Heads to roll over job scam at Lafia varsity

Corruption and administrative malfeasance were the main reasons for sacking workers at the Federal University Lafia (FuLafia), Nasarawa State, an investigation carried out by the Daily Trust can authoritatively reveal. It would be recalled that the university had in August sacked 35 workers, mainly in the registry, with the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Muhammad Sanusi Liman, mentioning […]

Corruption and administrative malfeasance were the main reasons for sacking workers at the Federal University Lafia (FuLafia), Nasarawa State, an investigation carried out by the Daily Trust can authoritatively reveal.
It would be recalled that the university had in August sacked 35 workers, mainly in the registry, with the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Muhammad Sanusi Liman, mentioning only the lack of fund as reason for the sack.
However, a staff in the office of the registrar, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the vice-chancellor “only gave what can be described as an unimportant reason for sacking the workers.”
The source said that the reasons for the sack bordered on corruption and malfeasance, alleging that the university, “under the previous management, did not adhere to standard recording procedure and approvals for employment.”
He alleged that until the appointment of Liman as the vice-chancellor, the university’s employment offers were freely traded for between N250, 000 and N400, 000.
He said embarrassed by that development, Liman established a committee in May with a view to correcting the situation.
The report of the committee, titled: “Report on investigation panel on employment of some new staff without proper authorization,” revealed that a staff working in the office of the registrar, Mr Markson Sabo Tsala with employment number J.0088, and another staff at the registry, Mr Victor Nyam (J.0070), “had been linked to illegal employment deals for some time but no action was taken.”
The report cited, among several others, the case of a former permanent secretary with the Nasarawa State Government, Alhaji Ishaq Bunu, who was defrauded of the sum of N800, 000, being the amount he unsuccessfully paid in April 2015 to secure employment for his three sons at the university.
Appearing before the committee, Bunu said “that his children were not employed as promised (him) by Ahmed Muhammad AbdulAziz Gamji.”
Gamji (S.108) is a staff of the university’s general studies unit, whose name was severally mentioned in the report.
He told the panel “that the only money he collected was N800, 000 from Alhaji Ishaq Bunu and later admitted collecting N430, 000 from Alhaji Musa Jibrin and N550, 000 from Malam Adamu Yanko.”
The report said that a staff, Mr Tayo Kehinde (S.0727), stated that he gave Mr Clement Usoro Jackson (S.0539), another staff, “the sum of N2,050, 000: 00 (scanned copies of the deposit slips of payment made into Tayo Kehinde’s account are in possession of the panel) to facilitate employment of four people.”
The panel observed “that there may be more such cases of illegal employment in the system.”
Our source, who claimed to have performed a central role in the course of the committee’s work, said that many highly placed people at the university were involved in the employment racket, adding: “Soon, some workers will be sanctioned and others could be dismissed for gross misconduct and corruption when the university’s Governing Council Disciplinary Committee sits between October 17 and 21. Many cases of wrongdoings will be decided by the committee.”
The investigative panel, in its report, stated: “The panel views the illegal employments as unprecedented” and recommended that “staff, in particular recommending officers, should exercise due diligence in making recommendations for approval in order to forestall a reoccurrence of such.”
It also recommended staff audit to fish out illegally employed workers and to overhaul the university’s establishment unit.
The panel said that members of staff found culpable in the employment racket should be punished to restore the integrity of the university’s employment system, adding that the vice-chancellor’s directive for employment should be explicit and unambiguous.
According to the report, the university’s registrar said he “was not sure if the signature on the appointment letters is his or forged.”
It said that he said “the signature looked like his,” though, “it could have been slipped in for him to sign alongside other documents.”
But, dissatisfied with the steps taken by the FuLafia management culminating in their sack, some of the affected workers sought intervention of the National Assembly in the matter.
Specifically, the sacked workers took their case to the House of Representatives Committee on Federal Character majorly seeking, among other reliefs, order for their return to work.
However, what transpired at the House, according to our source, was “interesting and very revealing,” as far as the issue of employment scam at the university was concerned.
The source said that the vice-chancellor, who was then barely two months in office, expressed his surprise with the way issue of employment was carelessly and selfishly handled by the university’s management before his arrival.
He said that he was not made aware of the employment of the sacked members of staff, at a time when the institution was struggling to pay its workers.
However, the source alleged that the university’s registrar insisted that the former vice-chancellor made it known to her successor in her handover note to him that fresh employments were made and the lucky people would soon resume work.
“The vice-chancellor looked dumbfounded and surprised,” the source said, adding: “The truth, however, is that there’s nothing like that in the handover note. The only thing that came close to that is in page 22 of her handover note, where the former vice-chancellor said that she applied to the Federal Character Commission (FCC) for approval for waiver of advert for recruitment of academic staff.”
“But the approval was not granted as at March this year when the sacked workers were engaged and most of those employed were not academic staff.”
When contacted, the vice-chancellor said that the matters have been referred to the school’s governing board’s disciplinary committee, adding: “I cannot pre-empt the governing council’s disciplinary committee work.”