‘A system that listens. A system that serves. A system that responds. A system that delivers. This is not just a slogan. It is the standard by which I want this administration to be judged.’ These were the words of the Students’ Union President, Olalekan Kujembola, during his inaugural speech, promising Great Ife students ‘A System That Works.’
Team Synergy, led by Olalekan Kujembola, was officially inaugurated on September 11, affirming its renewed commitment to student welfare. But is this really a platform for all, or a platform for a few?
On October 30, students of Obafemi Awolowo University were confronted with an unexpected school fees increment, barely three days before freshers were expected to resume, according to the university’s approved academic calendar. Returning undergraduates were also left with just two weeks and two days before resumption when the increment was reflected on the university’s e-portal.
Amid harsh economic realities, the sudden change came without prior communication to adequately prepare students for the financial implications. At the crucial moment when communication matters to keep students informed, the Union remains silent.
Perhaps the system is already working, as promised by the Students’ Union President. Maybe students are simply yet to understand how it operates, or perhaps they are still waiting for the user manual. But how does this contrast with the President’s earlier promise of a ‘Platform for All’?
For OAU students whose interests the Union claims to represent, being left uninformed about decisions affecting their finances and studentship is becoming another source of frustration.
The Increment Among Many Other Challenges
With the university’s internal transport system still facing concerns despite the addition of more freshers to its existing population, increments in transport fares, agitations over the removal of Professor Wale Omole’s pictures, complaints about the sports facilities fee, delays in uploading results from previous academic sessions, and struggles over bedspace balloting, another development has arrived to compete for the title of the Great Hike: the school fees increment.
A decision to increase school fees for freshers and returning students came without prior notice to adequately inform students and enable them to plan their finances. After all, school fees are only one part of a student’s resumption budget. Accommodation, feeding, transportation, and other expenses also demand attention.
With no prior communication from the university, students and parents were left trying to establish whether the new figures reflected on the e-portal were accurate, adding uncertainty to an already stressful resumption period.
The Union’s Silence: Negotiating the Price, Forgetting the People?
Beyond the financial implications, the absence of timely information left students and parents struggling to understand what had changed and what they were expected to do next.
Similarly, after the OAU app saga, the new system changed, requiring returning students to pay school fees before balloting for a bedspace can take place; compared to the existing way, the Union remains silent
The question was simple: what was the Students’ Union’s response?
More than seven hours after the increment appeared on the e-portal, the Union had yet to issue a public statement addressing the development. Emotions were high. Students panicked. Parents became anxious. Yet the Union remained silent. This moment of silence prompts a question: was the development entirely unexpected?
If the Union was unaware of the situation, would it not have issued words of acknowledgement, just as its Public Relations Officer, Isaac Oluwagbami, did during the OAU App saga?
Could the Union have been waiting for an opportunity to communicate after the initial reactions had settled, or was this simply a failure to respond when students needed information the most?
The apparent silence from both the university management and the Students’ Union naturally raises questions about the communication surrounding the increment. It is understandable that students would want to know whether there had been prior discussions, what the Union knew, and when it knew it. Then came the negotiation.
‘And a commitment to ensure that the office of the President is not just occupied, but used for the good of the people. I cannot promise that every problem will disappear overnight. I cannot promise that every decision will be perfect. But I can promise you this: We will show up, we will listen, we will work.’
Did the Union show up and listen when the increment first reflected on the e-portal?
The Union appeared to become more visible after the increment had already taken effect and a reduction had reportedly been negotiated. Will the Union continue to show up after major decisions affecting students’ lives and academics have already happened?
How long will OAU students continue to bear the burden of unfavourable increments while concerns about the facilities that should make their overall stay on campus worthwhile remain unaddressed?
This raises a contrasting question: after the school fees increment, was the Union negotiating the price on behalf of students, or negotiating the students’ right to know?
The Clarification: Was there a Script?
The circumstances surrounding the increment became even more complicated with the sudden reflection of an additional ₦22,000 in returning students’ school fees, the revised figures for freshers, and the circulation of unverified fee breakdowns. With official explanations still unclear, students were left trying to make sense of the development
Could Team Synergy have been unaware of the increment before it appeared on the e-portal? Or was the Union already aware of the development and the possibility of a subsequent reduction? More importantly, did the eventual negotiation reflect what students actually wanted, or did it settle for an outcome that had not been clearly demanded by those the Union represents?
Then came the great clarification: more than seven hours after the increment first appeared on the e-portal, the Union eventually issued a clarification explaining the breakdown of the new fees and the university management’s position.
READ ALSO: School Fees Hike: OAU Students Express Concerns Over Sudden Increment, Lack of Prior Notice
But this raises another question: when did the Students’ Union become the university management’s mouthpiece?
According to NANS President, Comrade Akinteye Babatunde Afeez, in a recent X post, he tweeted, ‘ The SUG is established to protect and represent the interests of students, not to negotiate away their welfare for personal benefits.
‘In most of these cases, I discovered that some SUG Presidents had already reached agreements with management to support the increment, simply because their own SUG allowances or dues would be increased. In other cases, management allegedly promised certain SUG leaders personal financial benefits in exchange for their cooperation.’
He further said that. ‘To every SUG President out there, remember that your loyalty should be to the students, who elected you. You cannot collect a mandate from students and use it to bargain against their interests. Student leadership is a responsibility…’ The unfold of the increment incidents and silence surrounding it raises an eye to what the NANS president had said.
Rather than clearly communicating the concerns and demands of students, the clarification appeared to place greater emphasis on explaining the university management’s position. Was this the carefully rehearsed performance of a system in which everyone knew their lines except the students? The development seems particularly interesting when placed against the President’s inaugural commitment:
‘My dear Great Ife students, today, I am not here to make another campaign promise. The campaign is over. Today, I am here to make a commitment. A commitment to serve. A commitment to listen, a commitment to be accountable, a commitment to work with every arm of this Union.’ The recent development raises questions about the administration’s commitment to students’ welfare.
After the Union listened to students’ demands following the increment, did students ask for a reduction, or did they ask for the increment to be reversed entirely? Could the negotiated reduction have addressed the concerns of students, or did it simply make an otherwise unfavourable development easier to accept?
Could it be that everyone had received their lines except the students? Team Synergy: Did Everyone Sync?
The university management and the Students’ Union may have found common ground on the increment, but where does that leave the students whose interests the Union is supposed to represent? If everyone is indeed in sync, why do the students appear to be the only ones struggling to understand the arrangement?
The President had also promised: ‘And when we make mistakes, we will have the courage to correct them. Because Great Ife deserves more than promises; Great Ife deserves results.’
Great Ife students deserve more than repeated assurances of commitment to their welfare. The President promised results, but can students genuinely point to those results when decisions affecting their finances and welfare continue to leave them with unanswered questions? Perhaps the system is working after all, but are the students truly part of it?
A System That Works or Recycled Promises?
‘A system that listens. A system that serves. A system that responds. A system that delivers. This is not just a slogan. It is the standard by which I want this administration to be judged.’
It begs the question: is the administration truly starting its tenure on the right foot after promising that ‘A System That Works’ is not merely a slogan, but the standard by which it should be judged?
The Great Ife students are watching as the realities of a system that works unfold: whether the system works or it is a recycled old promise.
Discover more from ACJOAU
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.