AFAS DINNER: The story behind closed doors (part 1)

By Olamilekan Mashika

One of the highlights of all events in every faculty, department and hall of residence is the dinner, which comes up at the end of the session. The dinner is one where people of that particular faculty or hall or department come together and celebrate the year. And yes, it is celebrated in style. However, on Tuesday, 14th December, 2021, the AFAS Faculty Legislative Council (FLC) released a statement via the AFAS WhatsApp platforms intimating that the house distances itself from the faculty dinner and that the past Vice President (who is tasked constitutionally with organising the dinner) and the past Financial Secretary have both acted on their own accord, against the directive of the house. In the statement, it was stated that although the house approved a sum of #962,250 from the initial #1,183,500 presented by the past Vice President, Miss Modupe, the house approved this sum with clauses and one of them was that #221,000 be withdrawn from the association account until the funds from sponsors as promised by the Vice President is gotten.

The house also stated that in the letter sent to the past Financial Secretary, Miss Peniel, it was written that #221,000 be withdrawn for the dinner but the Financial Secretary went ahead to withdraw the total amount of #962,250 that was approved and this was done unbeknownst to the President. Also, the house claimed that it had approved #30,000 initially for printing of tickets and graphics for BCs so as to generate funds via sale of ticket but upon the reappearance of the Vice President after the initial budget was pended, it was revealed that #21,000 was the amount generated up till that time. Furthermore, the house claimed that it had warned against holding the dinner off-campus as that goes against the directive of the university and for the dinner to be held outside the campus, the Vice President must get approval from the faculty management. All of this, accompanied with the postponement of the dinner for a day, threw Afasites in the well of confusion as people were confounded on what was real and not. Furthermore, this opens the air for many questions that border on the administrators of AFAS and their administrations. This article seeks to answer these questions that might be deeply engrained in the hearts of every Afasite.

On withdrawal of #962,250 by the Financial Secretary

In the release of the FLC, it claimed that the Fin. Sec. withdrew a sum of #962,250 as against the #221,000 which was stated in the letter directed to her office. Then the release claimed that this withdrawal was done without the past President’s knowledge. AFAS press reached out to Miss Peniel on this matter. She claimed that the president was right there when the subdean said that the money approved be withdrawn. She then further claimed that the letter sent to her by the FLC had two figures which should not happen, and she had to seek clarification on which amount to withdraw because even on the resolution for that particular sitting, #962,250 was the amount approved but on the letter a different amount was stated for disbursement. She said since she is not the only signatory to the account, and the staff adviser is the major signatory to the association’s account (for those who do not know, the staff adviser is the major signatory and to withdraw from the association’s account, the staff adviser’s signature and either of the financial secretary or President’s signature is required), she took the letter to the staff adviser who then quizzed her on the amount for which he is to sign. To this effect, the speaker of the FLC was called. The speaker held that he sign for #221,000 first and then sign for the remaining amount later. According to the Fin. sec., the staff adviser then said he needs clarity on the amount to be withdrawn and she had to wait for him. The speaker then came back, after meeting with the subdean alongside the president, that the sub dean told him to go ahead with the withdrawal of #962,250 that was approved.

She reiterated firmly that she could not withdraw any amount without the approval and signature of the staff adviser. She then said she did not know from where the President got the idea of not being aware of the withdrawal from, since he was there in the meeting but did not return with the Speaker. She strongly stated that when the staff adviser called her for clarity on what amount he should sign for, she met the President there. She then pinpointed that the President needed to explain what he meant by he wasn’t aware when the staff adviser and sub dean were seated.

AFAS Press quizzed the past president, Eniola Francis on the Miss Peniel’s claims, and he replied saying: “She is just lying. She didn’t tell me before going to the bank to withdraw. My signature wasn’t on the cheque. Immediately I received a debit alert from the association’s account, I called her to question why she would go to the bank and withdraw without telling me but she didn’t pick up. When I confronted her yesterday she said she doesn’t need my approval before going to the bank. She stated and I quote: between your word and the Subdean’s word, which one should I follow?”

When AFAS Press reached out to the now past speaker of the house, Rt. Hon. Salaudeen, on the claims of the Fin. sec., he replied thus: “First, approval of money is not by word, it is by signed letters directed to the office of the Fin. Sec. Second, I never gave her any word for the withdrawal of the money.”

AFAS Press then reached out to the Sub Dean, Dr Blavo, for clarity on the issue and he stated that what transpired was just because the executive members themselves are childish and that what happened among them was not supposed to go viral. Also, he noted that student politicians like to show that because they are in government, they feel they have all the powers. He said that the FLC thought the sponsorship the VP was talking about was a pecuniary one, but nowadays because people know how student administrators are, they do not give them money. The hall was sponsored, bringing Laugh Up, the event was also sponsored, the décor too etc. He mentioned that he did not categorically tell the speaker to allow the withdrawal of the money since he is not a signatory to the account and that was not his business. He commented that where the issue started was with the letter directed to the Fin. sec. by the FLC. The letter could be translated in different ways, one of which is that the approved sum be released but #221,000 be taken out of it. He said the staff adviser asked the speaker to be clear on which amount he should sign and when the speaker came to meet him, he said he should draft a letter to that effect but the speaker said the clerk could not, and so, he collected the letter on which the staff adviser wrote that the FLC should be clear on the figures. Every other things said, he said, are hearsay. He commented that the one error on his part was that he promised to get a letter for the usage of the hall for the event. When asked why he informed the Fin. sec. to hold on to the money the FLC approved for awards, he said that AFAS should be awarding those who has achieved something for the faculty like the L&D members for winning the Jaw war, or those who represented the faculty at the inter faculty games and won medals. The association can then say they want to honour the FLC with awards and not the FLC awarding themselves. He reiterated that all that happened was just power play from politicians who think they are more than they actually are.

