THE APPOINTMENT OF AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY’S VICE CHANCELLOR: THE UNTOLD STORY

By Usman, Sule Machika

Another twist is unfolding in the appointment of a substantive Vice Chancellor for Ahmadu Bello University, (A.B.U.) Zaria. Conspiracy, scheming, betrayals, manoeuvres, denials, exposal and disclosures are becoming manifest as revelations are unfolding day-by-day in the university. This would be sensational if vividly captured by any of the home movie producers.

But to many, this haphazard marvelling spectacle is a disjointed jigsaw puzzle. An attempt would be made to fit this puzzle together, in order to create a wholesome picture of the crisis. It is substantially an honest recollection of interactive discussions with many of the actors. However, a few patches were filled by imaginative reconstruction. Let me start with how I got entangled in this web. I submitted what in the media circle is called the ‘exist and entry’ piece, announcing the expiration of the incumbent’s tenure and highlighting all the processes expected to usher in a new Chief Executive for the university. In the article published on the 13^th May 2009, page 29, in this paper, I extolled the virtues of the new Council Chairman and his board members before the Council/Selection Board meeting. I wrote inter alia, ‘The greatest consolation is that the chairman of the newly inaugurated Council, Malam Adamu Ciroma, CFR, is indubitably above board. He is a man of proven integrity, a man whose legacies of a lifetime cannot be sacrificed at this stage by allowing anybody to toy with his well guarded principles. In fact, he is not alone in this; the council is made up of independent minded people whose integrity is also beyond being influenced. We are sure that the calibre of men and women in the Council would not be stampeded into taking an unreasonable action on the VC succession bid.’ So also did I warn of the profound fear of throwing the guidelines for appointing the VC to the dogs, as well as the danger of politics intertwined with ethnic considerations in such exercises. I have also exhaustively dwelt on the selection process as spelt out in the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, No. 11 of 1993 and the universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 2003.

It was the extrapolations in that article, the actions of the Joint Council/Selection Board and what seem to be automated reactions from members of the university community and the environs that really glued me to this spectacle. Again, information voluntarily offered to me and the ones I got through probing kept me on my toes regarding this marvelling succession bid. Through the privilege of meeting almost all the societal classes – the high, the mighty, the middle classes and the masses, the literati intelligentsias and village square intellectuals, information kept flowing, sometimes in trickles, bits and pieces, unbelievably sometimes in chunks (long discussions and documents). In each interaction, I discovered that the issue of appointing a substantive Vice Chancellor for the university became an act of describing the elephant by four blind people touching different parts of the mammoth. It is naturally expected that each would only have a small idea of the whole beast. No doubt, I am also one of the blind men but with the privilege of having felt other parts. I am also fully aware that describing parts by no means equal the knowledge of the whole. It is this knowledge of the parts that I intend to graphically illustrate here.

I would start with the general knowledge of announcing the University Council Members nationwide. Certainly that was where it all started. Usman Shehu Abdullahi, as the VC, paid homage to Malam Adamu Ciroma the newly appointed Chairman of the Ahmadu Bello University Council. It is both logical and natural for the Chairman to ask for the major constraints hindering the governance of the university. Since S. U. Abdullahi’s visit to the Council Chairman was not all homage, such an opportunity would have to be fully exploited. The homage was indeed ‘gaisuwa da rokon iri’ – homage and seeking for favours. S.U’s tenure was already at the last lap and after searching for close to three (3) years, he had just settled for a ‘worthy successor’ in Professor Idris Isa Funtua, whom he appointed as Deputy Vice Chancellor - DVC (Administration). Abdullahi therefore felt comfortable to take along his DVC in paying such an important visit to the Council Chairman. Having introduced the DVC, Abdullahi requested the support of the Chairman to assist the university to have a smooth transition by using his official capacity to get the DVC into office. Naturally, the Chairman responded with the air of a father and an elder statesman, ‘we shall see what we can do about it’, having asked competence and acceptability of the DVC.

