No issue, ever since our dear Union and its leadership began this session, has had similar perennial agitation as the fee hike struggle. In fact, the struggle is as old as Team Amelioration’s stay in office. For the Aweda Bolaji-led administration, recall that the first issue before it was an anti fee-hike related struggle. Generally, no other issue has been brought to fore than the lingering fee hike problem that besets the students community.

At each phase of the agitation, so far, there is something to note. At times, it is the cold feet of the Students’ Union. Other times, it is the vapid unconstitutionality of the principal officers. Sometimes, it is the smugness of the leaders. Oftentimes, it is the vacuous ignorance of the teeming mass of students who, together, form the Union. But all through these phases of the struggle which began under this administration, at no point could anyone assuredly say the union leaders did more than pretend to be on a definite standpoint — particularly on the side of the anti-fee hike struggle.

The ideal posture of the Students’ Union leaders need not be restated. If we, as a Union are oblivious of it, it should be stated that several press organizations, not only IndyPress, have informed and re-informed the polity that the duty of the union leaders in this struggle is primarily, to represent, and coordinate the interest of the students. It is therefore on this basis that the Students’ Union must act. Much already has been said severally and severely. Students leaders need to rather pay attention to the voice of students and to the several LPOs that have congregated themselves into beacons of light all the while.

While most of the struggle, and the postures of our student leaders through this struggle has been much stated, few points from the events leading to the Congress, the congress itself and afterwards are worth stating, or restating as the case may be.

Pre-Congress Character

Barely anyone would deny the fact that the leaders of the union shuffled up the path to the congress with an unwilling cold feet. The leadership adorned itself with a smug filigree of remote aloofness. First, the June 29th congress was unilaterally postponed, without proper consultation with the SRC, by the Students Executives on the 28th, a couple of hours to the congress for an inexcusable reason reason that the President and the Vice would be unavailable at the Congress.

Another congress was called on Thursday, 25th of July, 2024. However, after acknowledging the petition for Congress by 250 signatories on the 2nd of August, 2024, the congress would not hold until twenty eight (28) days after. In his defence, the Students’ Union President, Aweda Bolaji put forward the national protest and also, the inability to rapidly verify signatories who called for the congress as reasons. While the former may appear as valid, the latter appears to be only a shifty pretext for supposed indifference. A not too far instance corroborates this.

Before the elections that brought the current crop of leaders to office, a congress which held on the 19th of April, 2024 suspended the elections. By effect, only a duly constituted congress could have reversed the suspension on the election, which was held on the 20th of April, 2024, barely 24 hours before the election date. Without needing to restate the obvious, what that implies is the processes of reconvening the congress, collating signatories and verifying signatories were all done in less than 24 hours. Thus, the point about where the concern of the leaders lie, and the indifference of the Students’ Union leaders to the anti-fee hike struggle makes itself apparent.

But, perhaps nothing amplifies the cold indifference of the Students’ Union leaders to the congress — which was called in the interest of students whom they are to represent and serve — better than their apathy towards mobilizing students. It needs to be known that it is the duty, customarily of the Students’ Union Executives, particularly the Public Relations Officer, to galvanize the body of students for the (any called) congress. A few number of times, Samuel Samson Tobiloba, the erstwhile President of the Union have been seen from one Hall of Residence to the other on the eve of a congress, beckoning on the students’ presence ahead of the congress. While other measures could have been more prudent, the job was still done or attempted to have been done.

However, under this administration and towards the last Congress, mass sensitization has been at a disheartening low. The effect of this on the August 17th Congress was suffered. As at 7 am on the Congress D-day, a large number of the one hundred and forty-four (144) members of the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) were still yet to be seen. Whatever appeared to be like a public appeal to students to be at the congress was the independent burden of a band of students who took it upon themselves to canvas for the presence of students at the Congress, moving from one hostel to the other. More than anything, we are presented with a leadership that deliberately lacks the ethos of agency in relation to the concern of students as regards the reviewed fee.

