The Students’ Union Constitution provides a timeline for the commencement of the electoral process. Yet, year after year, the University of Ibadan Students’ Union election is allowed to drift deep into the second semester.

The 2026 Union election, as of the time of this publication, is yet to commence, even as the second semester is already in its 10th week. This is not an isolated occurrence. Previous election cycles have followed a similar pattern, with the electoral ban lifted and the process commenced several weeks into the semester, despite the constitutional provisions governing the timing of the election. More concerning is the fact that constructive criticism by the critical mass of the student community regarding the flaws that characterise Union elections has yet to translate into sustained institutional attempts to address these concerns, thereby eroding public trust in the process.

According to the Students’ Union Constitution, the electoral process ought to kickstart not less than 30 days into every academic session. The recurring delay therefore raises a fundamental question: if the Union Constitution provides a timeline for the electoral process, why does the process repeatedly begin several weeks after that timeline?

Precedent has shown that the lifting of the ban and commencement of the electoral process have repeatedly been pushed deep into the second semester. Before the Odedele-led administration, the electoral ban remained in place more than 10 weeks into the second semester of the 2023/2024 academic session. On January 10, 2025, during the ninth week, the Electoral Committee was constituted, despite the constitutional provision for the holding of the Students’ Union election not being followed until January 18, 2025, after an IndyPress publication on the matter.

A similar trend was observed in the 2024/2025 academic session. The electoral process that eventually produced Deboye Temidayo Sewanu as Students’ Union President did not commence until nine weeks into the second semester, on November 2, 2025.

The recurrence of these delays makes it difficult to regard the current situation as an isolated administrative lapse. Rather, it reflects a pattern that has persisted across successive academic sessions.

It is pertinent to note that, beside the provision of the Students’ Union Constitution stating when the election should be unbanned, the University management has included certain electoral regulations in the Students’ Information Handbook.

Some of these provisions appear to conflict with what is contained in the Students’ Union Constitution. One of the provisions that raises critical concerns is the academic requirement aspirants must possess to run for Union positions. According to the Student Handbook, only candidates with a minimum CGPA of 3.5 are eligible to run for Union positions, as against the Students’ Union Constitution, which stipulates a minimum CGPA of 3.0.

Another controversy regarding the electoral regulations contained in the Information Handbook, as against what is stated in the Students’ Union Constitution, is the provision that an aspirant with any police case is rendered unqualified to contest for election.

Without sacrificing truth for prejudice, this provision raises questions about due process. A police case, allegation or investigation is not the same as a conviction by a court. Disqualifying an aspirant merely on the basis of a police case therefore warrants scrutiny, particularly where the constitutional provision does not appear to impose the same restriction.

These contradictions raise a broader question about the authority under which electoral regulations applicable to the Students’ Union are formulated and whether such regulations can supersede or alter provisions contained in the Union Constitution.

Truth be told, the overbearing role of management in our election is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. It is concerning that regulations governing the Students’ Union election can be introduced through the Student Information Handbook without clear evidence of students’ participation in the process, despite students being key stakeholders in the Union.

One would expect that the University management, comprising individuals who have attained the highest echelons of the academic world, would understand that a tertiary institution like ours should not be run on a one-way traffic.

Another shortcoming of our Union electoral system that has often been condemned is its deficit of transparency. Time and time again, electoral results have been characterised by the tradition of being announced by the Deputy Registrar, while the press and candidates’ agents have been denied the opportunity to independently confirm the veracity of the outcome.

By announcing a Union election, which is deserving of public scrutiny, in a manner that limits students’ ability to verify the outcome, the management risks eroding public trust in the electoral process.

Also worthy of criticism is the fact that those nominated to constitute the Students’ Union Electoral Committee are often not subjected to sufficient scrutiny by the SRC, the policy making organ of the Union. Where the integrity or antecedents of the electoral umpire are not adequately examined, it risks exposing the Union election to questions about its credibility.

The composition and leadership of the Electoral Committee also deserve scrutiny. The Union election is chaired by a non-student, the Deputy Registrar, raising questions about the extent to which students themselves have meaningful control over the process through which their representatives are elected.

A curious, critical mind would question why the Union election is chaired by a representative of management when elections in other constituencies, including departments, faculties and halls of residence, are conducted by students and staff unions conducted by the unions members without the interference of the management.

More troubling is the fact that student leaders, comprising members of the Students’ Union Executive Committee, the SRC and those at the grassroots levels, have largely kept mum about the issue, symbolising negligence towards matters they are saddled with the responsibility of addressing.

The silence of Union representatives is particularly concerning because the delay in the electoral process is not a new development. Similar delays have occurred in previous academic sessions, yet there appears to have been no sustained institutional response capable of preventing a recurrence.

The persistence of these issues therefore requires more than criticism from the student community. It requires the representatives elected to speak on behalf of students to demand explanations and accountability from the relevant authorities.

Until student representatives begin to meaningfully engage these concerns, the irregularities surrounding the Union election risk remaining unchallenged.

The Way Forward

It cannot be overstated that the flaws that manifest in our Union election need to be corrected. And for this to happen, all hands must be on deck.

One of the critical lapses that must be addressed is the control of the Union election by the University management. The Students’ Union should have meaningful student participation and ownership of the electoral process without unnecessary external interference. The role of management in the process must therefore be clearly defined and subjected to the provisions of the Union Constitution.

The tradition of conducting the Union election at the eleventh hour should also be abolished. It causes harm and no good that the commencement of our Union election has not kickstarted even as the second semester examination is underway. With the election often being delayed until the examination season, it not only risks voter apathy but could also create additional difficulties for students who have to combine electoral activities with academic assessments.

The University management should also clarify the authority under which electoral regulations contained in the Student Information Handbook are formulated, particularly where such provisions appear to conflict with the Students’ Union Constitution.

The applicable electoral regulations should be made accessible to students, while the process of selecting and constituting the Electoral Committee should be transparent and subject to appropriate scrutiny.

The electoral process must also provide mechanisms through which candidates, agents, the press and students can independently verify the results of the election. Transparency cannot be treated as an afterthought in an election whose legitimacy depends on the confidence of those who participate in it.

Most importantly, student representatives must begin to demand accountability on these issues. The sanity of student democracy can only be sustained and protected if students and their representatives refuse to be spectators in matters affecting them.

For the irregularities that trail our Union election to be tackled and for the students to reclaim their voice, the students must demand accountability with courage and conviction. Until then, the inconsistencies surrounding our Union election will remain consistent.