With the first request in the offing, the second became logical. In order to actualize the first one, the Federal Ministry of Education’s (FME) Guidelines of appointing a Vice Chancellor needs to be modified. The FME guidelines stipulated a “ten (10) year post professorial qualification”, which the young DVC is yet to attain. But the problem is minor, since it is not mandatory to adhere to guidelines, line, hook and sinker. A guideline being simply an ‘official advice’, an official recommendation indicating how something should be done or what sort of action should be taken in a particular circumstance. The guidelines thus must be modified. This also logically led to the third request, the present members of the university Council would be needed to do the ‘dirty work’. Unfortunately, their tenure was fast approaching expiration. They thus conspired to ignore the tenure expiration till after the VC’s appointment. That was where Dr Kabir Chafe comes in, on his shoulders rests the role of spearheading the Council team that would ensure the appointment of Prof I. I. Funtua. Thus, the tripartite favours discussed with the Chairman, while paying him homage.

It was another open secret that the idea of modifying the guidelines was tagged at scuttling the chances of Prof Nasidi from emerging the Vice Chancellor. As argued in the Council before adopting the modified guidelines, those insisting in using the ten (10) year post professorial qualification, were informed that the law states that even a Senior Lecturer can become a VC. But this would not be open to the Senior Lecturer because he needs to sit for promotion. The wisdom behind the FME guidelines was brushed aside. The intent of FME guidelines is to ensure that only the candidate with the most administrative experience gets appointment to the apex office. It is expected that ten years post professorial qualification would have provided a gradual but steady climb in the career hierarchical ladder, from Assistant Lecturer to the rank of a Professor, administratively, from an Examination officer to Head of Department to Dean of Faculty to the DVC before becoming the VC. It is believed that such man must have accumulated both knowledge and wealth of experience in pari passu the exalted office of the Vice Chancellor. It is also believed that such a experience would place one in good stead for the appointment. This was an attempt to emulate the Military. Agreed that a general is general, but seniority is crucial at every rank level. But this was brushed aside to pave way to the anointed. 

But Abdullahi’s scheming had defects: on this final plan he did not consult the Muslim Forum, which was based on his previous experience with the Forum on the DVC’s appointment. Abddullahi had initially contacted the Muslim Forum with two names for them to pick one to be recommended for the post of a DVC. The two potentials were Professor Abdulmuminu Hassan Rafindadi and Professor Idris Isa Funtua. The Muslim Forum rejected both names on first presentation. The Forum then forwarded two other names for the then VC to pick one, he too rejected the two candidates and re-submitted his initial two with a stronger persuasion of using merit. Shortly however, Prof Rafindadi emerged the Chief Medical Director (CMD) of the Ahmadu Bello University Teaching Hospital (ABUTH). This should have made things easier for Abdullahi, but no, the Muslim Forum appealed to the sensitive nature of Prof. Funtua’s post as the Director of Centre for Energy Research and Training (CERT). It was at this juncture where the appeal to reasoning failed that Abdullahi went ahead to recommend Prof Funtua to be appointed the DVC, hoping it would clear an easy passage for him to the executive seat of the Vice Chancellor. By that appointment Funtua had already incurred the wrath of the Muslim Forum, through the actions of his boss. As such the Forum fielded their candidates for the Vice Chancellor in defiance to the appeals to support Funtua. Unfortunately, this infighting became an open secret and adequately exploited by the Christian Forum and the Selection Committee.

The Christian Forum had been on the search for a worthy candidate for the post of the Vice Chancellor for long having felt aggrieved with the leadership style of Abdullahi. This they got with the emergence of Professor Andrew Jonathan Nok, who also fully utilized the scheming to provide safe passage for Funtua through the guideline modification. He too is yet to attain the prescribed ten (10) years post Professorial qualification. With this hurdle scaled through, Nok was an important find. He is the most sellable among the array of Christian Professors both within and outside the university and he is an indigene of the host state to the university. Nok had of recent grabbed a national award of Member of Federal Republic (MFR) that took him along the corridors of power. One of his former students, a serving minister was credited to pursuing the national honours award for Nok. The Minister was again attributed to appealing the support of his legendary godfather – Professor Jibril Aminu, an icon even in the Senate for Nok to scale through as the next VC for A.B.U, Zaria. Senator (Prof) Jibril Aminu is one of the few remaining bridges across religious, ethnic and sectional divides in Nigeria’s multiethnic and pluralist society. Senator Jibril Aminu is the most reliable route and link for Nok across all divides, far ahead of the big names in Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), such as Professor Jerry Gana and General T.Y. Danjuma said to have been intimated to ensure the realization of Nok’s quest to be the next VC.

