected than the ‘boy’. My snooping around gathered that many Muslim have nothing against Prof. Nok but they only became apprehensive when the handwriting was on the wall that his ‘sponsors’ are anti-SU. This means that in the Nigerian culture, should he win, he would deliberately undo all that SU Abdullahi did to spite him. This many are not comfortable with. It is this line of thought that many started digging deep to unearth the role Nok played during the last student uprising. If Nok was not an active participant in fuelling the crisis, his being on the fence was read as being against Abdullahi. Worst of all, they believed that people of that nature on every occasion sought to free themselves from blame. This is an unworthy childish attitude unbecoming of men who want to rule a university as important as ABU. It was Prof. Achebe who popularized the phrase, when ‘things fall apart’, the centre cannot hold. The Sardauna, on the other hand was very critical of such people, when he stated that “They are unpredictable. But they are always offensive, crude and rude, always perched on the fence ready to drop on the side of immediate popularity, not on the side of reality, not on the side of common sense. To entrust them with the handling of our foreign affairs, is therefore, to utterly ruin everything we have so painfully built up in the last five years”. Ahmadu Bello, October 31, 1964. It was agued that his ‘sponsored’ candidature by ethno-religious and external influence was to spite Abdullhi that he can do without him. Apart from these, there is a general agreement that Prof Nok is indeed a world class scientist. But Nok has fallen out favour with the Muslims, particularly with the congratulatory messages, thanks giving and the circulated paper by the Chaplain before the Council’ meeting. This was made worst by the Selection Committee’s scoring him ‘too high’ without clear transparent guidelines and the ‘scoring sheets’. That sorts of confirms to the Muslims that an invincible hand is making everything possible, by hook or crook to ensure that Nok becomes the next VC for the university. And they are set to resist. The words of Obafemi Awolowo, 30th June, 1971, in paying tribute to Gowon came to mind, ‘The hands that tend a ruler in true affection, in large measure, rule the nation.’ If this is so, then they have a point that if Nok wins his ‘sponsor(s)’ would govern ABU. It is important to disassociate being sponsored and having vested interest, the two terms are different. Indeed, no man has become great without some powerful inspiration behind him or without great encouragement from some other person or body of people. This is not the same with the politics of godfatherism in Nigeria. The respected credentials of Prof. Nasidi are his legacy as prudent officer; even his critics believe that Nasidi is financially unblemished. He is possibly the only candidate with an articulate programme for VC tenure on his head, having nursed this ambition for so long. This tributes not withstanding, Nasidi has more opposition to his succession bid than Nok, even though a Muslim. This antecedence emanate mostly to the students uprising, for he is ‘ambitious’, like Caesar. Again, those who testify to Prof. Nasidi prudence also alleged that his is not a ‘go getter’, meaning that the university most make do with only the Federal Governments subvention. This is where Prof. Nok is much respected, but ‘feared’. In fact, the general public, including the press who witness the public hearing during the last student uprising insisted that is enough to disqualify Prof. Nasidi, whichever the case in the purported scoring of the Selection Committee, Prof. Nasidi was second behind Nok. Prof. Zakari, another Muslim Contender was scored 3rd by that Selection Committee. But even the Muslims believed that he was features as a spoiler to Prof. Funtua that they are to share the votes of fellow Muslims to pave way for Prof. Nok. They alleged that the Prof. does not even have a worthy programme for the university. Apart from that, not much allegation is levelled against Zakari except for thwarting the emergence of Prof. Funtua, who at forty five (45) years old is referred to as a ‘boy’. It is believed that Zakari should have made his point for them to settle who emerges for the seat. Zakari, a late entrant into race and without an articulate programme, according those with this school of thought cannot even stand Nasidi not to talk of Nok. These people believe that Funtua, having been the ‘recommended’ candidate by Abdullahi can hold his own anywhere anytime but Zakari is greatest ‘obstacle’. One of the most interesting parts of my investigation is the comparative analyses I got between Nok and Funtua, even the Selection Committee would be envious. Not to worry I would share this with you. Here are some of the assessment areas of considerations, but lets start with the prelims, Nok is 47 year old, Funtua is 45, Nok is Christian from Kaduna State, Funtua is a Muslim from Katsina State. So, Nok is score higher in experience over Funtua because of age, Nok is place better in terms of state, Kaduna state being host state to the university, Funtua scores higher on religion being the most populous in the university and environs. 1. Professorial qualification: Both are Professors, whose contributions to the university’s growth and reputation through their teaching and various research efforts were acknowledged, as such, their scores are even. Academic and administrative leadership: Both of them are members of the Governing Council, Funtua doubles as the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Administration) and Director, Centre for Energy Research and Training. Nok on the other hand is the Dean, Faculty of Science and the Director, Centre for Biotechnology Research and Training. Again they are both seasoned leaders who can take the university to the next level. They are even in academic and administrative responsibilities but Funtua has an edge on academic leadership as the DVC (Administration). Through a number of times he acted as VC, Funtua has been tried and tested and found to be a good performer. 2. Professional standing/honours: on this, readily statistics were not available but many slightly score Nok above Funtua. Even thought Funtua is said to have a substantial professional honours, but Nok beat him due to 2 years age difference. 