The silence in the semifinal room was deafening. Ruqayyah Bello sat in the front row, her dual role as both team captain and adjudicator weighing heavily on her shoulders. She had just finished judging what she would later describe as one of her most complex debates; a semifinal round in the top room where “the quality of arguments I received from that room” demanded every ounce of her attention. As a member of the panel, “it took a lot of thinking on my end,” she recalls. Meanwhile, somewhere else in the competition, other members from UI awaited their own results.
This was the 2025 All Nigeria Universities Debating Championship (ANUDC) at the University of Ilorin, and the University of Ibadan had defied expectations by reaching the semifinals in both novice and open categories, while also competing in public speaking with representative John Eriomala speaking in the public speaking finals, and Sakeenah Kareem going as far as the semifinals. There were also delegates for adjudication, and quiz competitions. But the path to this moment had been anything but certain.
The Rocky Road to Competition
For months, the UI British Parliamentary Debating Club had lived in limbo. “For a long time, we were uncertain of our attendance,” recalls Ruqayyah. “Therefore, our preparations were met with fears and questions.” The uncertainty wasn’t just logistical, it was deeply personal. Ruqayyah was simultaneously writing her first semester examinations. “During this period, I was writing my first semester examinations and so it was a lot for me to juggle exam preparations with the tournament prep,” she admits. “But we had to start preparations despite all.”
The team faced a practical challenge that could have derailed their championship dreams: the distance between members of the club: “There was no way we could come together as participants were scattered in UI and in UCH, so we had to resort to online practice sessions for at least thrice per week for 2 weeks before the tournament.”
Their preparation was methodical despite the constraints. “Personally, we read a couple of materials, compiled by the Head of research, about politics, business, sports, finance among other things, so as to be up to date in world knowledge,” Ruqayyah explains. Also adding that they tried to apply the knowledge gained from the motions debated before the competition started proper.
For Ruqayyah, preparation meant double duty, because asides being the team captain, she was also going to be adjudicating at the event. Few experiences in competitive debating are as complex as Ruqayyah’s at ANUDC. “In my two attendance at Nationals, I have always assumed two roles: offer support and judge rounds,” she explains.
Her judging philosophy was clear: “Great adjudication requires full attention and thoughtfulness. From training, I learnt to judge with every speaker and not at the end of the round. For instance, at the end of the opening half, I would have known the team that is winning out of the two.”
For her, this approach meant speed wasn’t usually a problem in arriving at her decision for any round. However, decisions change due to the point of view of other panelists when deliberation started. “What we basically do is come to a conclusion as a team in order to have a fair call. Worst case, we put it to a vote. So, yes, I could judge quickly yet quite fairly.”
Her most challenging moment came during that semifinal round. “I think it was complex because of the quality of arguments I received from that room. I was also chair, so it took a lot of thinking on my end,” she says, crediting her co-panelists: Rex and Raymond for their contributions to that discussion. “We eventually had a unanimous call.” She said.
But her role extended beyond judging. “After the rounds for each day, we usually come together to discuss the challenges each of us have faced and then discuss how we can be better.” She further explained that she gave pointers to the team from the “Adjudicator’s point of view”, also sharing her experience and how particular teams won during the day, so the four UI debate teams ( UI team A, B, C, D) could learn.
Competition Realities and Growth
What Ruqayyah observed from her unique dual perspective was both illuminating and sobering. “First, most of them have coaches who train them regularly or at least for months before the tournament,” she noted about competing universities.” She said before noting that unions or ther schools attend many smaller tournaments, virtually and physically before coming for Nationals, therefore, their experience is beyond what only an in-house practice session will offer, which was what was obtainable for the UI teams.
For debaters like Susan, this reality became apparent during the competition itself. Her partner and she had prepared by “attending meetings, listened to the recording of trainings and read most of the training materials. Then, with my partner, we basically jotted out points and came back to discuss it with each other.”
But preparation met harsh reality in Round 4, which according to Susan, was her toughest round in the competition. “The round 4 was the most challenging, we had a bad round previously and mentally, I wasn’t prepared but we just had to. The worst part is that we were opening government.” Her adaptation strategy was straightforward: “Adapting wasn’t a lot really, I just knew that we had to do our best.“
When Susan came to support UI B (Moboluwarin and Utibe) who had made it to the Novice Semifinals, her perspective had shifted dramatically. “By that time, I had already lost faith in the competition. But the round was somehow, the weirdness of some teams arguments especially for Novice Semis, was so cringe.“
But the experience itself taught her important lessons “Most times, I am all about the argument but ANUDC taught me that I had to do more by analyzing my arguments.” further explaining that she learnt the importance of providing the impact in relation to the topic, and identifying the stakeholders and how they come into the argument she was making. Susan’s most memorable exchange came in Round 3, “with the chief Adjudicator, DSM, most people in our room actually broke the rules of BP, someone went online to get materials etc, and at the end of the day, that team came in first” adding that upon raising the issue, she got dismissed by the chief judge and she felt very demoralized.