Prof Nok in this course is also a unifying factor for all the southern Kaduna extraction, who over the years felt short-changed in their share of leadership roles and appointments in Kaduna state. Their collective support is presently behind Nok for the Vice Chancellorship appointment.  That is not all; he enjoys the support of some top Northern Nigerian makers and shakers of their domains in Nigeria. Amongst these, is the Governor of Katsina State, a brotherly relationship cultivated and nurtured over the years from secondary school days is paying dividend at an hour of need for Nok. Similarly, the Governor of Kaduna is on and intense pressure from members of southern Kaduna to ensure that their son is honoured by the state this time around. In fact, a strong delegation was said to have been canvassing the support of His Royal Highness, Emir of Zazzau and even His Eminence the Sultan of Sokoto for Prof Nok to emerge the next VC. Thus, the melting point support for Prof Nok – irrespective of religious and ethnic divide. Even a Presidential Candidate would have no option but to envy Prof Nok on such wide spread campaigning strategy.

So, as Prof S. U. Abdullahi was scheming through the Council Chairman, the Nok support group got across the other members of the Council through another Nigeria legend – Prof Jerry Gana, who is also a political godfather to some of the Council Members. Going by the aforementioned, Nok’s support tentacles were much wider than that of Prof S. U. for Prof Funtua. Moving into action, the two external members converged at Malam Adamu Ciroma’s house on the eve of the faithful Council meeting. That was where they gave Prof Nok the nod. The internal members were easily carried along. Expectedly, Prof Mike Kwanashi should tow the Christian forum’s agenda for the Vice Chancellorship. While there was no love lost between Prof Ibrahim Umar and Prof Funtua. Prof Umar was the immediate predecessor of Prof Funtua at CERT, where their relationship must have gone sour for a long time. So Prof S. U. Abdullahi and Prof Funtua had lost the war even before the battle began.

But it was not all a smooth ride for Nok. Prof Nok’s problems started in the implementation of the agreement to appoint him the VC. In so much of a hurry, the joint Council/Selection Board made a mess of the scoring in an attempt to place Nok far ahead of the other contenders. It seems also to be one of Nigerian factors of underrating the opposition. Less did they expect the stiff challenge as posed by Dr Kabir Chafe, the arrowhead in championing the cause of Prof S. U. Abdullahi and Funtua. That challenge stalemated the expected official announcement until a comprehensive report of the Selection Committee is ‘tidied’ up. That was not all, having made Nok’s support base public within the members of the Christian and southern Kaduna extraction, without waiting for official confirmation, celebration galore started in earnest, sending the university into a frenzy and pandemonium. And somehow, a document credited to the University Chaplain began circulation. That nailed the coffin of the appointment of VC’s announcement. It set another ball in motion, as I tried to capture in my last article of 4^th and 5^th August 2009 in this paper. A number of interest groups were on each others throat, deepening the VC appointment crisis in the university. It culminated into the much circulated letter to the Honourable Minister of Education, copied to Mr President, the Council Chairman and all Members of Congress by Dr Kabir Chafe. As expected, there would be a plethora of rejoinders. The first in circulation addressing Dr Chafe as a ‘Junior Colleague’ is that of Prof Istifanus Ishaku Dafwang. Many more are still expected. But be rest assured that with a long pole, you would be able to identify the camp of each writer – either for Prof Nok or Funtua, no matter how much they try to hide under the pretext of merit and the interest of the university. In the present submissions, there is no iota of doubt that Dr Chafe is pro Prof Funtua while Prof Dafwang is for Prof Nok. Amazingly, even for academics of that standing, one can almost grasp their anger through the venom of their write-ups. It is sad, indeed pathetic.

This is the description of the Ahmadu Bello University crisis on the appointment of a Vice Chancellor for the university, which I tagged the bull elephant described by four (4) blind men. I would beg to digress a little, to posit a personal true story here.

A TRUE STORY

It is a true story, which happened in 1997. It remain a guiding principle, something I am sure would remain with me for the rest of my life. It started while I was very critical of a retired Police Commissioner, Alhaji Sani Wali, of blessed memory. May Allah grant him eternal bliss in Aljanna Fiddausi. Alhaji Sani Wali created a niche for himself as a fearless, selfless and a daring personality within and outside his professional calling. Among those who can testify to this, is are General Muhammadu Buhari, President Yar’adua as indigenes of Katsina state as well as having personal encounters with Sani Wali. He was the one attributed to ending the Maitatsine saga of Kano, while serving as the Police Commissioner of the state. I was actually aware of these credentials when I took the old man to task. I received cautious advice from many friends and well wishers. But I remained adamant, believing in my conviction that the Commissioner should have handled the issue in question differently. Moreso, just because he had been known to be selfless and honest in his dealings does not mean that he is beyond erring. So I never wavered in my criticism of that particular action.

