By Tunde Akingbondere (Barrytee)
(Senator Representing the Faculty of Law at the SU and 500L Student of Law).
It is no longer a news that the long overdue election of the new leaders of the students’ union might not be holding anytime soon, considering the obvious administrative complaints and the tardy advocacies by the prospective leaders of the students’ union for a peaceful, fair and transparent process of producing another set of students’ representatives.
While much politics has crept into this serious topic, a legal mind is under the urge to ask some serious questions: whether the sovereignty truly belongs to the students as touted by the provision of the constitution in its Chapter 2 section 6 (b) or not. In this particular section of the constitution, it says: *”sovereignty belongs to the members of the union from whom the union leadership through this constitution derives its powers, authority and functions.”*
Over the years, the AAUASU Constitution has gathered dusts and had been reduced to a dead letter law. Unfortunately, our constitution’s voice of reason and activism has been lone, tiny and violated. Intellectuals are forced to ask whether sovereignty could truly be traced to the union as a body, the letters of the grundnorm (constitution) or the management as an institution. The powerful management by its agelong tradition of spearheading the AAUASU election might have been calling the shots and by implication, exercising the power of the students. AAUA Management is the supreme legal authority while every other arrangement is mere subsidiary and created to feather the end of the management. In fact, the management is the State while every other persons are created to achieve the end of the State. It is not fair that it was not envisaged that the students’ union will want to craft a future for itself, be a factor in the determination of that future or what it holds.
Unfortunately, the management has not risen to the mandate given it by the preamble to the AAUASU Constitution. The preamble considered it expedient for the management to provide for a students’ union that will provide for *”an atmosphere for the purpose of promoting good governance and welfare of all students of this institution on the principles of freedom, discipline, probity, solidarity, equality and justice.* It also has the responsibility of *”consolidating unity among the students and working toward students wellbeing.”*
Since the break out of the debates on the delayed election, it is worthy of special note that students have been divided along ideological lines. While some were busy hauling stones at the sitting members of the students’ union for allegedly holding on to power in the manner of the military, others felt the Student Affairs Department should be questioned about the direction and location of the union’s sovereignty, especially amidst the inconsistency of our electoral process. A true students’ union should be a prototype of a more organised government, a training ground. It must also embody international and national best practices on democracy, good governance and rule of law.
Unfortunately, this is not the reality. The constitution of the students’ union, particularly its Part 2 Section 63 (i) has been flagrantly, serially and needlessly violated overtime by the management owing to what it had serially hinged on paucity of funds, poor turn out in terms of tuition.
Part 2 Section 63 (i) says: *”union election (s) shall normally come up in second semester of every session.”* Against the spirit and the letters of this salient provision of the constitution, the students’ union election is now at the mercy of the management and will not be conducted until the management deems fit. This perpetuates administrations and opens way for barely full governance. It also allows the festering of anti-people policies and rudderlessness; it further creates a divide between the tired studentry and the illegitimate union, particularly with governments that do not enjoy the good will and constitutional legality.
Being my second time of engaging this critical topic, I have raised it with reputable officials of the management who have reasoned along with me that if faculties could conduct their autochthonous elections in the second semester, conduct themselves in a peaceful manner during these elections and ensure continuity, then the students’ union can be given the power to conduct its own elections. The students’ union cannot keep working with the timetable of the management to the detriment of the letters of its own constitution. Afterall, a former Dean of Students’ Affairs and reputable Chief, Dr. Segun Owolewa once claimed to have advocated that the election should be returned to the students.
This same constitution that had severally been ignored, violated, was the axe used in axing out two popular candidates, namely: Seyifunmi Adeosun and Ahmed Adekunle of Law and Political Science Departments respectively in the previous SU election. Are the provisions of the constitution to be cherry-picked while others are left dormant?
The duo was reportedly disqualified from taking part in the electoral process owing to their pending vandalism cases at the Students’ Disciplinary Committee. When this decision was taken, I wrote. My writeup which was more of an appeal implored the SUEC headed by an official of the management, to temper justice with mercy and clear the disqualified candidates who were already cleared (unofficially) by the panels as at then, to exercise their democratic rights. I also stated how illegal the electoral process of that time was, considering its non-compliance with Part 2 Section 63 (i) of the union’s constitution. This section is unequivocal while mandating it that any SU election must take place during the second semester of every session. As if that was not enough, history has also repeated itself.
I challenge the management to give the electoral process back to the students should it find it difficult to operate in line with the constitution. The constitution should be the bible of the students union. It dictates the running of the government. Anything outside this is not right.
Academics are known to be stickler for rules. I do not think the students’ union should keep operating in this uncertain manner, considering the many appeals by the legislative arm of the students’ union recently. The poor manifestation of the letters of the constitution has cut down on the independence and relevance of the Students’ Judicial Council. I envisage the kind of students’ union that nurtured and trained the erudite scholar of Law and former Chief Justice of the SU, Victor Ayeni. The atmospheric condition of the union of that time went a long way in forcing out of him the academic giant he is today. I doubt if the union of today embodies values that inspire greatness.
While this release is not an indictment or attack on anyone, including the executives of the union, management, it is a clarion call on every well-meaning individuals, the management of the university, prospective aspirants to see an urgent need to provide space for quality governance among the students. Every society is entitled to its democracy and such cannot be stripped under any circumstance.
The varsity management should reclaim its “In Loco Parentis” position by providing a platform for continuity, especially via facilitating the prompt organisation of the SU election and guarding against the repetition of this situation.
Peoplesmind