While Susan grappled with the realities of competition, Olayinka Olayoriju experienced the tournament from the adjudicator’s perspective, witnessing the intellectual drama unfold from the front of the room. His most complex judging assignment involved a particular debate on whether equality should take precedence over liberty. “I felt like it was a motion that cut to the very heart of human motivation for a lot of things; to not be less or to be free?”
Even further, the quality of the debate impressed him. “The teams in the debate room were also able to do justice to it, bringing multiple perspectives to flesh out a well rounded argument.” But the judging challenge was significant because to him both liberty and equality were deeply resonant values, and the teams framed them not just abstractly but in real-world contexts; legal rights, social equity, and personal autonomy. Each principle had strong moral weight, making his comparative analysis demanding.
His judging methodology was systematic: “By prioritizing principles first and specific arguments next. To keep up with the pace of the debate room and not drag beyond the allocated time.” Adding that he summarized the principles espoused by every role after speaking. “The weighing of those principles against each other formed the first basis of a preliminary ranking.”
From his position, Olayoriju gained insights into what separates good teams from great ones: “Mostly, I noticed an ease and familiarity with the more competitive speakers that only comes from repeated practice.” He cited an example of this claiming the speakers seemed to already have preset structures in their heads for framing, POIs, challenges and so much more which made their speech delivery more fluid and persuasive and showed just how much of a role systematic practice could play in creating competitive ease.
While the debate teams competed in logic and argument, Ifeanyi Elechi faced his own challenge in the public speaking competition. His approach was purposeful: “Crafting my speech wasn’t just about writing words to win a competition, it was more about teaching people about how important menstrual health was for not just women, but that everyone in society had to be aware.” He explained that he crafted his speech to tell the stories of stigma and pride, and adviced all stakeholders to take up the fight against menstrual stigma.
The ANUDC format surprised him: “Public speaking at ANUDC was a very unique experience. At ANUDC, it was a form of ‘dramatic’ style of public speaking, somewhat unusual.” But he adapted quickly and his overall experience made him realize that there wasn’t a box for public speaking and he could be as expressive as he loved.” His UI presidential debating background also helped “Crafting a speech spontaneously has never been a problem, especially since I have moderate experience as a public speaker at the University of Ibadan.”
Beyond the formal competition lay memorable moments that bonded the team. Susan found her highlights “outside the competitions” in “the amusement park, mall and the club and for friendships, I really connected with all of UI delegates and it was really great getting to know them outside of UI, most especially my partner.” Olayoriju noted that “the host university was out of session, so the social scene was a bit lacking and the roads weren’t great for travel but it was fun having an exchange with other debaters from different schools, some of them just as nerdy.” For Ruqayyah, the competition itself was her highlight. But she claimed travelling to Ilorin was memorable too.
Lasting Lessons and Looking Forward
The tournament’s impact extended far beyond the competition rooms. Susan reflected “It changed my perspective in that, I learnt that public speaking and debating rules are actually not static and it is important to be able to adapt to whatever you meet wherever you go.”
Ruqayyah on the other hand gained new insights about judging: “I now know that judging is largely subjective. However, what makes a judge good is their ability to minimize how the subjectivity reflect in their approach to judging.” For Olayoriju, the experience “majorly been a verification that debate can scale.”
Each delegate offered hard-won advice to future UI representatives. Susan’s counsel was simple “Have fun, do you.” Ruqayyah’s recommendations were comprehensive: “Preparation is the most crucial aspect of attending tournaments, so, prepare adequately.” Adding that partnering with other unions for spar sessions, and having a coach would be a wise thing to do. She also made known the importance of attending smaller tournaments (like Lagos Debate Opens, Kampala Opens, La Vida, e.t.c) as much as you can. “Your experience will always set you apart.”
She also emphasized practical considerations: “Settle every affair with the school early. Do not delay anything. Select people at their peak to represent, if possible, organize an audition for proper selection.” Olayoriju offered a different perspective “Don’t just practice. Watch enough videos to see what it’s like at a high level and then use that as the benchmark for your practice.” Adding that there’s only so many angles the motions can be from. Enough practice makes you close to unbeatable when it comes to merit.
As the UI contingent prepared for their journey back to Ibadan, they carried with them more than semifinal appearances across multiple categories. They had gained firsthand understanding of elite university debating in Nigeria and formed connections that would last beyond any single tournament.