In the middle of the controversy, I received an invitation by Alhaji Sani Wali. So many people advised me not go but I kicked against disobeying the call of elders and the authority, so I went. A few people were with him when I got there. With his parade ground voice he barked at me, question upon question. I managed to mumble something like greetings. He then said he did not think I would come, that possibly I did not know who he was when I embarked on my attacks. I responded that I knew. ‘And you came, are you not afraid?’ It was not that I was not afraid, but I believed that it would amount to disrespect to refuse his call and more so, it would also mean that I had a bad intention in my criticism. Again, I had envisaged the worst that could happen to me. What do I think would be the worst? I expected to be reprimanded, rebuked or insulted, all which I am not beyond before him. On the other hand, he might ask me the reasons behind saying the things I said or he might inform me of some things he felt I am not in the know. I was wrong in all counts, because one, he invited me to ask me to sincerely pinpoint the areas where he erred and for us to identify possible remedies. And two because I reminded him of his late father, who was an Alkali in Daura.

It was not the wordings of what he said, but the comportment exuding sincerity, empathy and other indescribable emotions that were all called into play. Naturally, I am a man with fewer tears, but the valve of my tears just burst open and I started shedding them profusely. When I was done, he asked about the tears, did he abuse or hit me? I cried because, mentally I was prepared to receive the stick not the carrot. But here I was being honoured with much more than the carrot. It was the enormity of what was offered me that weighed me down. I was attributed with trust and wisdom. These two qualities, as far as I was concerned, go along with the great responsibility of true leadership. At that time, just fresh from the university, for this great man to go into consultation with me was not only unexpected, it went beyond my world of realities. For me, only great men, men of wisdom, men of status, honourable men could seat in council for the noble. I was none of that.

After my explanation, the great man laughed again, he really laughed. He then confided that he too cried many years ago in a similar circumstance that was why I reminded him of his late father. This is the epitome of the story as narrated by Alhaji Sani Wali. He was in his teens it happened. His father always took him to his court where he adjudicated over numerous matters, some forwarded by the Emir, while others took their disputes to him directly. Using mainly the Holy Qur’an and other Islamic books on jurisprudence, as he receives petitions, accuses and suing, he litigate, indict, prosecute, fine, acquit, exonerate, set free or release those arraigned before him. That faithful day, he called his son and said: “Sani ka ji tsoron Allah, ka rika gaya mini gaskiya don kada in shiga wuta. Sani ka ji tausayi na, mutane basu gaya ma baban mutun gaskiya. Sani, ba za su gaya mini gaskiya ba, don su na son wani bukata daga gareni, ko su na jin tsoron na. Sani kai dana ne kada ka ji tsoro na, ka rika gaya mini gaskiya in na yi ba daidai ba.”

Alhaji Sani Wali said, even though he did not comprehend all the old man was saying, the manner in which he was earnestly entreating him made him cry. He said that he had never forgotten that day and what transpired between him and his father. Many years later, at any time he took a bold and unpopular stand on issues, his father’s voice comes back to him, pondering if he is actually on the right path. My criticism brought fresh memories of that day that was why he felt the need to see me. Was I the small boy his father was telling him to listen to for the truth? Had he actually been listening to people telling him he was wrong? He had been cogitating and brooding over long hours since the day he heard of my ceaseless criticisms. And he concluded, “If you would be bold enough to tell me the truth to my face, then I have found a true son my father told me about many years ago. Would you be able to do that?” Honestly, I did not answer, but I had the privilege of telling Alhaji Sani Wali some home truths when it mattered most. May his soul rest in perfect peace, amin. And my life had never been the same ever since. That was my story, how is it connected to the A.B.U. Vice Chancellor crisis? Plenty indeed, plenty my friend, as we shall see in the course of this peace.