3. Honours/fellowship of relevant/professional societies: as in three above again the age factor gave Nok a slight edge over Funtua 4. Proficiency in ICT: Funtua score higher over Nok, amongst different criteria, the power point of Funtua in the interview outclass Nok in the ICT. 5. Societal linkages: Nok is placed higher than Funtua in the individual connectivity. But Funtua is in better standing with the university and environs, which matters most in times of crisis. The local community because of ethno-religious setting are behind Funtua. Funtua can easily quell crisis, particularly tribal and religious conflict because of the general acceptability of local community. He is the appropriate person, because he knows and understands the environment. 6. Ability to attract funds/research grant: there was a deadlock here, even though evidence show that Nok has attracted more fund than Funtua. The argument here is the name of the university and not on individual capacity. We gave Nok the tops. The strength of Funtua is that he is fully involve with the external linkages the out going administration uses, as such he is the right person to continue from where the last administration stopped and will continue working closely with the university’s Associate. 7. Contribution to knowledge (academic publications, inventions): Nok has 115 publication against Funtua’s 103, they share the same score because the policy on this the number of publications for the next promotion. So, even if Nok has more the score remain the same. 8. Interview performance which would be scored along candidates' vision for the university, articulation/personality: Funtua performed better in the interview, apart from his point depict historic happenings including all the crises in the university, his policy thrust, programmes to carry the university to higher heights were better articulated. In addition, he presented a 10page typed writeup on these as against Nok’s 4pages. Having gone through both write ups, I personally scored Funtua higher than Nok 9. General knowledge and referee reports: this is where Funtua scored his good marks. He is the recommendation of the outgoing VC, who was their assessor in the last five years.
A candidate is expected to score at least 75 out of a total 100 points to make the next list. Thus, it was a case of serious worry to find out that Funtua according to the Selection Committee did not emerge at all. Many believed that Funtua would even beat Nok. But in the case Nok beats him; the margin would be very small. And those with this school of thought believe that apart from Nok, none of the contenders would have beaten Funtua. This was the beginning of suspecting the Selection Committee of irregularities, which seems to be true going by the ad hoc arrangement for the interim VC. Such was the politics of the ivory tower. Now, let me implore all the emphasis within me to state categorically here that all the Islamic Scholar within the university and environs, strongly believe that none of the Muslim contenders for the VC’s appointment has a track record of promoting Islam when the chips are down. Apart from the Muslims vote of no confidence, Funtua, particularly had a very low support of the ‘Senior boys’, who see him as an inexperience candidate. They vehemently reject him; his only grace was that he enjoys the favour of the outgoing VC. They can’t understand that out of the top post Professorial members of the university, Abdullahi should settle for the ‘boy’. Again, Funtua is out of favour of the middle and junior staff. He is said to be to hardhearted concerning their welfare. They make reference with the case at the Energy Centre and those within the Main Campus under him as not enjoying a fair share of their welfare. I feel he ought to know, whatever the case. Leadership of this nature would still take us back to yesteryears. Those sad days of agitations, strangulations, strikes and riots over the rights and privileges of staff and students, his boss was more compassionate. And if his senior colleagues ‘gang up’ against him, the only way for to succeed is dictatorship. This we would not submit. All office holders should be aware that ‘Contempt begets contempt, and that an abuse or misuse of power begets defiance and revolt’, according to Obafemi Awolowo, 1953 This is quagmire the university found itself as a result of the Selection Committee’s inconclusive, indeterminate and unaccountable selection process. It ‘…has given rise to unnecessary squabbles and a scramble for leadership, irrespective of the fitness or otherwise of the ambitious ones’, Nnamdi Azikiwe, August 30, 1951. And this is not what the university needs at this stage. What we need is a man who has proven his dependability, his patience, wisdom and impartiality, a man above board, a man accepted relatively on equal terms by Muslims and Christians, all ethnic and cadre of staff, a man beyond stupid and foolish allegations, a man trusted above all. Such a man should possess qualities of hard work, credible integrity, wisdom, accessibility, and fear of God and there abound men with such qualities in the university. Such a man should go beyond the veneer of competence and academic expertise and knowledge; such a man must be a leader! Such is the man the founding father of this university described as one ‘who tower above their fellows, men whose leadership determines the course of history. Ahmadu Bello, November 23, 1963. Such a man would definitely strive for the attainment of social equality, economic security, religious tolerance, political freedom and restore the glory of ivory tower. What we need in this circumstance is to call upon all contenders, all sheds of interest groups to unite in meeting the crisis that looms ahead if selfish interest is allowed to supersede the common interest of the university. The university has always conducted her business as friends and members of a family. This should continue and should be guarded even in the difficult period of succession. We need to tread cautiously and calmly in the manner befitting a united family, where each will give his best for the good of the unit. As happens in a family, the older members should happily accept the coming of age and even the leadership of those who, until quite recently, had been under their care.
Usman, Sule Machika, wrote from Zaria. |