This is not the land of the Free. This association we call ours, unsure of what she should be, is not free. She shares an acronym with the fountain of modern democracy – the United States of America. She operates on a written collection of laws and is an aggregation of individual states, much like her namesake. But sadly, she’s begun to bask in the darker traits of this sister yonder.
With the lift of the ban on Electoral activities on Monday, 2nd December 2024, the UCH Students’ Association (USA) stands at the precipice of a 14th administration. As such, adequate reflections are necessary in light of the association’s course over the last year. What does the USA need? How can the USA attain these needs? To what extent has her current leadership performed? Most importantly, how can all of these translate to actions? In this two-part story, the UIMSA Press will explore all of these and more, with a special focus on the constitution, the performance of the executives, and a way forward.
One of the many obscure facts about the association, along with the existence of her Secretariat – Behind Environmental Workers’ Secretariat, HOR 2 Close – is the existence of her constitution. The 61-page document, last reviewed in 2019, serves as the binder for all actions of the association. Given the USA’s size and age, such a document should be as refined as possible. It is, to a moderately tolerable extent, not; an emphasis on ‘not’.
Laws That Runneth Over
We’ll begin with its excesses. In Chapter Two, Article IV, the Association is outlined to operate a three-armed structure: the Executive Council as the executive arm, the Students’ Representative Council as the Legislative arm, and Congress as the judicature. You did not misread that. The USA ideally should have a judicial arm that interprets her laws. According to Chapter Five, the Congress consists of all members of the Executive Council, SRC, and Electoral Commission, and five students from each school represented. It has three primary officers: a Chancellor, a Deputy Chancellor, and a Scribe. It is to have two ordinary meetings in a tenure; one for electing members of Congress and the other to see out the tenure, emergency meetings, as well as an annual general meeting once a year where all members of the USA are to be invited.
In the last few years, this body has been non-existent. It’s not difficult to see why this is so. First, given the nature of the SRC, as a functional confluence on Legislative matters, the Congress only seems as an appendage for times of conflict, which supersede the power of the other two arms. Fortunately, such times are few and far between. There’s also the matter of individual associations already having legislative bodies, sometimes two, as in the case of UIMSA, who cater to emergency situations. The closest to a general gathering are town hall meetings — the equivalent of Congress in some student bodies in UI, e.g., the UI’ SU — where members address pressing issues facing them. The USA equivalent of that would be the annual meeting for all students, which is held only once a year. Technically, unfit to serve such needs. Emergency meetings are also unfit as only Congress members can attend. It’s not suitable whichever way it’s accessed. Perhaps, in drafting the Constitution, there was a belief that instances requiring a superior arbiter might arise. This is the only aspect that still appears to be relevant.
Consider the following scenario: On November 28th, 2024, the USA Financial Secretary, Nnamdi Chikere, in an open letter to the public, addressed the scheduling of an emergency meeting of the SRC without any prior notification. He claimed that ‘such a move raises serious questions about the intention behind this manoeuvre and the motives driving it’, alleged that it threatened the credibility of the process [of preparing financial reports], and subsequently stated that he had resigned — having submitted a letter to the General Secretary — as a way of upholding these standards.
According to Chapter Three, Article VI, Section 15, “Resignation shall be in writing to the office of the Secretary (General or Assistant, as the case may be). Having accepted the resignation of the said officer, the Secretary shall notify the SRC, after which the SRC shall request the executive council to recommend at least three (3) candidates, one of whom shall be approved for the post by the SRC”. Therefore, this should mean that the General Secretary or Assistant was to have accepted the resignation, notified the SRC, and approved his [Nnamdi’s] replacement. Resignation is basically subject to the acceptance by the Secretary.
However, according to the Speaker, Rt. Hon. Samuel Goodluck, that interpretation is flawed. He explained that he had even had to reach out to former Speakers to understand said section of the Constitution properly. They claimed that said section was a mistake. “That part must have been a mistake from their own end from the past. It should be – Received by the General Secretary and accepted by the Executive Council, not the Secretary”. It was in line with this interpretation that Mr Nnamdi’s resignation letter was rejected, with the Speaker saying that the letter was returned and asking the Financial Secretary to include the reasons for his resignation. He added that this was to prevent any suspicions that Nnamdi was trying to ‘run away’, given the state of Financial decisions within the association, and that his [Nnamdi] letter to the Gen. Sec. was not succinct enough, as it merely included, “I hereby wish to resign from office with immediate effect. It was a pleasure serving in my capacity as the financial secretary for the benefit of the association”. Supposedly, the erstwhile Social Director, Titofarati Yusuf, had included reasons in her letter, leading to its acceptance.