MY ANALOGY

Let me again start with Prof S. U. Abdullahi. Many people criticised and even out rightly condemned him for grooming Prof Funtua to succeed him. This indeed is the highest hypocrisy of our times. We spend all our time and resources first looking for the right wife to enable us sire beautiful stock of children and secondly, glue to their whims and caprices over their growth into manhood as our successors. Jesus (P.B.U.H.) had his disciples, Mohammad (S.A.W.) his companions. Leadership even for the smallest institutional unit – the family or local, state, national or global, without a competent successor is indeed a vacuum. Billions are expended daily by nations in order to groom worthy successors. I am absolutely certain that Prof. Istifanus in both fronts – the family and the work place, is grooming worthy successors, men or women who would proclaim his image, knowledge, principles and certain privilege exemplary conducts of the Professor, which only his closest pupils could emulate. Mujadadi Shehu Dan Fodio had Muhammadu Bello; here in A.B.U., Professor Abdullahi Smith of the blessed memory had Dr Yusuf Bala Usman. Two factors are usually important in this case, the manner in which the successor ascends the throne and his ability to live up to the billing of the master. But there is nothing wrong in any man leaving a living legacy.

In taking a cue from my story and with all the moral scriptures guiding us, I strongly believe that there is nothing wrong in bringing Malam Adamu Ciroma to the right path if he truly erred. I shared the same sense of recognition that Adamu Ciroma as a respected statesman, earned for himself sacred “public image as a colossus in Nigerian public service and politics” but does that mean he is beyond making mistakes? Or does it mean only his ‘seniors or outstanding mates’ have the preserved right to intimate him of his wrong doings? That a ‘junior colleague’ does not have the moral standing to do that? I am sure, knowing Adamu Ciroma as a true malam, it is no longer only his children and his grandchildren that correct him anytime he makes a mistake but indeed the general public now do, for he is no longer a private man, he is a public figure. It is a great privilege to stand before a father or an icon to tell him where one disagreed with him based on grounded facts. By no means does that depict disrespect. Prof Istifanus Dafwang might be shocked to know that this legend – Adamu Ciroma, part of what makes him great, is his simplicity and humility. I had the privilege to see where he was taken to task on this issue of the VC succession bid and all of us, youngsters in his presence that day were humbled by his owing to the areas he accepted as errors of omission without any sense of shame or anger. He just took it in a smooth stride, yet he was very resolute on what he believed was right. It does not necessarily mean ‘disrespect... to debase the integrity and dignity of the honourable members of the Governing Council’; if some home truths were told. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in Dr Chafe or anybody at all pinpointing what he or she believes was wrong in the conduct of the selection process just because a larger than life figure in the person of Adamu Ciroma is chairing the Council.

This is what another larger than life, one of the few Nigerian founding fathers, an African icon, the Honourable Right Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe said, “We shall emphasize education of the head, hand and heart, to enable our children to gain knowledge and acquire skill and to cultivate a sense of duty to the community. Whilst emphasizing the three Rs, we shall not overlook the influence of religion on character development, hence we shall encourage ethical instruction in the schools of the land with a bias on absolute moral standards of Honesty, Purity, Unselfishness and Love, not on the basis of the principle of who is right but what is right.” Nnamdi Azikiwe, July 13, 1952. As if not satisfied, the great man again re-echoed this on January 6, 1954, “We must reiterate that our education must emphasize the principle of what is right as distinct from who is right in the interplay of social forces.”

The intent of my story is to inform many that most great men, are like Sani Wali and Adamu Ciroma, who gladly accept honest and objective assessments as well as constructive positive possibilities. Unfortunately, many of them are surrounded by sycophants, men and women who assume that these great men should only be told what they want to hear, some sweet goodies. They also believe that levelling objective criticisms to these men who are assumed to ‘know it all’ means being rude or disrespectful. The worst of all is that many place a cog in the wheel of daring youngsters who are bold enough to call a spade a spade before great men. It is therefore, not that honest young men are in short supply, but all efforts are made to shut them down. Only very few of us, were lucky to be groomed and mentored by men like Alhaji Sani Wali. This is a big problem indeed, although there abound in our society many Sani Walis.

