…Cites instances of Professors with fake Ph.D degrees
…Bogus spending, contracts
…Promotion of unqualified wife, other cronies
By James Idowu
Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Ambrose Ali University chapter, Ekpoma, Edo State of Nigeria, has accused the institution’s Vice Chancellor, Prof Ignatius Onimawo of allegedly misappropriating billions of TETFUND allocation meant for the development of the university.
The union, in its petition to the University’s Governing Council recently, accused the VC of awarding contracts without due process, advertisement or tender board, promoting his unqualified wife to lecturing position and other tyrannical acts that violate the laws that established the university.
The Association also accused him of harboring professors with fake Ph.D. certificates, constituting a cabal of cronies and resorting to blackmail, intimidation, repression, oppression, dictatorship and outright decimation of the Union in the branch and other perceived enemies at the institution.
The petition was signed by M. L. Igbafen, Ph.D, A.A. Aizebioje-Coker, Ph.D, Chairperson and Secretary ASUU AAU, Ekpoma, respectively, with a copy sent to visitor to AAU, Ekpoma Commissioner for Education, Edo State and all external members of the Governing Council of the university.
Below is the full text of ASUU letter:
To begin with, it is not the Unions intention to begin engagement with the new Council of our University with a call to carry out a thorough and painstaking investigation into the Vice-Chancellors activities since he assumed duty more than two years ago.
The exigency and circumstance of the present have constrained the Union to sound an alert at this critical time so soon after the suspension of a nationwide strike especially on the increasing desperation of the Vice-Chancellor to decimate the Union Branch and its leadership.
It may interest the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to note that our University, AAU Ekpoma, has been a great beneficiary of ASUU struggles. In fact, the current Vice-Chancellor has been superintending over a lot of projects in the University, sponsored with funds produced by ASUU struggles.
The recently constructed magnificent Faculty of Life Sciences building, the Faculty of Social Sciences, and the Cordelia Agbebaku Auditorium complex, to mention but a few are all there for all to see. The funds used to carry out all these projects are from the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND). TETFUND is a fall-out of the struggle of ASUU, through a strike like the one we just suspended.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to further note that in the past four years, AAU, Ekpoma, has received/collected more than 4.2 billion (between 2015 and 2018) from TETFUND for its physical development.
To be specific, the current University Administration under Prof. Ignatius Onimawo has received more than 3.4 billion naira from TETFUND. In addition, the current Vice-Chancellor has been able to engage in over nine (9) projects with funds from the Needs Assessment Intervention Fund.
Again, the Needs Assessment Intervention Fund is a fund made possible by ASUU national struggle. The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may also wish to further note that our dear University during the period of the current Vice-Chancellor has received more than 1.2 billion naira from this fund out of which more than N400,000,000.00 (Four hundred million naira) was for staff development. We can continue on and on.
We have said this little to inform the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council on the need to know and appreciate the fact that ASUU strikes including the just suspended one are not targeted at bringing down our University, neither are they actions to undo the Council or the government of Edo State.
As a matter of fact, the just suspended strike is completely a struggle to revitalize public universities through increased funding and better condition of service. We are of the strong view, sir, that while ASUU AAU, Ekpoma was unable to meet with the Council after its recent inauguration because of the ongoing nationwide strike action, a diligent Vice-Chancellor ought to brief the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council about the accruable benefits of the struggles of ASUU to public Universities with particular reference to AAU Ekpoma – the Vice-Chancellor/AAU Ekpoma having being a direct beneficiary of funds, i.e. TETFUND and Needs Assessment Fund.
Thus, instead of appreciating the just suspended ASUU struggle or strike in its progressive perspective, the University Administration under the leadership of Prof. Ignatius Onimawo, used it as a political tool to get back at the Union, divide the Union, scuttle the successful prosecution of the strike in the Branch and give the Council a very wrong impression that he had the interest of the University at heart and that the Unions strike action was anti-university.
We urge the Council and the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, in particular, to be wary of the Vice-Chancellors steps, actions and advice because of his antics to divert attention and cover up before the Council the so many issues needing investigation by the Council in the running and management of this University in the past two years, issues for which the Union has been pushing for redress.
