FRENEMIES IN THE ASSOCIATION
MOJOYINOLA ABD’AFEEZ
It is often said that a broken friendship may be soldered but will never be sound, and once friendship rope loses, relationship may turn to chameleon that changes from boiling to icing; icing to boiling as the case may be. Everyone becomes a snake in the grass and treacherously digging grave for each other. Like the proverbial tortoise who had assured the King Elephant of supporting it to ascend the community’s throne and said everything in its tenure would go smoothly, and in fact, it would do its best to make its reign rained success, but before the day of its coronation, had already dug the place where King Elephant would sit for its ascension. It (King Elephant) was called to sit on the throne (not knowing the throne was placed above a ditch), he got to the place, but alas, the throne sat on it, as it found itself in the ditch.
Everyone present at the first sitting of the AFAS Faculty Legislative Council would not doubt the friendly relationship between the FLC and the Executive. It showed in the way the Speaker, Rt. Hon Peter Olagunju handled every matter concerning the executive as he went ahead to analyse to the parliamentarians why the Dinner and ID card should be made compulsory as it would boost the association internally generated revenue, hereby making running of the association smooth. After the sitting that day, every one of them (both the executive and FLC ) wore grimace faces, they joked and shook hands with one another and it appeared there would not be love lost between them, and in fact, one’s looking at their unity one might have concluded that the Press would be packed in the dustbin. But the power fooled them, fate disturbed their machinations, their agreement was altered and hitherto peace became war. They all turned to mischief makers like tortoise, digging one another’s grave.
When the Press interviewed Mr. Olagunju on the take of the House about the compulsion of Dinner and ID card, he was very equivocal in his answers as he neither said they were compulsory or not. He did not want it to be like the House connived with the executive in making the dues compulsory, and at the same time, he wanted to support the executive, so, he was at the crossroads and he thought of saving himself with Politics of Grammar, like some two-mouth politicians do—he proclaimed, Dinner and ID cards should not be made compulsory. Dear reader, look at the statement again, did he say Dinner and ID cards are compulsory? Did he really say they are not? Confusion came from the passiveness of the statement and that is the politics of language used by two-mouth politicians. This is what was truly perceived as the mark that drew the battle line.
The Speaker supposed smartness had marred their agreement and the executive did not receive his stance well as it would reduce the rate of AFASites that would pay for the “compulsory dues”. Everyone had seated anger against one another before “Office Relocation issues” served as the straw that broke the camel’s back. Thanks goodness that their machination was frustrated, as who knows what would have happened had their plan not been frustrated, whether more and more AFASites would not have been forced to pay for what they were not subscribed to? But how much did AFASites know that they (FLC and Executive) were playing on their intelligence before there was no love lost between them? Ignorance kills, it makes one walks in darkness, believing he is in the light.
When the House removed Daniel Anawaonye aka Simple as the President, some AFASites became political thugs (like the Social Director, Bello Babatunde; former Hon Femi Oyekanmi; former. Hon. Joshua Akintaro; and Tobiloba Adeyitola, European Studies President whose action that day was no different from NURTW followers, perhaps, they were once members before they got admitted here, in the University. Or how can one describe Social Director’s action of breaking the Speaker’s chair?), singing a revolting songs and claiming to clampdown the Faculty if the House decision was not reversed. It is very pathetic that a nation like ours whose today’s several leaders are very myopic in thinking will reproduce these same shallow minded people in the future— very tragic for our nation. There are many ways to show one’s displeasure without shouting at the top of one’s voice, without destroying the peace of the environment and without vandalizing the association’s properties that we all paid for. We should not let our emotions override our reasoning.