 In the case of Malam Adamu Ciroma, what we all owe the old man is not a blind followership or submission but to sieve the content of the criticism and isolate the facts from fabrications to guide the man. We can as well condemn his attacker’s intention(s) but not the content if they are based on solid facts. What is important in this case is to differentiate between ‘who is right’ and ‘what is right’. It does not matter ‘who is right but what is right’. In the case of Dr Chafe, it is glaring that his attacks were because they parted ways with the Chairman of Council or the non support of their candidate, nothing more and nothing less. In fact, Allah had taken charge of the whole process by allowing the crisis. What moral justification does Dr Chafe and his co-Council members have to take decision on behalf of the university when their tenure expired as far back as April 19^th 2009? What does Kabir Chafe mean by “the munificence of the university administration’s leadership that took the sound political decision by allowing the six internal members of the Council, whose tenure had expired, to participate in the affairs of the Council”? Munificence, by whom and for what? Prof. Dafwang and the supporters of Prof Nok are all accomplices to this ‘munificence’ of allowing members of the Council who lacked the backing of the law to appoint a VC for the university. They all went along because they knew that they are in control of the Council to tilt the Council decision to their favour. Aha, ‘dara ne ta ci gida’ – this is the case of an own goal, for both Dr Chafe and Prof Dafwang. Allah Has prevailed over the conspiracy of Adamu Ciroma, S. U. Abdullahi and their accomplices to allow these members whose tenure expired to impose somebody without any moral and legal backing to do so. While it was a commendable decision for S. U. to vow not to add a second to his tenure, why did he impose a Council, whose tenure expired?

This is not the only reason that discredits Chafe’s agitation to dissolve the Council. Apart from the feeling of shame for Adamu Ciroma because he allowed his younger brothers to manipulate him, he did not do anything that warrants the call for the dissolution of the Council. After all, the man was just being magnanimous or is it ‘munificence’ to do their biddings? Hasn’t he allowed them to modify the guidelines? Is it the old man’s fault that they were not the only good schemers that the Nok’s camp outwitted them? Or is Chafe determined to drag everyone as he leaves Council? When they were scheming, they never put into cognizance that somebody somewhere may fit in or even be a better fit for their modifications. But there actually was someone in the person of Prof Nok. Should therefore Adamu Ciroma be crucified for their failure? No! There is no any justifiable reason to dissolve the Council, at least not in Dr Chafe’s submission. But this is by no means insinuates that I disagreed with the entire content of Chafe’s submission. No, that is wrong. It is logical that the supporters of Prof Nasidi, Nok, Zakari and any other candidate may condemn the entire content of Dr Kabir Chafe’s letter to the Minister just because they knew that he does not represent their interest. They would possibly start assembling arsenals to descend on Chafe. That would be wrong as already proven by the other scheming that eventually favoured Nok instead of Funtua. The right thing to do is to play the same game back at Chafe by picking the facts before condemning the others, simple.

OFFICIATING IS A SCIENCE

For instance, I totally agree with Dr Kabir Chafe over the Selection Committee’s scoring. I also understand the position of Prof Dafwang for believing that ‘the Selection Board members did an excellent job and adhered strictly to the scoring criteria’. What else would you expect, after all everything favours his candidate? But certainly, in all the fora I found myself discussing the scoring of the Selection Committee, I have vehemently disagreed with that purported scoring. Their case was also that of scheming which eventually boomeranged. A number of reasons informed my stand. First of all, it is a universal fact that officiating is an established science, with establish rules and regulations. The Selection Committee flaunted or worst of all disregarded any established officiating criteria. Let me illustrate using the two arenas where officiating has a regular occurrence – courtroom and sporting contests. In court judgement where a jury – usually could be up to twelve (12) people, is chosen to give a verdict on a legal case, it is expected that each of them must independently arrive at a decision before the final collation. It is not allowed to connive or conspire to arrive at one scoring. It is thus common to hear four (4) against eight (8) for example. Of course it is quite possible for all the members individually to arrive at the same decision. There is no problem with that in so far as it is established that each had taken an individual decision. Similarly, in sports contests where judges are expected to score the athletes, like in the case of boxing with manual scoring, it is a must for each judge to produce his scoring independent of each other before arriving at the average.