The Unions warning is that the recent desperation of the Vice-Chancellor to truncate the national strike in the Branch and balkanize the Union should be perceived as what it truly is: play-acting as a good boy. His attitude should be viewed with utmost suspicion.
In fact, the Union views the Vice-Chancellors recent actions as a calculated attempt to cause disaffection between the Union and the Council, a Council which the Vice-Chancellor never wanted to be in place as he has been totally exhilarated running the University as a sole administrator.
The Union can justifiably argue that the current Council of the University is a product of the struggle of the Union in the Branch, having repeatedly engaged the Visitor to the University and Executive Governor of Edo State coupled with intense pressure on the Visitor, on the need to constitute a new Governing Council for the University after more than one year of the expiration of the previous one.
In fact, the Union had to resort to the declaration of a trade dispute with the Government in order to achieve this. In fact, the Vice-Chancellor was not and is still not pleased with the Union till date because of the Unions position and agitation for the constitution of the present Governing Council of the University.
The vacuum created by the absence of a Council for more than one year made a dictator out of the Vice-Chancellor during which period he managed the University like an emperor whose words were laws and who could do anything without recourse to due process, regulations, rules and laws establishing the University.
In many cases, recruitment and conversion of staff were arbitrarily carried out during the period and indeed approvals were not sought from appropriate higher authority. There was and still is a reign of intimidation and oppression of staff, impunity and a collapse of the Committee System of the university administration.
It is for the foregoing explained reasons that the Union strongly appeals to the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to take time to understand the University in its past and recent history with particular reference to the relationship between the Vice-Chancellor and ASUU in the Branch.
In other words, the Union urges the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to understand that the existing frosty relationship between the Union and the Vice-Chancellor, and his consequent overt and covert aggression against the Union, the incumbent Chairman and members of the Executive Committee of the Branch, could best be understood in the context of the past and current perceived outrageous misdeeds of the Vice-Chancellor since he assumed duty more than two years ago.
We, as a Union, have pointed out these outrageous misdeeds and maladministration for which the Union is not willing or ready to compromise. The Vice-Chancellor had made several unsuccessful overtures to the Branch Chairperson and some members of the Branch EXCO to play down on these vexatious issues. Rather than choose the path of honour, the Vice-Chancellor preferred blackmail, intimidation, repression, oppression, dictatorship and outright decimation of the Union in the Branch.
Thus, the frosty relationship between the Union on one hand and the Vice-Chancellor and his few supporters on the other, has been on even before your Council was constituted.
Sir, it is germane at this juncture to itemise some of the worrisome developments and actions in the University in the past two years for which the Union has insisted that the higher authorities of the University should address. It is the perceived hard stance of the Union on these issues by the Vice-Chancellor that is at the basis of the festering crisis and the reason why the Vice-Chancellor is after the leadership of ASUU in the Branch.
The Issues at stake and the Desperation of the Vice-Chancellor to balkanize our Union and crucify Union Leaders to divert attention.
1. The first identifiable source of disagreement between the Union and the current Vice-Chancellor is Irregular employments/appointments, placement and conversion, in the University. Sir, our Union observed with dismay that within the time space/limit of one year in office, our institution was hit by a gale of random employment/recruitment of staff into the University.
In particular, the Union was inundated with reports that wives/relatives of the cronies of the Vice-Chancellor were massively recruited and that well over 90 appointments had been secretly made in the University without internal and external advertisement as stipulated by the law, thus foreclosing competitiveness and transparency in the entire process.
Closely related to this were the worrisome reports of arbitrary creation of the office of the Deputy Provost of the College of Medicine that is not known to the University Law and the placement or ranking of appointments as evident in the decision of the University Administration, for instance, to offer academic appointment to a clear beginner in academics to the rank of Lecturer 1.
The wife of the Vice-Chancellor was incidentally one of such cases of arbitrariness of conversion, placement or ranking of staff. By the extant Staff Regulation and Schemes of Service for Senior Staff of the University, for a freshly appointed academic staff to get a direct appointment to the rank of Lecturer 1, he/she must possess a Ph.D in the relevant discipline in addition to certain number of publications as well as have garnered university teaching experience for a period of not less than 3 years as a Lecturer 11.
