WHERE WE ARE :AN ALMOST OBSOLETE HALLOWED CHAMBER AND POKED EXECUTORS

0

Omolara Badru

A wise man once said, “the secret of joy in work is contained in one word, –excellence–to know how to do something well is to enjoy it”. This cannot be used to describe the low attendance of the honourables in the last sitting where important issues like the presentation of the audit and investigative committee reports were brought to the house. It is known that some members resigned but that still does not amount to the little representation of constituencies at the house. Are the honourables really taking their works seriously? That remains to be proven.
On the presentation of the audit and investigative report, eyebrows were raised concerning the findings of the audit committee on the sports director where silent questions were asked on his transparency. The audit committee found out the sports director withdrew the sum of #149,170 not his supposedly sum of #147,320. When asked, he gave an unclear explanation. The audit committee also reported the General Secretary collected some funds without approval and reported that the #200 collected by the Gen. Sec for the freshers’ oath form was insinuated by the Fin. Sec to be the General Secretary property. The General Secretary refuted these claims and explained how the #200 was for signing of the oath forms and none of the money entered the association’s account.
It is also to be noted that the vice president truly took the sum of N35, 100 from her pocket to cover the expenses she made at the orientation week as there was no debit of N35, 100 reflecting in the association’s account. But nevertheless, the investigative committee while presenting their reports was still not comfortable with the way the vice president handled the memorandum of agreement.
The speaker, after everything, adopted the reports of the audit and investigative committee and also forwarded all the issues raised to the faculty management. The audit and investigative committee also refused to do their work saying that it should be forwarded to the faculty management. Is the house handling all their works to the management? What is the essence of the legislative council if after everything they report back to the management for actions to be given? Are they so stifled that they cannot issue out the proper punishment according to the constitution? This case is like a child running back to report to his mother any small issue he has with his friends instead of working it out and not burden his mother.
On the executives’ choice of a coopted member in the house.
It was a mini cinema in the house as an honourable questioned the character of the coopted member chosen by the executives. Hon. Muhammed Salahudeen raised his misgivings to the house concerning, Mr. Jesufemi Oyekanmi, the proposed coopted member. He took the house on a memory lane to the time when the house suspended the president and drama ensued with Mr. Oyekanmi in the middle of it all, even carrying the house mace. Hon. Muhammed supported his claims with video evidence that was played for the house. The deeds of man can never be forgotten either good or bad and the questionable act made by Mr. Oyekanmi resulted to the refusal of the house adopting him as a coopted member. Did the executive forgot about his past deed or they remembered and still chose him as their representative for his passionate support he has for them? The executives should remember that any coopted member that is to represent them in the house must be of worth character because the coopted member is their mirror and his deeds either in the house or outside reflects them. excellence, to know how to do something well is to enjoy it”. This cannot be used to describe the low attendance of the honourables in the last sitting where important issues like the presentation of the audit and investigative committee reports were brought to the house. It is known that some members resigned but that still doesn’t amount to the little representation of constituencies at the house. Are the honourables really taking their works seriously? That remains to be proven.
On the presentation of the audit and investigative report, eyebrows were raised concerning the findings of the audit committee on the sports director where silent questions were asked on his transparency. The audit committee found out the sports director withdrew the sum of #149,170 not his supposedly sum of #147,320. When asked, he gave an unclear explanation. The audit committee also reported the General Secretary collected some funds without approval and reported that the #200 collected by the Gen. Sec for the freshers’ oath form was insinuated by the Fin. Sec to be the General Secretary property. The General Secretary refuted these claims and explained how the #200 was for signing of the oath forms and none of the money entered the association’s account.
It is also to be noted that the vice president truly took the sum of N35, 100 from her pocket to cover the expenses she made at the orientation week as there was no debit of N35, 100 reflecting in the association’s account. But nevertheless, the investigative committee while presenting their reports was still not comfortable with the way the vice president handled the memorandum of agreement.
The speaker, after everything, adopted the reports of the audit and investigative committee and also forwarded all the issues raised to the faculty management. The audit and investigative committee also refused to do their work saying that it should be forwarded to the faculty management. Is the house handling all their works to the management? What is the essence of the legislative council if after everything they report back to the management for actions to be given? Are they so stifled that they cannot issue out the proper punishment according to the constitution? This case is like a child running back to report to his mother any small issue he has with his friends instead of working it out and not burden his mother.
On the executives’ choice of a coopted member in the house.
It was a mini cinema in the house as an honourable questioned the character of the coopted member chosen by the executives. Hon. Muhammed Salahudeen raised his misgivings to the house concerning, Mr. Jesufemi Oyekanmi, the proposed coopted member. He took the house on a memory lane to the time when the house suspended the president and drama ensued with Mr. Oyekanmi in the middle of it all, even carrying the house mace. Hon. Muhammed supported his claims with video evidence that was played for the house. The deeds of man can never be forgotten either good or bad and the questionable act made by Mr. Oyekanmi resulted to the refusal of the house adopting him as a coopted member. Did the executive forgot about his past deed or they remembered and still chose him as their representative for his passionate support he has for them? The executives should remember that any coopted member that is to represent them in the house must be of worth character because the coopted member is their mirror and his deeds either in the house or outside reflects them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *