Still on the repeated foregoing of bye-elections, for the fifth consecutive tenure, the University of Ibadan Medical Students’ Association appears to be heading towards filling a portion of its executive council through co-option, not just due to the absence of aspirants for positions, but as a result of calculated and strategic inaction.
As of what should be the close of sale of nomination forms tonight, the 10th of July, pending a possible 2-day grace period under subsection 8 of Article XXIII of the UIMSA constitution, only six aspirants have picked up forms for five of ten available executive positions: President, General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary, Sports Secretary and SDO Preclinicals (2 aspirants). This implies that if no new candidates step forward, the remaining offices, a staggering half of the executive council, will be declared vacant, and subsequently filled through co-option – a pattern that has now become disturbingly familiar.
Article XXIII, Subsection 24 of the UIMSA Constitution allows the incoming executive council to nominate candidates for vacant positions when no one expresses interest during the electoral process. These nominated individuals are then confirmed by the Senate. While this clause exists to prevent incomplete governance, it has now become the preferred pathway for many aspiring leaders.
This is no longer speculation. Last tenure, the positions of Financial Secretary and Treasurer saw candidates, two a-piece, suddenly become interested only after elections had ended, and it was time for co-option. This year, the same strategy is already playing out with the possibility of an office as big as that of the vice-president being filled through the same strategy.
By simply waiting out the electoral period and avoiding the hassle of campaigning, potential officeholders gain access to leadership positions without the rigours of public accountability. There’s no need to announce intent, no manifesto defence, no scrutiny from peers, and often, no opposition. Compared to the energy, time, and resources required to contest in a proper election, co-option is easier and more cost-effective.
The issues with the “crime” (as it must be regarded) have been discussed: undermining the principle of majority choice, limited scrutiny, unsatisfactory screening and selection processes, and the breeding of apathy in association observers. However, today our focus accommodates not only these issues, but also what appears to be the increasing intentional exploitation of this constitutional provision originally designed as a safety net.
The trend raises uncomfortable questions about the true motivation of some of these aspirants. Are these students genuinely interested in service and leadership or merely seeking to add a title to their name without the weight of public scrutiny? When leadership becomes more about convenience than conviction, the entire association loses. UIMSA deserves leaders who are bold enough to stand for something, who are willing to present themselves to their peers, articulate their visions, and be judged by their readiness to serve. Quietly slipping into office does not reflect the kind of transparency and courage student leadership should inspire.
Also frustrating is the contradiction: candidates who campaign run unopposed during the election period, while co-opted candidates might have “competitors”, as seen during the last tenure. This flips democratic logic on its head. Additionally, there is a lack of manifestos to hold them accountable. By the end of their tenure, there’s nothing concrete to measure them against — no promises made, so none broken.
This disengagement erodes transparency, reduces accountability, and diminishes the quality of leadership. When no one contests, and offices are filled quietly, the majority is left without a voice or a choice. Students then choose inaction, not because they lack interest, but because the system now rewards this inaction. This culture continues to weaken UIMSA’s leadership and normalize indifference to collective responsibility.
Apathy among UIMSAites has become a genuine concern, and unfortunately, it is this very disengagement that some aspirants are now exploiting to quietly ascend into leadership. By deliberately waiting out the electoral process, they take advantage of the silence, stepping in only when scrutiny has faded.
We cannot afford another tenure built on apathy and avoidance. The co-option clause must either be revised with stricter limitations or eliminated entirely, except in extreme and genuinely unavoidable cases. A framework should be introduced that mandates transparency in every step of the selection process, even when by-elections or co-option become necessary.
If aspirants choose to apply after the official electoral window, higher nomination fees should be imposed as a deterrent against this calculated delay. More importantly, any second batch of applicants must be screened by the Electoral Commission, not quietly nominated by the incoming cabinet. Their selection process should be transparent, with manifestos published and their intentions made clear to the public.
It is no longer enough to observe and lament. We must actively demand transparency, participation, and reform. Steps must be taken to ensure that leadership is earned through open contests. UIMSA deserves leaders who are chosen by the people, not appointed in silence. The next tenure must be different, and that change starts now.