Available records indicate that the Vice-Chancellors wife so appointed to the rank of Lecturer 1 then did not possess a Ph.D and the required publications to merit such an appointment. Having reviewed the qualifying conditions for the accession to the rank of Lecturer 1 as contained in our extant staff regulation and schemes of service, the Union felt that Mrs. Jane Onimawo did not possess the requisite qualifications and experience for that position.
The said Mrs. Jane Onimawo was until her current appointment, a Chief Instructor, which is not known to our University’s Law and regulation and schemes of service in the University. Furthermore, the said Mrs. Onimawo has no academic Master’s Degree. She possesses Masters of Public Administration (MPA), not Masters of Science (M.SC) which the law recognizes as an academic master’s degree.
The Union views the information that she was a Chief Tutor and holder of MPA degree as inadequate to merit her movement straight to Lecturer 1. In fact, it can easily be confirmed that some other lecturers appointed at the same time (2016) and with MA/MSC degrees, were placed as Assistant Lecturers. The Union therefore wonders what criterion/criteria was/were used in the circumstance. On receipt of all these, the Union felt compelled to write through the Vice-Chancellor to the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council then on the need to respect the University Laws, rules and regulations on matters of appointments, conversion/placements and promotions in the University without any sense of favouritism, nepotism and other primordial considerations (see annexure I, sir, for the Unions letter on Irregular Appointments and Promotions in the University: A Call for Return to due Process. There were other similar cases.
Sequel to this Unions letter, the Governing Council then decided to set up a Council Committee to investigate all Appointments made in the University then in the previous 12 months. The Report of that Committee is yet to be seen or implemented and the issues raised by the Union have not been conclusively addressed, not even by an unfulfilled promise of the University Administration to look into the matters and report back to the Union.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to know that even after this inconclusive intervention of the then Governing Council on this matter there have been reports of several other controversial employments/conversions made in the University that are offensive to the law, rules and regulations of the University. In short, these irregular appointments/conversions have continued unabated in the University.
Sir, the Union had affirmed and reiterated, again and again, that it was not against employment and recruitment of new staff into the University particularly those of academic staff where there is presently a high degree of shortage based on NUC requirements.
The Unions point of departure with the University Administration was that such appointments should comply with best practices by following the laid down procedure for appointment of staff which would lead to attraction of the best hands into the system.
As a Union, we felt that competent staff could be employed through a competitive interview process, heralded by both internal and external employment advertisements, just as it happened in our University in 1988, 1989, 2006 and 2015 respectively.
We had long been agitating for competitive process in the employment/appointment of academic staff, given its deriving benefits of making it possible to attract best hands into academics. Added to this is the abuse in the engagement of contract staff in the University. It is done for political patronage in the University rather than to meet deficiency in critical areas of staff need in the University.
This problem cut across academic and non-academic cadres in the University. In fact, this has been an issue for which the Vice-Chancellor has vowed to deal ruthlessly with the Union for daring to challenge the University Administration, to the extent that the Vice-Chancellor threatened to deal decisively with the Chairperson of the Union and other vocal members, including Professors F. I. Esumeh and S. O. Ighalo. The persons in question had to formally write letters of protest to the then Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council for protection of their lives and job.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to note that till date in order to realize his threat, the Vice-Chancellor is still searching for incriminating report(s) and sponsoring petitions to incriminate the Branch Chairperson of the Union. This threat to deal with the Union and members of its leadership has manifested in the unceremonious removal from office of vocal union members as Directors, Heads of Units and Heads of Departments. To mention a few, the Secretary of the Branch was removed as Ag. HOD, before a query was ever served on him over an argument between him and the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Administration) on the floor of the Unions Congress meeting.
The Vice-Chairperson and the immediate past Secretary of the Branch were issued queries for carrying out union assignments and the Financial Secretary was removed as a Unit head for reasons not disclosed. The three officers mentioned were arraigned before panels with unknown outcomes till date. As a matter of fact, the Vice-Chancellor has not relented on this highhandedness and desperation to silence the Union from acting as a watchdog in the University.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to cause an investigation into this issue with particular reference to staff employments/conversions/contract staff appointments profile of the University to ascertain their compliance with relevant university laws and rules and the extent of irregularity, impunity, favouritism, nepotism and primordial sentiments in the process(es).