If Congress had existed, such a matter would have been resolved by an independent arbiter, who would have given the final interpretation. As it stands, custom appears to be at loggerheads with what the actual constitution says. An unconstitutional action has been allowed to take place, depending on interpretation. (As has been posited, the SRC still has the ultimate role of deciding on the validity of the resignation. And they were not notified via appropriate channels, hence invalidating the resignation). All of these place the SRC in a position of undue power with regard to the interpretation of the Constitution. Does this mean such a situation can not be resolved by the SRC alone? No, it can. However, the finality shouldn’t have to rest with the Speaker but with a larger Assembly, who could be trusted to debate the interpretation of said sections and pass a resolution.
Still on the matter of interpretation, according to Sub Section 3 of Section 24 Article IX Chapter 4 of the constitution, “Notice of an emergency meeting shall be delivered to the rooms of all honorables (where possible) and shall conspicuously be displayed on the Association’s notice boards at least twelve (12) hours before the time of sitting and such notice shall include the agenda for the meeting”. This is, without doubt, outdated and a cause for concern. We’ll address such concerns later. However, because we must interpret, it could be taken to mean that Honourables must be informed individually, and a notice must be sent to the general public at least 12 hours before such sittings.
In Nnamdi’s case, the notice to the public was confirmed to have been sent out more than 24 hours prior and seen by him on the USA WhatsApp group. However, the personal notice was sent to him by 9 AM on the 28th of November, the date of said sitting. This was less than 12 hours to the sitting. It was also sent as the circulated WhatsApp broadcast notice as opposed to a letter, which is customary. This break in custom was a major aggrieved point for him.
Speaking with the Press, the Speaker mentioned that the latter point was insufficient to warrant his actions. “There is nowhere in the Constitution that it’s stated that we’re to write a letter inviting the Financial Secretary for a Financial report sitting. It’s absurd.” He further explained that it’s just a matter of courtesy that has led to letters being sent in recent assemblies. The current arrangement is supposedly due to an agreement made with Nnamdi earlier in the tenure, as he had brought up the excuse of his being a student and needing adequate time to prepare reports since sittings could be called at any time.
There are four major talking points here. First, we once again could have done with the existence of a Congress to interpret this outdated section. The fact that the SRC failed to send individual notice early is clear. However, would this [a WhatsApp BC rather than a letter] still be valid if they had been on time? Two, for the most part, is the Fin. Sec. was valid for wanting a letter. Assemblies operate on three principles: constitution, customs, and common sense. The constitution was clearly inadequate in this case, so customs should have been upheld. Both customs of sending notices on time and ensuring said notices are personalised letters were not upheld. Three is that the Fin. Sec. was invalid for including this as a reason for his resignation and subsequently failing to show up at the sitting. He didn’t follow the custom of resignation. He also disrespected the Assembly by failing to show up to present a report that was two sittings late (The sitting was eventually held on Sunday, December 1st, 2024. Also, he failed to acknowledge the letter from the SRC on the need to present his report).
Fourth, you can’t respond to invalidity with even more invadilities, knowing that sections of the constitution offer more context to such emergency report requests. Sub-section 25 of Section 9 Article V Chapter of the constitution outlines that the Financial Secretary, by default, is required ‘to present an up-to-date account of the finances of the association to the executive council and the student representative council at least once every three (3) months“. The fulfilment of this would then lead to a sitting being called concerning the report. He had not fulfilled that. As a result, the SRC was more than justified in referring him to the Disciplinary Committee.
Moving on, another excess exists in Section 42 of Chapter Seven, which makes provisions for the existence of a USA Press, ‘responsible to the SRC but independent from the executive council’. Apart from the standard duties of enlightening, informing, and entertaining members of the association, it is also ‘responsible for the publication of all materials of the association’ and ‘is the information dissemination organ of the association’. It would have an eight-person editorial board and receive subventions from the SRC.
A time could arise when the USA desperately needs a Press body. If that time comes, it will not be the USA Press, at least not as it is currently defined by the Constitution. A Press body can not be responsible for the publication of all materials of the association. It defeats the very purpose of Independence. Executing such would merely make the Press an extension of the office of the USA PRO. Think of a Fourth Estate housed within the three other estates of Government. The USA Press can also not be the information dissemination organ of the association. That’s a propaganda machine disguised as a Press establishment. The existence of such provisions points to either maliciousness on the part of the constitution drafters — who perhaps sought to retain power over the Press — or a gross misunderstanding of what her functions should be.
As it stands, member associations like the University of Ibadan Medical Students’ Association (UIMSA), Unibadan Association of Dental Students (UADS), Association of Physiotherapy Students (APS), and the National Association of Nigerian Student Nurses and Midwives (NANSNM), have Press bodies who could serve in that capacity pending an appropriate re-constitution of the USA Press. These outlets owe it to the student populace to play their roles as watchdogs of the USA as efficiently as possible. In light of the coming elections, some of the avenues for such involve reporting on the electoral process and reviewing aspirants and soon-to-be-departing officeholders.