Congress Character

The August 17th congress dragged itself to life on that day’s morning like a pregnant woman. Slated for 7:00 am, the congress did not start until around midday. This perhaps reemphasizes the apathy of the union leaders, and much more, of the acute, disillusioned, unconsciousness of the students of the University. With over 144 SRC members, not to count the floor reps in Halls of Residence, one would have imagined that on the very morning, slated to discuss issues gripping the students community by the jugular, students leaders as elected lots will, after a thorough canvassing for students’ presence, be zealously awaiting at the proposed venue. But to all appearances, priority list disagreed.

With the help of conscious assessment, it is evident that the leadership of the incumbent Students’ Union is not just deliberately vacuous, but genuinely ignorant about certain important things. First, a congress is not an arbitrary gathering. A congress happens because certain things have called for it. And these prompts are always well spelt out in any report calling for a congress.

In this context, the letter signed by over 250 signatories requested a congress to categorically”review the dividends of the last mass action.” Simply, to review the issues that emerged as the resolutions from the mass actions and whether the student populace have come within touching distance of achieving these concerns. This clearly extracted, as expected, should form the basis, and business of the day at the congress. But at the last congress, these issues were not adequately treated. The issue about the victimization of the students who were briefly detained at the behest of the school for protesting at the last swearing-in UI’SU ceremony was left untreated in favour of discussions about students loan and other issues that are far from the pressing issues that brought about the congress and the July 17 mass action.

More to that is the seeming high-handedness of the President. According to the Students’ Union Constitution, in Section 24 and 25, the congress is the highest law-making organ within the students union, with powers to rescind the decisions of both the Executives and the SRC. In other words, a decision reached by the congress is final and unchangeable by either the SU Executive, and the SRC. Unfortunately, this attribute of the congress appears to have been breached.

One of the decisions reached by the congress was the suspension of the fee portal, amongst other things. However, in the eventual resolution published by the SU executives, this resolution was excluded. The question to be asked is: on what basis have the SU leaders scraped this decision? Do they have the authority to make such a decision?

The practice of excluding resolutions reached at congresses in many ways, especially when done without explanation, in significant ways subverts the fundamental authority of the Congress. Moreso, in this context, it is simply counteractive as it dampens the spirit of the many who are involved in the struggle against the fee hike policy.

Furthermore, while the bulk stops at the table of the leaders of the Union, the students or their complicity cannot be excluded in all of these. The students of the University of Ibadan have in many ways contributed, rather ignorantly, to the festering of this struggle. By not knowing the first thing about the rules guiding our union, by not knowing that the resolutions made at a congress are steadfastly fixed like the heaven and the earth, and cannot be scuttled by anyone, by not knowing that they have ultimate, authority to demand accountability from their representatives, by refusing to understand the broadband concept of this struggle and why they must resist. By not being conscious, by not asking enough questions, they have created a gaping hole which now creates an accommodation for the seeming unwillingness to act, and offhand representation.

The Ideal Resolution

In all these, what is the ideal resolution? Perhaps if both the leaders of the Union and the students comprising the union understand one thing, the struggle will be better coordinated and concerted. What is to be understood is the fact that the anti-fee hike struggle and the welfare of students of the University of Ibadan are not mutually exclusive. They are of the same, and equally stem from the same source — a government that has, and is undermining the quality of our education by its machinations: defunding, increased tariffs, poor policies, apathy, and lack of empathy.

This, simply, means that when we resist the fee hike, we resist in its manifold of evil the systematic victimization perpetuated by the government against our Universities. The scrimmage is not with or against the school management (who is not frustrated by the government of the day? Even ASUU has also issued an ultimatum).

As such, the leadership of the Union should not be unwilling to involve itself rather more embracingly in the quest of representing the union’s yearnings in this struggle. Additionally, the leadership should imbibe constitutionalism. To trump on rules is to trump on the basics of the Students’ Union. And it is to set the ball rolling for more unconstitutionality. Our rules are clear, and everyone (our leaders) knows how to read. What should be done is clear — read the rules and follow it.

In a time like this, we warn very strongly that the Students’ Union must act with transparency, empathy, and as a zealous agency.

All questions, comments, and enquiries should be forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief at indypressui@gmail.com or +2349052902527.