The outrage in UNILAG

Granted that southwestern Nigerians especially, and lovers of Democracy in general have always called for the immortalization of the since-fallen Democracy Icon, MKO Abiola, it must be noted that such calls have evolved (or withered) over time and more urgency has been given to issues of infrastructure, institutional building, anti-corruption and other critical indices of […]

Granted that southwestern Nigerians especially, and lovers of Democracy in general have always called for the immortalization of the since-fallen Democracy Icon, MKO Abiola, it must be noted that such calls have evolved (or withered) over time and more urgency has been given to issues of infrastructure, institutional building, anti-corruption and other critical indices of nation-building in recent years.  At best, die-hard ‘June 12ers’, have called for that date (June 12) to be declared Democracy Day, or MKO Abiola Day, rather than the 29th of May, which we recently observed for the 12th year running.  Many see the 29th of May as a day that depicts the final usurpation of the MKO Abiola mandate. It was therefore a rude shock and an unpleasant surprise, that that date was chosen by the president for this assault on UNILAG (or is it now MAUL?).

Viewed from a different angle however, the issue of honouring the late MKO Abiola, if it needed to be addressed, could have been done without the insensitive decimation of the goodwill (built over 50 years), of another institution.  The question is; why UNILAG?  Why kill a brand when there is nothing absolutely wrong with it, or when the whole world now knows the brand?  Why obliterate all the efforts of students who have suffered through that institution, parents who have paid through their noses for their children to attend the university and are proud of the legacy, lecturers who have kept many sleepless nights, administrators who have made personal sacrifices, people from across all walks of life, who have slaved on, hanging on for the pride of serving, and adding value to, UNILAG?

Some have adduced the move to the need for the ruling party to capture Lagos State and thus the need to begin to build its structures on ground.  From the fallouts of the policy, it seems it is indeed a political masterstroke, for it has divided the opposition to Goodluck Jonathan, right in the middle!  People are now saying the same thing, yet quarreling with each other.  Most people agree that MKO should be honoured, but some said any honour is commendable, while some (like me), believe this honour is a poisoned chalice, or if I may brorrow Wole Soyinka’s analogy, a Trojan Horse.  For rather than fix federal roads within and outside Lagos, the government of the day chose to exercise its maximum power by laying claim to the sweat and blood of those who have suffered and died to take that institution to its enviable position as one of the very best in Nigeria today.  Alas, the VC of Unilag just died less than a month ago, and while the students and workers were still grieving, and his body still in the mortuary,  this happened.  Is government not being insensitive?

In a way also, confining the ‘honour’ to MKO Abiola to Lagos, sorry Akoka, makes him into a ‘local’ man, or at best, another Yoruba Champion, whereas what he died for was a national issue, so why not a national monument, right in the seat of power, or the powerful guys don’t like seeing that name?

The question has come up about who owns UNILAG.  Many people have said the institution is owned solely by the Federal Government, who pays the staff, picks up the bills and should therefore call the shots.  Their arguments are fatally flawed by the fact that UNILAG is an educational institution, and so if the Federal Government owns the building legally, it could hardly be legal for it to also lay claim to all intellectual property, painstakingly put together by generations of students, lecturers and workers, in that honourable university.  If it was possible to solely claim ownership of such an institution, then the Federal Government should also reserve the right to amend the curriculum and dictate the textbooks to be applied, at every level of learning in that school.  If the government consults the academia in shaping curriculum, it should also, of necessity, consult the same people before changing the name of the institution.  Perhaps it is a matter of due process.

Furthermore, universities also raise their own funds, through expensive MBA programmes and whatnots.  To the extent that they raise funds – consultancies here, alumni donations there – universities are also stakeholders in themselves.  Alumni should also have a say, and most importantly, the students should be carried along.

It is doubtful that graduates of UNILAG should consider themselves ‘government property’, just because they graduated from a Federally-funded university.  Another angle to consider is that since UNILAG was founded 50 years ago, perhaps the decision for name change belongs to all the governments that have nurtured the place since that time.  Perhaps a Council of State meeting ought to have been convened to ratify the decision.

I believe that the Federal Government alone cannot lay claim to the ownership of any university in Nigeria, for the fact that the most important asset of a university is not the bricks and mortar, but certainly the unquantifiable amount of thinking and mind-moulding that goes on in there.  But we have devalued as a people, and oftentimes, we love to emphasise the monetary angle alone.  Many supporters of the decision have stated clearly, ‘that whoever pays the piper should dictate the tune’.  As silly as that argument sounds to whoever truly appreciates the power of knowledge and the sheer importance of our educational institutions, even if we take such on board, we would realize that there are minority shareholders who should have been informed or carried along.

The Acting Vice Chancellor himself said he and his lieutenants were surprised – perhaps they heard it over the radio.  The Alumni Association would have contributed one or two things to the university.  The parents have paid fees and/or donated things to the university.  These minority stakeholders should be considered.  We live in an age where the shareholder perspective is being jettisoned for a broader, stakeholder angle.  We should be seen to be gravitating towards this new level of progress.  But it seems the so-called honouring of MKO Abiola, was heavy on politics and subterfuge, and unfortunately, it is an attempt by the political class of today to punish innocent students and fresh graduates of an established brand institution.  We must call government to attention. More next week.