MOAUM Strike, University Governance, and the Imperative of Responsible Public Discourse -By Leonard Karshima

The article in the Nigerian Guardian newspaper titled “Rev Fr Chief Alia: Unpacking the Truth About MOAUM Strike” raises important concerns regarding the ongoing strike action by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) at Moses Orshio Adasu University, Makurdi (MOAUM). Any discussion of challenges confronting a public university deserves serious attention because universities are critical institutions for teaching, research, and societal development.

However, in addressing matters of such public significance, two principles must remain paramount:

• fairness and
• accuracy

The Right of Response and the Ethics of Journalism:

The report contains numerous allegations against identifiable officers and organs of the university, including the Governing Council, its Chairman, university administrators, and other officials. Yet the article does not indicate whether those accused were contacted for their responses before publication.

One of the most fundamental canons of responsible journalism is audi alteram partem—the principle that the other side should be heard. Anonymous allegations, regardless of how serious they may appear, do not become established facts merely because they are published. Fair reporting requires reasonable efforts to obtain comments from those accused and to present their perspectives alongside those of their critics.

Without such balance, readers are left with a one-sided narrative that may unintentionally prejudice public opinion before facts are independently verified.

Understanding the Role of a University Governing Council:

The article also appears to reflect a misunderstanding of the statutory role of a university Governing Council.

In Nigerian universities, the Governing Council is not an external body imposed upon the institution. Rather, it is a legally constituted organ of governance established by law and composed of both external and internal members. Significantly, major university constituencies—including Senate, Congregation, and Convocation—are represented on the Council.

Indeed, internal members of Council often constitute the largest single bloc within the Council structure. Consequently, when criticism is directed at Council decisions, it should be remembered that university staff themselves are represented in the decision-making process through their elected or nominated representatives.

It is therefore inaccurate to suggest that every Council involvement in appointments constitutes “interference.”

For example, under established university practice, the appointment of a Deputy Vice-Chancellor ordinarily involves multiple organs. The Vice-Chancellor presents nominees; the Senate participates in the selection process; and the successful nominee is forwarded to the Governing Council for approval. Without Council approval, the appointment cannot take effect.

This demonstrates that governance in a university is intentionally collaborative and institutional rather than personal. The participation of Council in such matters is therefore part of its statutory responsibility, not necessarily an encroachment upon the powers of other organs.

Allegations Must Be Distinguished from Proof:

The article reproduces allegations concerning procurement procedures, TETFund projects, financial transactions, and administrative decisions. These are serious matters.

Yet it is important to distinguish between allegations and established facts.

Public institutions are governed by laws, regulations, audit mechanisms, anti-corruption agencies, visitorial powers, and internal oversight structures. Where evidence exists of wrongdoing, appropriate authorities should investigate and determine responsibility based on verifiable facts rather than public speculation.

The integrity of a university is not strengthened when accusations become substitutes for due process.

The Danger of Ethnicizing University Administration:

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the report is the introduction of ethnic and political considerations into university governance.

The suggestion that contractors are allegedly from a particular state because the Chairman of Council originates from that state, or the implication that the Chairman should be removed because he allegedly lacks a “polling unit” in Benue State, represents a dangerous departure from the ideals upon which universities are founded.

Universities are communities of scholarship. They exist to advance merit, knowledge, and intellectual inquiry. Their governance should never be reduced to ethnic arithmetic, geographical sentiment, or partisan calculations.

If the qualification for service in public institutions becomes ethnic origin or voting location rather than competence, integrity, and adherence to the law, then the very foundations of higher education are undermined.

Academic communities should be among the first institutions to resist such parochial thinking. MOAUM should be a truly globally-oriented education institution, not a huge community college whose governance structure is defined by the whims of local chiefs and their political loyalists who are lords over their local  “polling units” in Benue State.

Strikes and the Responsibility of Dialogue:

There is no doubt that university unions possess the right to raise legitimate concerns regarding welfare, governance, and institutional development. History demonstrates that constructive engagement between government, university management, governing councils, and unions often produces sustainable solutions.

Yet prolonged industrial disputes are rarely resolved through media trials. They are more effectively addressed through dialogue, transparency, mutual respect, and adherence to established procedures.

The Government of Benue State has made significant investments in the university sector in recent years, including interventions aimed at improving staff welfare and institutional development. Where outstanding concerns remain, the path forward should be one of engagement and problem-solving rather than escalating tensions through unverified accusations.

The challenges facing MOAUM deserve serious attention, but serious issues require serious methods. Allegations should be investigated. Evidence should be examined. All parties should be heard. University laws and procedures should be properly understood. Ethnic and political sentiments should be rejected. Above all, the welfare of students and the long-term integrity of the university must remain the central concern.

A university flourishes not when competing interests shout the loudest, but when truth, fairness, due process, and institutional responsibility prevail.