By: IndyPress News Desk

On June 4, 2025, Nice Linus, a 400-level student of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ibadan and a yet-to-be-recognized member of the Students’ Representative Council, formally sought clarification from the 12th Assembly regarding actions by the Council which she described as unethical and unconstitutional.

In a memorandum dated June 4, 2025, the Council addressed three individuals — Hon. Segun of Nnamdi Azikiwe Hall, Hon. Shalom of Queen Elizabeth II Hall, and Nice Linus — requesting them to respond within 48 hours to issues connected to the UI’SU Executive Committee’s unilateral suspension of Congress.

It will be recalled that an alleged altercation occurred between the trio and certain members of the Students’ Union Executive Committee, following the Executive’s refusal to convene and mobilize students for the congress scheduled for May 17, despite the Assembly’s prior ratification of the event.

“The University of Ibadan Students’ Union Disciplinary Committee writes to formally notify you of a complaint received from the Executive Council regarding an incident that allegedly took place on Thursday, May 15, at the Students’ Union Building….you are hereby requested to submit a written statement of defence within 48 hours” the UI’SRC Disciplinary Committee wrote to Nice Linus.

In response, Nice Linus addressed a letter to the entire 12th Assembly, asserting that the Council lacks the jurisdiction to handle a disciplinary case involving “an ordinary student”, a status she maintains, owing to the Council’s continued refusal to recognize or reinstate her despite a Federal High Court order, issued on March 19, 2025, mandating her reinstatement.

Nice Linus also raised security concerns, suggesting that the Students’ Union President, Covenant Odedele, may have referred her mobile contact to the Department of State Services (DSS), following a message she received from an individual claiming to be a DSS officer, who contacted her for questioning regarding the purported allegation.

Also condemning the procedural manner in which the disciplinary letter was delivered, Nice Linus argued that it was unethical for an unidentified member of the Disciplinary Committee to contact her via WhatsApp. She criticized the short notice of the invitation, describing it as a clear deviation from established principles of due process and justice.

According to Nice Linus, “The letter sent was addressed to three persons, vis; Honorable Segun from Zik hall, Honorable Shalom from Queens hall, and Honorable Nice with no constituency. Recall that I sent a letter of notification to the Council on 28th of March, 2025, to which the Speaker made a release on the 29th of March, 2025, using the Students’ Representative Council’s letterhead to state that the Council cannot recognize a Court order because it fails to follow a ‘due process’ specified by the Speaker in that letter. Attached to this letter is the release the Speaker wrote, dated 29th March, 2025, as a reminder. It thus follows that I am not recognized as an Honorable member of the 12th Assembly. Could it be that this latest letter allegedly from the Disciplinary Committee was addressed to a different personality? Additionally, as earlier stated, the resolutions of the Council say that only honorable members of the 12th Assembly were referred to the Disciplinary Committee. Why is a letter from the Committee addressing an ordinary member of the Union as ‘Honorable’?”

“At this point, I must refer the House to Article XXVII, where the duties of the Disciplinary Committee are clearly outlined. According to the Constitution, the Committee: “…shall be solely responsible for disciplinary actions against members and any erring officers of the Union. iii. The Secretary shall cause any erring member of the Council to appear before it. Where and when an erring member fails to appear before the Committee, without justifiable reasons, he/she shall be suspended from the Council until he/she appears.” It is disappointing that the Disciplinary Committee cannot properly interpret this provision. Perhaps the term ‘members’ may have posed a confusing meaning to members of the committee, but had the entire provision been properly read, the understanding that ‘members’ there refers to ‘members of the council’ upon whom the authority of the Committee is binding and who stand to risk suspension if they do not accord the Committee its constitutional authority, would not have eluded the authors of that letter,” she added.

“It follows that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over matters involving ordinary student. The void would have been filled by a Judicial Council had the Council been considerate enough to establish one. Given my current status as an ordinary student, it is unexpected that I find my name on such a letter from the Disciplinary Committee. Unless the Council intends to take a stance different from that which it has already taken as evidenced by the March 29th, 2025 letter,” she stated.

“Also, I must comment on the manner in which the Committee sends its invitations. This is solely to the end that the Council brings the members of the Committee to order as due. The Disciplinary Committee is quasi-judicial in form. So, the provisions of the ever-binding Constitution of the Federal Constitution, should guide its methodology and activities. According to Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, an accused person must be accorded a level of respect, given reasonable time to prepare his/her defense, and informed promptly in the means and language he/she understands as regards the nature of the accusation and the processes in determining his guilt or otherwise. I must point out the fact that 48 hours is not a reasonable timeframe. I must refer the Disciplinary Committee to the rules of Court in this regard. ‘Adequate time’ may be up to 42 days; but is; in the least, seven days. Telling an accused person “you shall ask no questions!” as done by the stranger on WhatsApp, is unconstitutional, unethical and unacceptable. It puts the Disciplinary Committee’s commitment to justice to question. The onus lies on the committee and Council by extension to be of good conscience and be committed to justice and fairness,” Linus’ letter reads.

What Happened Initially?

On May 15, 2025, Hon. Segun, Hon. Shalom, and Nice Linus visited the Kunle Adepeju Memorial Students’ Union Building to inquire from the Students’ Union Executive Committee about the prolonged delay in convening and mobilizing students for the Congress.

It is worth recalling that the SRC ratified the convening of a Congress scheduled for Saturday, May 17, 2025. The purpose of the Congress was to provide students constitutional opportunity to deliberate on fee-related concerns and other pressing issues affecting the student body.

The Students’ Union President, Covenant Odedele, unilaterally and unconstitutionally cancelled the Congress, framing the inquiry into the delay as an attack on the Union and citing it as both a basis and a potential security threat that warranted the cancellation.

Where Things Stand?

The Students’ Representative Council at its emergency sitting on May 16, forwarded the allegation by the Executive Committee to its disciplinary committee.

Meanwhile, Article XXVII on Committees does not grant constitutional authority to the Students’ Representative Council or its Disciplinary Committee to investigate or discipline ordinary students. Their jurisdiction is limited to members of the Council and the Executive Committee of the Students’ Union.

As of the time of this report, Nice Linus’s letter addressed to the entire 12th Assembly has not been brought to the general attention of Council members, despite hours-long acknowledgment by the Clerk, Honorable Adedeji Praise, IndyPress can report.