What this means is that the Selection Committee should have produced forty (40) score sheets, five (5) for each of the eight (8) contestants. The one score sheet in circulation therefore meant that heads were put together and agreed on what to give each candidate. It simply abused the principle behind refusing one person to score the contestants. This is unacceptable in a civilized society. Dafwang and I seem to agree on the Selection Committee’s collective decision instead of individual scoring. According to Dafwang, “Council members wanted to be sure that the average scores presented were indisputable since the summary of the individual scores by criteria for each candidate were not attached.” But this by no means meant that Prof Dafwang saw anything amiss. In defence, he pointed that “The Chairman then brought out a piece of paper on which he had written the individual scores for the eight candidates and read them out.” Yet, Dafwang could not understand that the Chairman only did what was expected of each member? Interesting! After pointing a number of anomalies to the Selection Committee, Dafwang provided that “They were however, asked to reconvene and tidy up their report by including a signed copy of the summary of candidates’.” How unfortunate!! By the time officiating officials had to be told what they are to include in their decision, it goes off the mark of that beautiful science, the science of officiating.

Again, both in sports and in the legal profession, it is not possible to allow the same officiating official to preside over the same contest or an appealed case as the case may be. Once allegation(s) are levelled against a referee, an umpire or judge that stalemated a sporting event, an independent official would be called to officiate the re-contest. In the court of law, a counsel can file for a court review for a presiding judge to be changed, if he establishes a case before a higher court that the presiding judge might become bias in the course of discharging court proceedings. Even where this does not take place that is the judge successfully passes his judgement, if an appeal is filed, he cannot again preside over the same case. I must state here that it is possible that the jury might be out, meaning that they could not reach a decision for some healthy reasons other than allegations. In sports for instance, natural reasons like rain or poor floodlights or other similar reasons are enough to set a re-contest with the same official(s). In this case, the presiding judge or the referee would re-officiate the re-match or the adjournment.

Even in the actual scoring of the candidates, the Selection Committee cannot substantiate how they arrived at their allotted marks. Again, due to scheming, they possibly forgot to read the guidelines they are using. In the guidelines, two items, numbers 7, which is the contribution to knowledge and 8, which is the interview performance carries higher marks. Item 7 carries 20 marks while item 8 is 25 points. My major bone of contention is item 7, the contribution to knowledge. In the Federal Ministry of Education Guidelines, it is simply “contribution to knowledge (academic publications, inventions etc)”. But in the adopted or modified guidelines, another phrase was added, possibly meant to better the chances of those who modified the guidelines. The added phrase is “after becoming a professor”, interesting, isn’t it? In content analysing the Curriculum Vitae’s of the contestants, this was obviously overlooked by the Selection Committee.

I have perused the promotion guidelines of the university, to become a professor, ten (10) journals and seven (7) seminar papers is the requirement. Unfortunately, for assessment after becoming a professor was not captured anywhere. Secondly, to become a professor, these documents must be peer reviewed by external examiners, carefully selected as authorities in their fields. The review usually takes time because of the sound vetting expected. Unfortunately, this is not the case for an ad hoc committee like the Selection Board. Agreed that “there were two members with background training and experience from the humanities and two from the natural sciences”, both time factor and indeed specialization were important handicap for the Selection Committee’s capacity to really do justice to the CV’s unlike the established peer review. I am absolutely sure that Prof Istifanus Dafwang as an accomplished scientist and a seasoned administrator in attempting to assess his staff for promotion to the rank of a Professor, specializing in animal science, would not send the staff’s papers to an authority in agronomy, even though both are agriculturist. Agreed, Prof Umar can adequately assess Prof Funtua, but as good as Prof Kwanashi is, he might not be able to do justice to poetry. Dafwang knows fully the place of specialization the higher you go in the search for knowledge. In the case of professorship, it is reverentially guarded. This means that within the short period of time, the Selection Committee does not have the capacity to peer review the CV’s of these outstanding professors, except by mere counting of published works.

I would illustrate further that, Prof Nok’s publications after becoming a professor are thirty nine (39) with three (3) being the first author. The university promotion guidelines stated that first or correspondent author must possess at least fifty percent (50%) of the joint publications. Without a peer review, there is no Jupiter on earth who would establish the superiority of three (3) against five (5). But in this case, it’s not only five (5). Prof. Funtua has twenty eight (28), out of which ten (10) were as first author; Prof Zakari had thirty (30) with all as first author, both after becoming professors. What magic did the Selection Committee use to arrive at the wide margin between Prof Nok and the others, a margin of over ten (10) marks? I wondered what criteria the Selection Committee use in content analysing Prof Nasidi’s three (3) books, where a chapter equals a paper or his ‘university orator’, editorial responsibilities, creative works of poetry plus the conventional five (5) publications all after becoming a professor. Please, help me out!