2. The second issue on which the Union has insisted that the right thing be done concerns the alleged existence of fake certificates in the University. Sir, sometimes in July 2016, the present Vice-Chancellor raised a very disturbing alarm on the floor of Senate meeting of the University about the alleged possession of fake certificates, with particular reference to Ph.D degrees, by some staff in the University.
On receipt of the information, our Union felt disturbed and listed the matter for discussion at our Congress meeting of August 30, 2016. After exhaustive deliberation on it, our Congress expressed worry on receipt of the news about the alleged possession of fake Ph.D certificates by some of its members and resolved that EXCO should write to the University Administration to do the needful to fish out the culprits.
In the view of Congress, this matter cannot and should not be swept under the carpet and resolved to monitor developments on it. This was immediately communicated to the Vice-Chancellor. Shortly after this, the Union received a letter from the University Administration conveying the setting up of a Committee to carry out investigation into staff certificates in the University and requested the Union to send its nominee-member. This we swiftly did.
It may interest the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to note that having waited for so long without hearing anything concrete on the matter of fake certificates, the Union again met on Tuesday 24th January, 2017 to review developments on fake certificates. Recalling its resolution of August 30, 2016 on the alleged possession of fake Ph.D certificates by some of its members, we expressed serious concern over the seeming silence in investigating the alleged possession of fake (Ph.D) certificates by some staff in the University.
Consequently, Congress resolved that a letter of reminder should be written to the University Administration to immediately act decisively (See annexure II, sir, for this letter). We further resolved to do everything legally possible to ensure that the matter was not swept under the carpet.
With this undisguised cooperation of the Union with the University Administration to sanitise the University, it is sad to inform the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council that nothing concrete had been heard about this matter even now.
The Union has been insisting on the need for the University Administration to follow up its allegation of the existence of fake Ph.D degrees in the University with concrete action, but to no avail. The Union has it on good authority that the Vice-Chancellor may be covering up for certain staff in the University with questionable certificates/Curriculum Vitae and who have been promoted to the rank of Professor but are cooperating with the Vice-Chancellor to run the University with iron fists.
For instance, questions the Union raised and other new issues of contention include (a) why should AAU have a Professor of Law without a Ph.D degree in Law? Indeed, Prof. Sunday Edeko, the current Dean of the Faculty of Law and a strong ally of the Vice-Chancellor should be asked to present the Ph.D degree in Law on the basis of which he was promoted to the rank of a Professor; (b) how can the announcement of a Professorial promotion be made without due process of having the input of the Faculty Board concerned?
This is the controversy that had trailed the promotion of Engr. Osadalor Odia of the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology. This is possible because Engr. O. Odia is the right- hand man of the Vice-Chancellor, why should a Lecturer without or against a Faculty panels recommendation or input be promoted? (c) Why should some Acting Heads of department be unlawfully given third term-tenures which is not recognized in the regulations? (d) Why has the Dean of Faculty of Basic Medical Sciences (Prof. Luke Anyanwu) retained his appointment for about 15 (fifteen) years running? (e) Why should a Principal House Keeper II (Mr. Precious Ehikioya), with a security report (since 2017) of alleged involvement in extortion and sales of hostel bed spaces, still not been arraigned before an Administrative Panel?
Instead he was converted last year to an academic staff in the Department of Public Administration, and he is currently a chief actor for the Vice-Chancellor in the disruption of ASUU meetings (f) Non-transparency in the disbursements and administration of TETFUND monies, years now, the funds for staff development in terms of sponsorship of attendance at conferences (local and international) has been characterized by extreme lack of transparency, favouritism and irregularity.
The Union is of the strong view that these contentions are part of the reasons why the Vice-Chancellor abhors the existence of the Union, particularly the leadership of the Branch. He wants to eliminate all opposition so that he can successfully sweep these issues under the carpet and continue his illegalities.
It is incumbent on the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council to cause an investigation into this long-standing allegation made by the Vice-Chancellor and the refusal of the same Vice-Chancellor to fish out fake certificate holders, the successful completion of screening of all certificates in the University and other related matters, including a promotion without faculty input and a Professor who used a certain Ph.D degree for his promotion to the rank of Professor and withdrew it in place of a Ph.D degree in a different area of study, and similar irregularities mentioned.