A final, negligible excess can be found in Subsections 18 and 21, which state that the General Secretary and Assistant General Secretary shall be the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the Association’s annual guest lecture. The Association no longer runs annual guest lectures, having replaced them with the Healthweek Symposium. Like we said, ‘negligible’.
These excesses and outdated portions of the Constitution indicate the dire need for a Constitution review and amendment. To put in context how long ago it’s been since a review, Olaniyi Olaoluwa Promise, who was President at the time, is now well into his career as a Health Information Manager and was present at the just-concluded symposium. Half a decade is more than sufficient to wait out the effects of a constitution. The next assembly must ensure that our guiding laws are not stuck in a time when visiting the rooms of members to give notice of sittings is considered feasible. Several subsections contain minor grammatical and/or syntax errors that could be considered irrelevant. In truth, these errors change little. However, retaining them speaks to a lack of scrutiny on the part of the House. The SRC must decide if bodies like the Congress and USA Press, non-existent as they are at the moment, are worth retaining as constitutional ideals, perhaps with plans to introduce them later on. Of course, the schema for such plans has to be considered on the floor of the SRC.
We have merely identified excesses, but there are also limitations. What are the provisions for when processes like the USA’s cooperation with the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) go against the ethics of the Association? What happens when the association fails to audit her account as required in section 47 of Article XIV Chapter 7? Provisions must be included to ensure that these procedures are not suggestions but instructions that must be followed through accordingly. The next SRC has to break the dormancy cycle and innovate.
Cups that Pass Over
One thing the UCH Students’ Association also shares with her namesake, the United States of America, is an affinity for religious practices. But in the USA, our religion isn’t Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or many others (including liberalism, if one considers it in totality). It’s the religion of selective blindness to the Holy Book, the USA Constitution. Or perhaps it could be more accurately referred to as a medical condition. Let’s call it USA-itis.
USA-itis is exhibited in a number of ways. Let’s take Subsection 5 of Section 45 Article XIV Chapter Seven, which states, “The treasurer shall be solely responsible for issuing money from the treasury”. If the events of the last Healthweek are anything to go by, this appears to have been nothing more than a suggestion to the USA Executives, as most, if not all, issuance went through the office of the Presidency. Subsection 2 of that same Section 45 merely states that the President (principal signatory), Treasurer, and Financial Secretary are signatories to withdrawal from the account. It doesn’t confer power on the first two to issue funds. It’s therefore bewildering that other members of the Executive Council stood by and watched the erstwhile President act out in such a manner. At least, it is if you don’t consider USA-itis.
Previously, the audit process was also mentioned. Financial reports from the Financial Secretary and other Executives are fine but insufficient. Proper audits have to be carried out. Sadly, this is not the case with recent administrations. The constitution doesn’t even demand that these audits be done externally. Utilise ad-hoc audit committees. The six-month window gives more than enough time to ensure accuracy.
Executives must realise that these laws exist for their protection as well as ours. Due process prevents situations, especially financial situations, from escalating beyond redemption. For those given to money-maneuvres in a bid to save one event or the other from being a bust, stringent processes ensure that, at the very least, second and third thoughts precede transfers. Members shouldn’t have to associate leadership of the association with financial impropriety, especially as this could further worsen the state of apathy that exists within.
Another exhibition of USA-itis is the delay in the electoral process. Subsection 5 of Section 36 Article XIII Chapter 6 states that the Electoral Commission “shall conduct election(s) within four weeks of formation”. Going by this, we are to expect elections in about six weeks – accounting for the holidays. However, it’s almost a hundred per cent certain that this won’t be the case. Section 41 of the same Article states, “The executive council shall be dissolved not later than two weeks before the date of the elections to a new executive council at the SRC meeting summoned for that purpose”. It’s likely that this will also not be upheld. These delays contribute to a needlessly lengthy electoral process, and that’s without including the bye-elections that would take place if offices remain vacant. We don’t need that. There are enough elections as it stands without having one more that drags on. As such, it is important that the current Electoral Commission looks into avenues to prevent such occurrences.
The most prominent signs of USA-itis can be seen on the USA website. Beautiful layout. Wonderful user experiences. Links to daughter associations. Information on activities in the USA with shiny galleries to boot. A blog – the future of the USA Press, maybe. There’s even an avenue for donating to the activities of the Association. But what is so painfully lacking is a reference or link to the association’s constitution, a feature available on some daughter associations’ websites. It speaks to the priorities of the Executives and the PRO in particular, whose brainchild the website is.
(To be continued)
Odin
