 |
| FUOYE campus watches as leadership trust frays |
The report, carried by an online outlet, said the pro-chancellor raised those complaints inside council meetings and in written notes to colleagues. That claim sits beside a wider pile of trouble for the school.
The row arrives as the university reels from months of different allegations, including sexual harassment claims, staff unrest, and court filings that kept the matter in public view.
Staff unions and student groups pressed for action months ago, and some outside allies called for calm while investigations went on. The scene has been loud and messy.
The new complaint centers on how adverts, shortlists, and approvals were handled for recent hires. If those steps were tightened to favour friends, that would break the plain rules meant to keep hiring fair.
The pro-chancellor who flagged the issue stepped away from his role soon after, saying he could not remain where he felt the process had failed. That resignation sharpened the dispute and pushed it higher.
At the same time, the vice-chancellor named at the center of the claims has been on leave and has filed lawsuits against outlets that published audio and reports tied to the probe. The legal filings put another layer over an already tense scene.
He told courts the material damaged his name and asked for retractions and damages in formal filings, while his supporters say the council processes were followed. The case now runs in two tracks: legal and administrative.
Publishers who ran exclusives on alleged loyalty hires say they relied on documents and sources before publishing. They argue their checks mattered and that readers deserve the full file trail.
Other outlets and investigative reporters published leaked audio and memos that, they say, show pressure, queries, and uneven moves around jobs and contracts inside the school. Those items have sharpened doubts among critics.
The governing council examined some complaints earlier and at one point cleared the vice-chancellor of the sexual harassment charge, a finding that left supporters insisting the matter was settled. That clearance, though, did not end public scrutiny.
Critics point to gaps in transparency, the timing of adverts, and the movement of names on shortlists as signs that rules might not have been followed. These complaints are the sort that need paper proof, not just loud assertions.
A few council members walked out of interviews and selection meetings in protest long before the latest headlines. That walkout is part of a longer pattern of mistrust that stretches back to prior leadership rows.
Records available to the public are incomplete and that hurts clarity. Lawyers say court orders will likely hinge on meeting minutes, signed adverts, and formal approvals that show who did what, and when. Those documents will matter most.
This whole matter is a test of institutional care. If managers bypassed panels or ran adverts without approvals, the legal and administrative stakes rise quickly. The courts could be asked to unwind hires or to force a public audit.
Conversely, if the council files show clear votes, minutes, and approvals, supporters of the vice-chancellor will say due process was followed and will press for calm and for the focus to move back to campus life. The truth will land in the files, not in hot social media posts.
For staff and students the dispute is not abstract. Promotions and job chances shape pay packets, family security, and life plans. When hiring looks unfair, morale falls and the best people start to look elsewhere.
The ministry of education and other regulators have a role to play by asking for open records and making sure rules were followed. Public trust in universities rests on visible process, not private deals.
What readers should watch for now are clear items: court papers filed by the parties, council minutes that show approvals and votes, recruitment adverts with dates, and signed appointment letters. Those things will either support or undercut the claims we are seeing.
The vice-chancellor’s suits against publishers add another layer, since media houses will need to show what checks they ran before publishing. That legal back-and-forth means more documents will see light if judges demand them.
If the files show that internal panels were bypassed, or adverts posted without approvals, council decisions could come under review and some appointments might be subject to reversal or other remedies. Law gives a path for review when process is faulty.
If, instead, the papers show proper steps and recorded votes, then the focus will shift to how to rebuild trust and to fixing any weak spots in governance so the next selection is beyond reproach. That is a practical fix many stakeholders will want.
This is not the first time FUOYE has seen controversies around appointments and the picking of leaders. Past rows left scars, and those memories make many watchers suspicious of quick denials and rounded statements. History matters here.
Good reporting will follow the paper trail, verify minutes, and check adverts. Readers should be wary of hot takes and look for the documents that back big claims. The full file trail, once published, will clear a lot up.
Until the key minutes and adverts are public, strong claims deserve healthy caution. The public should press for openness and for officials to make records available so facts, not rumor, guide any fix.
If you care about fair schools, demand the records, read them, and ask leaders to explain the steps they took. That is the best way to spot whether there was a problem and where it came from.
This local fight at FUOYE holds wider lessons for every university that wants merit, fairness, and calm campus life. When rules bend, everyone pays, and the community should expect answers that rest on paper, not on noise.
I will keep tracking filings, council papers, and any ministry notes, and I will add updates when clear records appear from official files. For now, treat raw claims with care, and watch for the minutes and adverts that will tell the fuller story.