It is not difficult to identify a hatchet job. It leaves traces of unprofessionalism and it’s attendant quackery. Poor research, sensationalism and, regrettably, a level of incompetence that raises more questions than answers.
The recent publication alleging a ₦500 million contract scandal at Michael Okpara University (MOUAU) falls into this category. At the centre of the narrative are the Pro-Chancellor, Comrade Fidelis Edeh, and the newly appointed Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Ursula Ngozi Akanwa, who were accused of bypassing established procurement procedures and allegedly securing an illegal ₦500 million loan through the MOUAU Microfinance Bank.
These are serious allegations. But serious allegations require serious evidence.
Unfortunately, the publication, as presented, appears to fall short of the basic standards expected of responsible investigative journalism.
Even more curious is the use of pseudo names by those presented as the authors of the report. If an investigation has genuinely uncovered evidence of financial impropriety involving a federal university, the logical next step should be to submit the evidence to the appropriate authorities including relevant regulatory, anti-corruption or investigative agencies for independent examination and to strengthen the credibility of the claims.
Let us put facts in proper perspective and make clarifications for the sake of the public and members of the university community who may have been misled by the publication.
The renovation work around the Vice Chancellor’s office and Gate 5, according to the information available, should not be conflated with the alleged ₦500 million loan.
The renovation of the Vice-Chancellor’s office and the work at Gate 5 are described as interventions donated by individuals to the university, rather than projects funded from the university’s loan facility.
The proposed loan, on the other hand, is intended for the renovation and improvement of students’ hostels.
Where a university seeks financing to improve its infrastructure, the critical questions should be: Was the financing properly approved? Was the procurement process followed? What is the repayment structure? What is the purpose of the facility? And will the transaction ultimately serve the interests of the institution and its students?
Those are questions that should be answered through documentary evidence rather than speculation.
It is also important to clarify that the reported hostel renovation loan is not intended to translate into an increase in students’ accommodation charges.
Most importantly, the loan application is still undergoing the appropriate institutional processes.
If that is the case, describing the facility as an “illegal loan” before the relevant approvals and processes have been conclusively examined is premature.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a university exploring legitimate financing options to improve its infrastructure, provided that such financing is undertaken transparently, approved by the appropriate authorities and consistent with applicable laws, regulations and institutional procedures.
Indeed, universities across the world routinely pursue partnerships, grants, donations and financing arrangements to improve infrastructure and academic facilities.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the controversy is the possibility that legitimate academic and administrative disagreements are being transformed into something more sinister.
Universities are centres of intellectual discourse. They should accommodate competition, disagreement and different opinions about leadership. But there must be a clear line between academic politics and personal vendetta.
Competition for leadership positions is normal. Losing such a contest is also part of institutional life. What should not follow is an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of those who emerged through an established selection or appointment process simply because one’s preferred candidate did not prevail.
If there are genuine concerns about the administration of MOUAU, the appropriate response is to present the evidence to the relevant governing authorities and allow competent institutions to investigate.
MOUAU deserves better than anonymous allegations and sensational headlines geared towards politically motivated narratives.
