New Semester, Same Politics?

By Olanshile Ogunrinu

The previous semester was undoubtedly characterized by turmoil within the faculty’s political sphere, with controversies arising from various sources. As a new semester commences, many are curious as to whether the political climate within the faculty will remain tumultuous or become more tranquil. Answering this question is a complex and multifaceted matter. To gain insight into what the future holds for the faculty’s politics this semester, it is essential to review some of the commotions that unfolded in the political arena last semester. This review can provide valuable lessons for improving the current situation, as it is commonly said that those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it.

The Call-Off Party Saga: A Controversial Incident in the Faculty

Last semester, a controversial incident occurred in the faculty that caused quite a stir. It all began when the executives started promoting a call-off party after resuming from a 9-month break due to a strike by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU). This caused great consternation among some students, who expressed their displeasure, stating that a party was not appropriate at this time when academic activities were just picking up after being disrupted by the strike. However, the executive defended their decision, with the social director stating that the party was meant to welcome students back to school since academic activities would be heavy. This marked the beginning of the troubles that accompanied the party.

Concerns were raised about the funding for the party, but the executives stated they had sponsors who would take care of it. However, after the party, the faculty management, through the office of the Sub-Dean, summoned the executive president to answer allegations of gross misconduct. The Sub-Dean pointed out that his office had received complaints from the Association’s Staff Adviser that the President had organized the call-off party without approval from the Staff Advisers and the Faculty Legislative Council.

Additionally, the president was accused of not remitting the money received from the sponsors and the money realized from the sales of tickets into the Association of Faculty of Arts Students’ (AFAS) account. He was also accused of colluding with the association’s general secretary by not disclosing the funds and other gift items received from the party’s sponsors. In response to the allegations, the general secretary of the association maintained his innocence, stating that he had believed the call-off party was organized by Akoem, the Association’s President, who was the grand host while AFAS was the host. Therefore, he did not inquire further about the party’s modalities because the President had stated that he would not take from the association’s purse. The president’s tardiness in responding to the summon compelled the Sub-Dean to write the Faculty Legislative Council (FLC), urging the house to take the necessary constitutional measures to deal with the unruly action.

However, the president later responded to the allegations, insisting that due process was followed in planning the call-off party. According to the president, the party was organized and funded by a brand called ‘AKOEM,’ and AFAS was just a collaborator. The FLC inquiry committee also cleared the president of any wrongdoing. Nevertheless, investigations are still ongoing at the Students Affairs Unit regarding the issue.

Executive feud; The Prime’s Chronicle

Last semester, a dispute between the Executive council and the Sports director, Alawiye Israel (also known as Prime) resulted in a halt of sporting activities in the faculty. The conflict began during a meeting between all arms of the faculty with the Executive council when the faculty president announced that Prime had been suspended by the Executive council. A letter was submitted to the Faculty Legislative Council (FLC) for investigation. The President accused Prime of operating independently, failing to attend meetings, and being disrespectful to him and other members of the Executive. He also claimed that Prime had been previously sanctioned by the Executive for leaving their WhatsApp group for six months. According to him, Prime’s suspension was due to his failure to attend a physical meeting after the end of the strike. The FLC temporarily suspended the Sports Director, and a committee was set up to investigate the matter. In his defence, Prime explained that he left the Executive group due to technical issues and was not receiving notifications about the meetings.

The root of the conflict was later revealed at the FLC plenary. It was discovered that the altercation between the Vice-president and the Sports Director was due to issues with securing a sponsor for a sporting event. Prime pleaded guilty to the allegations of misconduct against him at the plenary and was reinstated with a signed undertaking. He agreed that he would face impeachment if he was found guilty of any misconduct in the future. This marked the resolution of the executive feud.

Press Intolerance Openly Exhibited by Faculty’s Student Leadership

Last semester, a discernible pattern characterized the politics of the faculty’s student leadership: a clear intolerance of the press exhibited by all arms of the government. In its watchdog role, the press has faced a variety of attacks from those who find the truth uncomfortable. Following every report that these arms find troublesome, the press has been subjected to barrages of verbal assaults and aspersions. One AFAS Press report on the call-off party issue and an incident that occurred during a plenary session of the FLC resulted in a certain honorable member claiming that he and his constituency members were not safe because a pressman was recording the sitting. This led to the house spokesperson releasing a “call-out” full of unsavoury diatribes against the press. It should be noted that some members of the house were quick to point out that the press had not erred in any way. Additionally, the reinstated Sports Director’s cantankerous and combative stance is particularly appalling. The then-embattled executive member made the fallacious claim that the press was attempting to “bring him down” and that he would not be granting any interviews with the press. This counterproductive decision suggested that he was avoiding being accountable to Afasites.

To sum up, the faculty’s politics for this semester have the potential to differ from the previous one, provided that the underlying problems are acknowledged and appropriate measures are taken. It is imperative to establish unambiguous communication channels, refrain from making personal attacks, evaluate the issues highlighted by the Press, promote transparency and accountability, and prioritize the needs of the student body. These are all indispensable aspects of a robust and efficient student government. By collaborating and adhering to these principles, the faculty’s governing bodies can contribute to the betterment of AFAS and foster a more collaborative and inclusive campus environment.