3. The third area of concern for which the Union has been having serious engagements with the University Administration has to do with the payment of monthly salaries without remittance of the check-off dues of staff unions, workers cooperative deductions and voluntary savings of staff to their welfare associations.
What the Union always hears from the Vice-Chancellor is that what comes from the Government is not adequate to pay full salary in the University and that the University is made to source for money internally, including borrowing from the Banks, to pay net salaries at the first instance before looking for more money to pay deductions from staff salaries in form of savings and contributions to staff welfare associations and the University’s cooperative society. As a result, our University we understand owes Banks varying huge sums in form of loans all in the name of augmentation of monthly subvention from the state government. We had, as a Union, discussed this all-important matter of unremitted deductions with the University Administration with little or no hope of resolution of the problem.
The consequence of the foregoing is that all the welfare activities of the University’s Cooperative Society, the Welfare Associations and the various Unions in the University are being crippled and paralyzed with devastating effects on the morale of members of staff. This is one issue that our Union had resolved to take industrial action on.
We are aware that the Vice-Chancellor, instead of giving a true picture of the financial situation to the government, has decided to engage in blatant falsehood that he is paying full salaries as and when due and that all is well financially with the University, just as the Vice-Chancellor did during a stakeholders meeting with the University community and the Visitor to the University and Executive Governor of Edo State in December 2017. The Union is aware that the Vice-Chancellor is till date, unhappy with the Union for speaking the truth to the Governor about the state of affairs in the University.
However, no one knows the exact amount that is being generated from Internally Generated Revenue (IGR), neither is the University community aware with certainty the amount of money the University, as at today, is owing banks. There has not been any official information or statement as to what IGR is being collected on monthly, quarterly or annual basis in the University for the appreciation of the university community.
The Union is not unaware of some sources of IGR, including the payment of school fees, the issuance of local and international transcripts (ranging from N3, 000.00 to N10, 000.00), the payment for issuance of certificates (ranging from N7, 000.00 to N30, 000.00), the sales of water and fish to the public, rents from kiosks on campus, bakery sale of bread to the public, sales of sachet and bottled water to the public, and other sundry sources. There are also profit-yielding Departments and Divisions in the University, including General Studies and Entrepreneurship Divisions.
As it has been underscored in the introductory section of this letter, the University has received well over 5.5 billion naira in the past four years from TETFUND and Needs Assessment Fund.
Stories abound in the University about bogus spending, award of contracts without due process or approval as well as huge expenditures without approvals.
As a Union, we believe that the issue of the management of finance is strategic to the survival of any system. The Union believes that there has not been a transparent and clear picture of what is being received, being generated internally, the expenditures of the University, as well as the manner the monies of TETFUND and Needs Assessment funds are being expended.
For instance, the Union had course to protest the relocation of the Faculty of Social Sciences to its permanent site of an uncompleted TETFUND-sponsored building complex (see annexure III), after an uproar in the University between the Union and the University Administration over the forceful movement of our members to the new Faculty of Social Sciences TETFUND-sponsored building that was not completed. The Union felt it was wrong to have forcefully moved our members into the building that was not completed as evident in the absence of fittings, lighting systems, furniture, protectors, tiles and plumbing fittings. Some parts of the building then were neither painted nor completed for habitation. As a matter of fact, the Union wrote to the Vice-Chancellor to register its worries and demanded explanations as to the faithful execution/completion of the project by the handlers or contractors.
Rather than give cogent explanations, the Vice-Chancellor resorted to blackmail and misinformation that the Union accused him of embezzling 100 million naira and in the process attempted to divide the ranks of our Union for daring to write the letter. The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to know that till date, many of the inadequacies complained about the Faculty complex have not been completely redressed.
Apart from this, the issue of ever-increasing monthly wage bill in the University calls for explanation and possible investigation. We are no longer comfortable with the usual rhetoric from the University Administration on the question of payment of net or half salary vis-a-vis what the State government is sending to the University.
It is the seeming hard position of the Union on the aforementioned issues that has largely informed a long-standing antagonism and the overt and covert desperation of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the balkanization of ASUU in the Branch, using his cronies among us.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council will do well to cause a comprehensive audit of the University financial profile in the past years to ascertain a financial credibility and project for the future.
