by By Patrick Obia, Culled From CrossRiverWatch
The University of Calabar Law Students Association (LAWSAN), 2024 Electoral Commission, has filed a petition against the Dean of Students Affairs Professor Tony Eyang for intrusion and arrogating power to himself.
LAWSAN in a petition signed by LAWSAN 2024 Electoral Chairman Onyeagba Stanley; Secretary, Bisong Edor and other members, to the Vice Chancellor Professor Florence Obi, copying the Department of State Services (DSS), the Student Union Government (SUG) and among other authorities, accused the Dean of playing ethnicity and use of position to usurp constituted bodies.
They accused Prof. Eyang of unilaterally disqualifying candidates who had already been screened and cleared by the Electoral Body when the Dean lack the authority to overrule the Association Electoral Body.
LAWSAN also alleged that for the past four years, the planning and execution of the freshmen orientation have occurred without the involvement of the SUG. The funds allocated for these orientations remain unaccounted for and Prof. Eyang has seemingly taken on the role of both the Vice President of the Student Union Government and Dean of Student Affairs, contrary to constitutional provisions. ”These issues call for a thorough investigation and prompt action to ensure accountability and transparency in the administration of student affairs at the University of Calabar.”
The petition reads below:
We, the undersigned members of the Law Students Association (Lawsan), 2024 Electoral Commission are compelled to bring to your attention significant concerns regarding the actions of the Dean of Student Affairs in the context of the Lawsan 2024 General Elections. Before delving into the core issues, allow us to provide a background understanding of the situation at hand. The Lawsan UCC Electoral Commission published the electoral timetable for the 2024 General Elections and commenced activities as stipulated. The sales of forms were conducted, and the Electoral Body, tasked with the exclusive mandate of screening and clearing candidates, performed its duties diligently to ensure a credible process.
All aspirants who purchased forms were cleared, even if some did not meet the required cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) of 3.50 and above. Historically, many candidates with lower CGPAs were allowed to participate in the general elections because once an aspirant lodged applications for result correction, the CGPA constitutional requirement was waived by the Electoral Body. This practice and convention have been upheld by the Lawsan Electoral Commission over the years.
Among the six initial aspirants, three had applications for result corrections and were all cleared on this premise. However, a petition was submitted by a faculty staff member against only one candidate, Frank Agness Ekaette, due to her perceived closeness to Associate Professor Mike Otu. This was allegedly because she reported a case of a threat issued by Professor Jake Osimiri to Associate Professor Mike Otu during lectures to the 4th-year class of the Faculty. The faculty is currently polarized between the Yala and Boki blocs of staff, which further complicates the situation. We have however moved on past these petty tussles and fight over the Control of LAWSAN.
When these issues were brought to the attention of the Dean of Student Affairs, we expected him to maintain a neutral position, given the confidence reposed in him. However, the Electoral Body discovered conclusively that the Dean had taken a biased stance to further his own interests, which aligns with that of the faculty’s interest. The Dean of Student Affairs unilaterally disqualified candidates who had already been screened and cleared by the Electoral Body. We categorically state that the Dean of Student Affairs lacks the authority to overrule the Association Electoral Body. The only institution within the university with the jurisdiction to overturn decisions made by the Students’ Electoral Body is the judicial arm of the respective association, and by extension, the Student Union Government High Court and the honorable SUG High Court can only exercise such jurisdiction when an appeal is filed before it. In addition, the Security Department of the University is another institution within the University Community saddled with such Power to disqualify an Aspirant on the ground on Security reasons when the Conduct of an Aspirant in the past had posed a threat to the University Peacefully coexistence. Due process was never considered, and the process was abused in an association where the staff adviser is a lawyer.
These institutions of the Student Union government (executive, judiciary, and legislature) are not mere formalities within the university community but are intended for student affairs of this nature. The expected role of the Dean of Student Affairs is advisory rather than the total usurpation of the power of the Electoral Body. Following this unilateral disqualification, the Electoral body proceeded with the sales of forms, a move which the Dean of Student Affairs had initially approved and now opposes for reasons best known to him. The Dean of Students’ Affairs should be reminded that it is not within his authority to open or close the sale of forms.
If the argument is that the time frame had elapsed, he should be reminded that he had already disrupted the process by disqualifying candidates who were already screened and cleared, thereby impliedly necessitating the continuation of the sale of forms, which he initially approved and consented to in his office. When the new candidates purchased forms and monies submitted on the directive of the staff adviser, the Dean ordered the refund of these monies, despite knowing that such monies are legally non-refundable. He insisted on refunding them their monies because he has no other ground for disqualifying them like he has been doing before aside hinging on the process he had earlier disrupted.The Vice Chancellor should note the Following:
● That during the meeting we had with the Dean of students’ affairs in his office, he emphasized on the fact that these new aspirants were brought to him by Associate Professor Mike Otu.
● Equally, the Dean Of Students’ Affairs consistent involvement of Barr. Maxwell Egba in all our meetings and Barr. Egba’s constant diction of “We know How To Run These Things” gives concern regarding the transparency of an electoral process under the sole auspices of the Dean Of Students affairs.
● We request that the Vice Chancellor through her good office instruct Chairman Of the Calabar University Electoral Commission (CUECO) to supervise the election as the last conducted Student Union government election was the most transparent, free and credibly fair electoral process witnessed in recent time in the university of Calabar.
● We further request that all Aspirants who bought forms after the earlier adjustment of the Electoral timetable be allowed to stand Elections, hence there is a Pending Court order from the Student Union Government High court mandating the Electoral Commission to act forthwith. Several concerns have been raised regarding the administrative conduct of Prof. Tony Eyang in his capacity as the Dean of Student Affairs at the University of Calabar. These concerns revolve around financial discrepancies and procedural violations in the management of student affairs.
1. Financial Mismanagement in Hostel Accommodation:
It has been reported that funds were collected from students for hostel accommodations, exceeding the actual number of students who paid and cleared for these facilities. Despite receiving these payments, many students have yet to be provided with the promised accommodation, neither have refunds been made accordingly.
2. Unaccounted Funds for Student Initiatives
Over the past two years, payments made through the Entrepreneurial Development Center and the Center for General Studies for the Student Union Government’s almanac and constitution have not been adequately accounted for. While we do not speak on behalf of the Student Union Government, as concerned students of the University of Calabar, we feel obligated to bring these issues to light.
3. Violation of the Student Union Government Constitution:
Pursuant to Section 17(2) of the Student Union Government Constitution, “The vice president shall be the chairman of the orientation week planning committee.” However, for the past four years, the planning and execution of the freshmen orientation have occurred without the involvement of the Student Union Government. The funds allocated for these orientations remain unaccounted for. Prof. Eyang has seemingly taken on the role of both the Vice President of the Student Union Government and Dean of Student Affairs, contrary to constitutional provisions. These issues call for a thorough investigation and prompt action to ensure accountability and transparency in the administration of student affairs at the University of Calabar.
