AFAS and the road to sanity
After all has been said and done, what becomes of us is simply reflective of the myriad of actions we have taken. Suffice to say that we really become what we want to become; whether by our speech, act, or behavioural patterns. People would only consider what is shown on the outside, since no one can see what is on the inside. The reason for this introduction is not far from anyone’s reach. Anyone who has been following the press articles so far would have been keenly informed on the different issues that have played out in the faculty over the past month. From the in-house executive issues, which was apparent with the suspension of the Sports Director, to the warring student leaders on information provided by the press, the ban on the executive from the association’s account, and then the summons of student leaders by the faculty management, one would not be wrong to come to a conclude that AFAS needs a break. Truly, sanity needs to be restored. But will we get that break? That remains to be seen. But yes, let us still follow that how we present ourselves is how we will be seen.
A Case of Rinse and repeat?
Sometimes, many times in fact, whenever there appears to be a problem within a group of people who are to lead other people or steer the affairs of a given government, if such a problem is not solved and effectively nipped in the bud, then complications would arise. These complications in the long run might have a lasting effect on the people and not even the leaders. Let us cast memories back to the last session; the tail end of the last session. AFASites can still remember clearly what transpired, and how quite miraculously, they were denied an extra package. This was a result of the divisions amongst the members of the executive council. The effect of the divisions and loggerheads was a brunt grudgingly bore by angry AFASites. Similarly, if we cast memories back a bit, it can be recalled that in-house issues were present in the Faculty Legislative Council, as members were removed, and then members resigned voluntarily after all the scenarios fully played out. But what is it we are trying to bring out here? Should student leaders not argue or be at an impasse over some issues? Of course, they should. In fact, not having would only mean the council would be ineffective. But should the loggerheads transcend over what should be resolved over a cup of cold Pepsi drink? That is where the real problem starts. That is what should never be brought to life. However, it would seem that at AFAS, that is what we can do best.
At the last plenary session, during the committee of the whole, after the ad-hoc committee chairman had presented the report of their investigation, members of the executive were quizzed on what really happened. What played out is exactly what should not play out.
The crux of the Sports Director’s suspension was that he missed 3 physical and virtual meetings. The reason behind this was that he was not on the WhatsApp group of the executive council and so he did not get the notification of the setting. That is a given. But that bore only more questions. When quizzed on why he was not on the platform, he claimed his WhatsApp malfunctioned. However, this was not the response of other members of the executive council. The PRO, Vice President and Social Director all claimed he left, following an altercation between him and the President. This again, only births more questions. The reason for the altercation needed to be known. It was revealed that the Vice President had asked the Social Director not to contact a sponsor till they got the deal done, but the Sports Director went against the directive. The consequence of this, as revealed by the Vice President, was that what they were supposed to get from the sponsors changed. But that did not end there.
The PRO of the association was questioned as to why, after he had left the group, he was not contacted and sent a notification of the meeting. He stated that notifications are not sent privately, but on the WhatsApp platform since that is the point of that platform to ensure fairness. That statement hangs a question mark around it. Also, Prime was quizzed if he wrote an apology to the executive council following his suspension and for leaving the group, he affirmed to this that what he wrote was a WhatsApp message. What can we really take from this?
We must first ponder within ourselves just if we are not seeing a repeat of cases from the past. If déjà vu is simply not playing before our very own eye. Even if we accept Prime’s case that his WhatsApp malfunctioned and he left not of his own doing, could he not simply reach out to any member of the executive council to be added back? Would that cost a thing? Similarly, if not for the problem with him and the other members of the executive council, should they not have reached out to him after he appeared to have left the group and asked him why? But then we know why. They know why, and Prime knows why, but even if we pretend not to, should they not? Also, what is the claim of not sending meeting notifications privately? The PRO says that he still maintains a good relationship with Prime but that is outside of their roles as executives, and so he is not obliged or mandated to send him notification of the meeting. Now, we can see the same script playing across our very own eyes.