4. The fourth area of concern is the style of the present University Administration in the management of the affairs of the University. The Union believes that the right way to run and manage our University is best captured or envisioned in the laws establishing it and the various extant Regulations and Schemes Governing the Service of Staff of the University.
In fact, Nigerian universities are structured to be governed by the Committee System, with the University Governing Council sitting at the peak. Our university should not be an exemption. However currently, in our University, decisions are unilaterally taken and imposed on the various units, divisions, departments and faculties.
In fact, the University Senate where there should be robust debates on academic matters has been reduced to a one-man show and more of a rubber-stamp process for issues that ordinarily require contributions from members. It is now a case of the Vice-Chancellor reeling out decisions and directives on academic issues without inputs from Senators.
Apparently to sustain the alien practice, the Vice-Chancellor has engaged in the appointment of subservient Heads of Departments and Deans of Faculties against the rules and regulations as well as the tradition of the University. The Union and the University Administration had been on each other’s necks over the impunity and irregularity that had characterized the emergence of Heads of Departments and Deans in the University.
The Union had written several protest letters (see annexure IV for these) on the infractions in the appointment of Heads of Departments and illegal appointment of Deans and it is one unresolved sour issue in the University till date. For instance, the Senate meeting that saw the election of the present three Senate representatives to the Governing Council (Professors Sunny Adagbonyin, Momoh Rilwane and Osadalor Odia) was hastily convened without the election agendum advertised, all to actualize the grand plan of the Vice-Chancellor to place his men in the new Council to ensure constant support of his decisions and plans, a controversial Senate/election that the Union also protested (see annexure V).
As a matter of fact, it is the underestimation of the role of the University Senate and the present lack of robust debates by the Senate on academic matters that has led to another unresolved dispute between the Union and the University Administration over the recently introduced mode of examining students in the University – Computer Based Examination (CBE).
The Union expressed its view unequivocally that the CBE as a mode of examination is faulty in the University because of the lack of proper debate on CBE as a mode of examination before it was imposed on the University. The Union had advised the Vice-Chancellor to narrow the CBE to general courses as a first step to test-run it instead of applying it full blown to all courses at the 100 and 200 levels.
The Vice-Chancellor bluntly refused, but today the CBE in our University is a near failure, having been characterized by examination question leakages, allegation of money collection by some members of the CBE Committee, delayed release of results and all sorts of malpractices that were not associated with the old method of examination.
Worried by these developments, the Union had written to the Vice-Chancellor to express deep concern, calling for full investigation into the examination leakages (see annexure VI for the Unions letter on it). Instead of the desired investigation, the University Administration resorted to blackmail and issuance of queries to innocent lecturers and till date nothing concrete came out of it.
While so many results have not been released, several months after examinations against the promise of the University Administration to harvest results within 24 hours, some are enmeshed in the controversy of indiscriminate upgrading of scores. For the avoidance of doubt, the Union is not against CBE. The Unions concern is a well-thought out scheme and an experimentation of the method with general courses.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to act, given that the mockery of CBE in our University if not checked is a potential danger to the production of quality graduates by the University.
The Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may wish to call for full investigation into the scandal of CBE and the reappraisal of CBE as a mode of examining students.
We can go on and on. But suffice it to conclude that in the light of all these, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council may no longer be in doubt of the reason(s) for the desperation on the part of the Vice-Chancellor for his actions, particularly his Administrations repressive antics, intimidation and institution of a reign of terror towards our Union and members of its EXCO, and other vocal union members. We had before now written to the Vice-Chancellor numerous letters of protest over his highhandedness, his installation of a reign of intimidation and despotism in the University (see annexure VII for letters)
Sir, the Union believes that this is a good background for the Council to begin its onerous assignment and duty.
For the avoidance of doubt, this memo is written for and on behalf of all members of ASUU AAU, Ekpoma. Be assured of the Unions cooperation at all times.
Thank you and God bless the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council and the Council members.
Yours in the struggle,
Aluta Continua, Vicoria acerta.
M. L. Igbafen, Ph.D
Chairperson, ASUU AAU, Ekpoma.
A.A Aizebioje-Coker, Ph.D
Secretary, ASUU AAU, Ekpoma.
CC:
Visitor to AAU, Ekpoma.
Commissioner for Education, Edo State.
All External Members of the Governing Council of AAU, Ekpoma.