In the next two highest marks, ‘qualification and university teaching/research experience’ and ‘administrative experience’ with both fifteen (15) points, again I wonder how Nok could beat veteran professors of seventeen (17) and eleven (11) years respectively – Nasidi and Zakari in that order. If that was not enough, they all have their maximum four (4) points for being Heads of Department, maximum five (5) points as Dean/Director even though Nok and Funtua are still serving, meaning they could not attract the maximum points, amazingly, none of them could be able to get the remaining six (6) point as DVC except Prof Nasidi. The reoccurring question remains, how comes the wide margin between Nok and the rest? Even in “professional Standing/honours”, Prof Nok could not have up to four (4) points difference with the standing professors. So also would be the remaining three (3) criteria of five, five (5) points totalling fifteen (15) points. These discrepancies are enough pointers for what must have transpired at the scoring session of the Joint Council/Selection Board. Even at the interview, as long as there were not up to forty (40) score sheets to arrive at those scores, there is nothing transparent about the work of the Selection Committee.

I must emphasize here that none of the contenders for the post should be blamed for the scheming of their supporters or that of the Selection Committee unless established that they are directly involved. But my sympathy goes to Prof Nok, because, I am now confident that none of his supporters actually know who Professor Nok is. In the course of advancing his course, they have smeared him and insulted his personal achievements. Does Nok need the Selection Committee’s arbitrary scoring to place him amongst the best of the contestants? No! Does he need the Christian and southern Kaduna interest groups to champion his cause? No!! In the course of his career he has proven to be an excellent sportsman. They should have allowed merit to take its natural course. From the foregoing, the Selection Committee just had to be replaced with an independent team. The present committee cannot justify the scoring any more. Any attempt to insist on the previous scores would be interpreted as concocting scores where there were none to justify their initial claim. On the other hand, any attempt to modify those scores would still indict them, ‘wannan shi ne tsaka mai wuya’. The part of honour is simply to replace them accordingly, who knows, they might be vindicated by the independent team?

Going through both Chafe’s and Dafwang’s letters to the Honourable Minister, they are indeed birds of the same feather. Both of them wrote petitions, both have a candidate and both had “half truths and outright lies”. I however, agreed with Dafwang that from Chafe’s letter, it is clear that the Registrar is a strong possibility as the source of Chafe’s official documents. It should not also be the position of Chafe to go in the defence of an officer of the Registrar’s status, except if the Registrar had “hired” him to do his biding, which ought to be spelt out clearly.

But I disagreed with him on his accusation on ‘not properly capturing all the decision of Council in the minutes’. Dafwang seems to allow his emotions to affect his fair approach to the issue. One of the cardinal reasons behind reading and amending the minutes is to acknowledge human limitations by ensuring that the correct proceedings were captured. But to insinuate the omissions no matter their degree to be deliberate, might not be true and cannot be easily proved. The venom in such attack does not depict Prof Dafwang’s natural arbiter as one of the few most senior professors. Dafwang’s petition against the Ministry’s Representative is really worth establishing. What I found most interesting is Dafwang’s position that “obviously she has become very partisan in this subject and cannot be trusted to play the role of an objective umpire...”, that should also go for the Selection Committee. Sir, don’t you think so?

The major problem is that we intentionally become blind to issues once they are not in our favour or do not favour our candidates. Fortunately for me, most of the contestants are either my mentors or friends. What I am determined to put across to all of them is that if Ahmadu Bello University was not the proponent of ‘agreeing to disagree and disagreeing to agree’, it is indisputable that this university at one point solidified the concept. Again, as far as I am concerned, in regards to this matter, ‘there is neither permanent friend nor permanent enemy but indeed permanent interest’, that is, my alma mater – Ahmadu Bello University, (A.B.U.) Zaria.

 Usman, Sule Machika, wrote from Zaria.

Robot  # 1 | 25.09.2009 05:26

...Read the full article.

abdulmumin  # 2 | 26.09.2009 01:34

In other climes, academicians disdain administrative jobs. No true academician wants to be saddled with the mundane and pedestrian tasks of awarding contracts, etc. True academicians focus on researches and other academic pursuits.  But this is where everything is stood on its head hence our Ivory Towers are no different from Wadata House, the headquarters of the People Deceiving Party.