Whatever the case is, or may seem to be, whether the Fin. sec., the president or the speaker is lying, what is clear is that all parties seem to be careful of not bearing the brunt of any faults that might arise from the issue and a serious passage of power play is being simulated. Similarly, it is astounding that the fin. sec. claims that the letter on the amount to be withdrawn is ambiguous for it was clearly stated that #221,000 be withdrawn for the dinner. Although, she claimed that she has never received a letter from the FLC having two figures which has not happened before and as the sub dean pointed out, could be translated in different ways.

Similarly, the FLC has its own part. Why go ahead to approve the funds when the house knows the association purse is not sufficient for such amount? AFAS press asked the past speaker of the house this question and he said, “When we had the first sitting on the budget approval, the house raised an alarm that only hundred people paid and the money generated from dinner is not enough. The Sub Dean came to the sitting and requested permission to speak on three occasions. When the house raised the alarm, he said we should go ahead with the budget. Eventually, we did not go ahead that day, we postponed it and approved #30,000 for publicity, banner and other things so that we’ll be able to generate enough money. After few weeks the VP came back and we asked for those who have paid and the number only increased by few people. Eventually, we looked into the budget and we approved for two hundred people with five conditions that must be met before the money goes out. It is not mere approval but with conditions, one of which is getting an approval from the management in using the venue, Josiah’s Inn. Another is that the VP must have generated a lot of money from the sales of the tickets that will cover for the amount approved. Failure to do these, the house does not approve that amount. The approval was on conditions and not just mere approval.”

The president claimed he was not aware of the Fin. sec’s withdrawal, but all along, he knew. What he just wasn’t aware of was when the Fin. sec. went to the bank. Why then paint a picture of being in the dark when everything played out? Why did the VP also opt for an over night dinner off campus? There was absolutely no point for that. Everyone played a part if eventually we are faced with the stern reality of not having to make additional package, outside books that have been already produced.

On the dinner brouhaha

It is clear enough that there has been fire on the mountain, we just did not see it in time, so we could not run to safety. The WhatsApp releases drama that played out on the day of the dinner was not the starting point of the whole issue. It had started long before. Yes, before eyes were still plugged in the knees. Over time, people in administration, especially student administrators, tend to have clash of views since they do not share the same. Eniola Francis, the outgoing president himself said that: “Anywhere there is at least two people, there is politics. Having misunderstanding is inevitable where there are two or more people.” However these clashes are supposed to make the administration progress and even aid in making informed decisions. Sadly, that is not the case.

Last session, we heard around the corners, the stifling relationship between the executive members, especially the Vice President and the Social director. This year, the trend did not change. The Vice President, Miss Modupe and the Social Director (the new president), Mr. Emmanuel are not on agreeable terms on matters concerning AFAS. This strained relationship was carried over to the planning of the dinner. As is widely known, the social director is supposed to be the head of the dinner planning committee but Miss Modupe excluded Mr Emmanuel from all planning of the dinner. This led to Mr Emmanuel sending a letter to the FLC removing himself from all responsibilities of the dinner. When AFAS press inquired about what transpired, it was revealed that in an executive meeting, the president noted that whenever the social director and VP have something to do together, there is always a problem. He then quizzed the vice president as to why she has excluded the social director from the planning committee of the dinner and asked both of them if they still want to work together. According to the fin. sec., the VP said that she was ready to work with the social director but the social director refused claiming that the vice president is difficult to work with. The social director himself said: “The President called a meeting where he asked if both of us were ready to work with each other to plan AFAS Dinner. I said I am ready to work with her. She said she has no problem with that too but will call me when she thinks she needs me! Prior to that time, she had created a WhatsApp group for dinner committee members on which she has not added me till this moment.”

On the President’s account, he said “All of my efforts to ensure that all executives unanimously get involved in the planning of the dinner which has been our culture since the beginning of this administration proved abortive because of her ulterior motive. It was obvious since the inception of the plans for the dinner that she has an agenda because she didn’t just withhold the plans from the social director, she withheld the plans from me too. I did all I could to let her see reasons why we need to all work together in doing the dinner but still, she didn’t succumb to my plea, neither did she listen to my instructions because she has the back up of higher authorities. The vice president told the social director in one of our executive meetings that she will involve him when she needs him. Even though the constitution had stated that annual dinner is to be planned in conjunction with the social director.” We were not able to reach the vice president for her own account.

Then there was the point of holding the dinner outside. To what effect is that? What was the point? Why even have an overnight dinner? The overnight dinner concept failed to live up to its standard in the ‘after party’ that held at Josiah’s inn. The whole event proper lasted for about an hour and half and the live band played for about forty minutes and people were all tired as at 3:30, watching one another, screaming surreptitiously when they might go home. What then is the point of it all?

From all indications, all was not well with the Francisco led administration. Team evolution had a myriad of problems. Yoruba has rightly said that “where two elephants fight, the grass there bears the brunt.” From this commotion all around the student administrators, the dinner itself suffered. The dinner held at the quadrangle where food was shared to people, and as an Afasite puts it, as if in IDP camp. Also, the future of Afasites getting any extra package is nebulous. It seemed that from the unnecessary childish displays that arose from the Secretariat, as though they are babies grappling for their mother’s breasts, Afasites ultimately are the ones suffering.

Second part coming up.