AFAS Constitution Brouhaha and The Fate of the Elected Welfare Director

Praise Olorunfemi

The Faculty of arts is known as a premier faculty in the university of Ibadan, hence, there is a kind of subtle expectation that the faculty takes the lead among other faculty in the University of Ibadan. This lead the faculty is to take, should be reflected on almost every aspect of the faculty. To this end, it can safely be said that certain unhearable issues should be heard to occur within the faculty. However, in the matters of students’ conduct, the Faculty of Arts has seen quite a number of question-begging occurrences and situations.

Now, in the last conducted election which took place in the Faculty of Arts, which ushered in a new administration of the 2022/2023 session, the election was conducted under an acclaimed “new constitution”. In the 2021/2022 academic session, the constitution in use, for one reason or the other, became due for a review. A constitution review committee was set-up for the purpose, and at the end of the whole process, a proposed new constitution emerged. All this was prior to the election of that session. Definitely, there were changes in the new constitution which were not in the old constitution. One of those notable changes is the separation of a welfarism from that of the office of the Director of Social. That is to say, there was a creation of the Welfare Office, so there is the Director of Social on one side and Director of Welfare Services on the other side. Interestingly the duties of the office of the Director of Welfare Services seem to be saddled with more responsibilities compared to that of the office of the Director of Social.

So, it happened to be that in the last election which was held in the faculty, the “new constitution” was what was used in defining the modalities of the election. Hence, there was an open contest for the office of the Director of Welfare Services, although there was only one contestant. Nevertheless, an unopposed aspirant does not tantamount to an automatic appointment of office, as election for that office will still take place, to determine the final victory in contesting to that office, because, there are certain criteria that must be met before such is sworn-in into office. Hence, despite the fact that for the office of the Director for Welfare Services, there was only one aspirant, heavy campaigns will still have to be embarked on as much as possible, which was the case of Blessing Osuobeni, the aspirant for the Director of Welfare Services. Now, it happened she won the election to become the first ever Director of Welfare Services to be elected in the faculty. However, for one reason or the other, she has not been properly and officially inaugurated as an official member of the executive council.

Although the faculty and incessant issues of one kind or the other are becoming quite synonymous to each other, this particular issue is somewhat one that seems the first of it kind seen in the faculty. The election where the office of the Director of Welfare Service was contested for, was done under the purview of the “new constitution” as amended. Having expended so much energy, time, and resources of all kinds, and emerging victorious in the election, it is a no-brainer that the winner of the election be inaugurated by right, and not by privilege, because she did not win the election on grounds of privileges in the first place. She went through the screening process, the press night, and manifesto night, and finally partook in the election process. Hence, having met all these criterias, it is evidently not a privilege that she inaugurated officially as an official member of the executive council. However, as the Press time of writing these piece, she has not yet been inaugurated, neither has she been recognised as an official member of the executive council.

Despite the fact that the constitution was reviewed and the “new constitution” as reviewed was approved by the congress held then , and that the election was held with this “new constitution” as reviewed, which validates the winners of the election, the electioning of the Director of Welfare Services has not been recognised. It was when this issue was raised at the first FLC’s plenary session, by Hon. Yeboah Daniel, that it was stated that the constitution before being reviewed was to be reverted to, as the legal unit of the school’s management are yet to approve and recognise the “new constitution” as reviewed. However, from the time of the approval of the reviewed constitution as the “new constitution”, there has been a kind of melodrama in the faculty. As it has been brought to the notice of AFASites in previous publications, while the executive council still operates with the “old constitution” the Faculty Legislative Council operates with the “new constitution”, so much dramatic that, when the constitution is being quoted, there was always a marker to identify from which of the existing constitution such a quote was being made from. But as the case is, the revert to the “old constitution” has somewhat proscribed the “new constitution” as reviewed, and by implication, the idea and terminology of the, “old constitution” and “new constitution” has officially been obliterated.

However, this obliteration has caused some imbalance within the faculty. The proscription of the “new constitution” has left an AFASite floating in an uncertain situation, without being addressed officially, even after weeks of inaugurating her fellow contestants who emerged as winners for their various contested offices. Also, there is the question of what is expected of the Director of Social? This is a contestant whose manifesto must have centred on duties of the office of Director of Social as stated by the “new constitution” as reviewed (which hereinafter has been proscribed). Now it becomes difficult for AFASites to hold any office responsible for neglect of duties as expected from the office of the Welfare Services.

In all, if election has been conducted under the purview and aegis of the “new constitution” as reviewed, then this same “new constitution” as reviewed, has been proscribed, to what extent is the fairness and credibility of the whole outcome of the election in the first place? Why must a single person be singled out for something that affects the constitutional standings of other executive members? To what extent is the validity of the authority of the supposed new executive? What has the FLC done to this current situation? And what should AFASites expects to be the fate of their elected Director of Welfare Services?