One member of the executive council seems out of place in that council. The reactions, oppositions and vehement rebuttals that played out during the questioning show that Prime and the other members of the executive council are not on the same wavelength. Just like that, disunity is waving its flag and pushing itself down our throats. Sadly, we are being forced to swallow it. But members of the executive council need to do better. Just to reiterate, it is completely normal to have altercations, and be at an impasse over issues, but settling it is paramount. Indeed, tongue and the teeth battle, but they duly settle it without inviting the nose to serve as mediator.
A good decision or one that carries a question mark?
Following the deliberation, questioning and pondering, the house was faced with two recommendations to vote for. The first was that Prime be suspended for a semester since he is found guilty of all charges, the other is that he be recalled to the office but made to write an apology letter and sign an undertaking with all 4 arms of the association (FLC, Executive council, CPS, and the Press) that if found guilty of any allegations he will be impeached. The house voted in favour of the latter. This forms the basis of a new pondering if that is the best decision. Whilst it is important to ensure that AFASites are not left hanging as regards their sporting activities just because their student leaders decided not to follow the exemplary actions of the tongue and teeth, it is way important to insiders that indeed the executive council members do not follow that exemplary action. In other words, can they still work together? Will they still work with him? Is it just a volcano waiting to erupt?
A field for docility?
Another angle to consider is if Prime’s recall from suspension would open grounds for docility. As has been stressed prior, members of the executive council to be at an impasse occasionally, as that would allow them to go to the drawing board, think of fresh ideas, and also find ingenuous ways to resolve any issues amongst themselves without the hearing of the third party. However, the clause in Prime’s reinstatement states that if he is found guilty of any other allegation, he will be impeached. So, if we play out a scenario where Prime is at an impasse with the President, and truly this time, his phone malfunctioned and he left the WhatsApp group. That means that he will also miss meetings and his suspension this time would be real. Also, with what played out at the plenary, any slight mistake from him could be counted as an allegation. So, Prime would need to be extra careful than any human being should be. This breeds docility. That is not particularly good for leadership and the progress of the faculty.
Room for improvement?
Certainly, there are two sides to coins. One can choose between a head and a tail. The FLC’s decision can be seen as a second chance for Prime, but not just for him. It is also a chance for all members of the executive to reflect and ensure that AFASites are not greeted with cases of controversies that are results of disunity. The decision should serve as a factor that steers absolute friendliness among them.
Again, Prime really must understand what he reads
Following the decision of the house, Prime spoke with NAPS (Philosophy) Press that he was never suspended. This leaves many confused. What exactly was the point of the whole back-and-forth “he was not suspended”? Also, he claimed that he was only asked to vacate office since an investigation was ongoing. Do we, at this point, really need to make it clearer to our dear Sports Director what vacating an office means? It seems like he does not understand the memo on why he was investigated in the first place. The Press published an article detailing his suspension and how the President announced at a stakeholders’ meeting that he was suspended. Similarly, the letter written to the house that requested his investigation was on his suspension. Also, as contained in the recent release of the house resolution, it reads in parts “…the committee presented to the house a report detailing the causes of the suspension…” At this point, we can only appease the Sports Director to at least understand what is written first.
How do we define ‘misleading’ these days?
Should the Press leave the essentiality of the press and start to do PR work? That is one question that should cross the mind of Hon. Lawal Daniel when he claimed that AFAS press should not have published the news story on the match between History and KHE. Although the honourable could not find any falsity with the publication, he appears to have a problem with the headline, which simply talks about what happened, and then the story itself because it could have consequences. Or perhaps the problem is that since the participant had already been served punishment in his hall of residence, there was no point to the story. Quite surprisingly, the house captures it as misleading information in their release. To respond is never a problem, but the problem really is how the word ‘misleading’ has changed its meaning in the dictionary. How can a report that presents the fact of exactly what happened, which indeed would be backed by the fact that one of the participants was served a punishment in his hall of residence, be considered misleading? Where lies the misleading statements?
In conclusion
Whilst other issues that have not been completely resolved in the faculty remain, these steps show that AFAS is on the path to restoring stillness in the association. How long it would last remains a question but we can be assured that as more events unravel, more mysteries would be solved.