Nonetheless, the impeachment of the President was very swift and it did not allow for fair hearing, the house would have been on the point had they allowed Mr. Simple to speak on the conflicting figures before digressing on the resolved issues of Office Relocation. This made it seemed like Mr. Olagunju still held the earlier grudges resolved at the Stakeholders’ Meeting headed by the Staff Adviser of the Association, Dr. Akewula and the Subdean, Dr. Oke. The evidence of the gross misconduct laid against the President outright showed how power-drunked the House was, for Mr. Simple was never found guilty of any misappropriation of fund of the Association. If the two budgets were conflicting, had the House asked why? Although it sounded like the executive had skeleton in their cupboard when they did not write to the House to recall the earlier submitted budget, but should we say for that, they had mismanaged our fund? Should we say that was enough evidence to remove the President?
The former President of AFAS, Issac Lijadu whom was later found guilty of misappropriation was given a fair hearing, he was first given two weeks to clear his “mess” and afterwards a comprehensive investigation was done before he was nailed down from office. But one would have thought the Speaker, having gained experience from last year parliamentarian would not fall victim of hasty conclusion.
Mr. Simple should not have walked out too for that portrayed him as a weak leader who cannot control his anger at the time of distress. But should his walking out of the House warrant his removal? Article 6 Section B (II) says “any officer of the association found guilty of financial mismanagement and misappropriation shall automatically forfeit his office and shall henceforth be banned from holding any office and stand expelled from the association.” This means only if he is found guilty of the said offences could he be removed from his office. But have they found him guilty of any offence?
Similarly, the Vice President, Mariam Shittu’s absence to present the report of the Freshers welcome budget was uncalled for as it amounted to disrespectfulness. Her claim that the House did not have any right to summon her without audit committee auditing her first was very illogical and showed the pride in her wings. The constitution reads thus on the power and function of the FLC in Article 19(x) “have power to summon any member of the association. The reason for such summon must be communicated with the correspondence which must get to individual 24hrs before the sitting. If such a person refuses the correspondence, the correspondence should be made public.” This means the FLC has absolute right to call for her without any audit committee. But did the House allegation that she took from the association purse more than the congress approved stand?
In a phone interview AFAS Press had with her, she denied the allegation: “on the 5th of July the House approved Freshers’ welcome Budget but on the 8th of July we were not given the letter to withdraw the money from the association account, and so we needed to call a congress on Wednesday to enable us withdraw the money. The congress later approved N313,515 and I went on to withdraw it. On the 17th of July after the Orientation ended, I returned the remaining sum of 13,400 into the Association account. I never took any money from the association without letting the association know. Apart from that, there was the other part below the budget that I labelled other expenses wherein we added miscellaneous, though it was our fault at first that we did not include it. However, we were not given a chance to talk about it.” This means, according to her, the executive took money from their own purse and not from that of the association for logistic
THE STORY ON WHY HON.OLUMIDE WAS PETERED OUT AS HE COMMITTED TO PETER
Over ambition brought him down, as he wanted to bring a mountain down and be pronounced powerful. But fate disrupted his machinations and he ended up being powerfool for he chose wrong allies. The Deputy Speaker, Olumide Osinuga was tired of deputizing, thus he wanted to cover his leader in the ditch.
He created a WhatsApp group tagged FLC 300 Level Caucus to divide the House though he claimed he created it to teach other principal officers on how to make a budget. He said on the page that “the group is meant for the deliberation of some issues amongst us before it gets to the Speaker”. Only few honourables were on the page and out of whom some blew the trumpet out and he met his waterloo at the last sitting held on Friday. Perhaps, he didn’t know his friends were frenemies.
Though his expulsion and suspension was unconstitutional as the Speaker did not put the motion to vote so as to form 2/3 which the constitution says: Article 21 (E) reads, “without any prejudice to the provisions of the constitution, a member of the FLC shall stand removed from office if a motion for his removal is passed by 2/3 majority of a properly constituted parliament “.
Also, Article 46, Section B (II) states that it’s only those who are found guilty of financial mismanagement and misappropriation that can stand to be expelled from the association. But, as Mr. Olumide’s action was unconstitutional so also was his removal from office. He who wants to gift a new cloth must not be found wearing a rag. He can’t find solace in what he has already disowned.
