On Wednesday, July 25, 2025, the Student Representative Council (SRC) of the Great Ife Students’ Union, through its release, allegedly accused Central Executives Council members of financial misappropriation and constitutional aberration, resulting in the impeachment of the CEC members. The decision was made at the last business meeting of the SRC during the debate and approval of the statement of account sitting, where significant financial inconsistencies were noted by the Honourable House.
As contained in the press release, the 9 CEC members were accused of diversifying the Union’s funds collected from 20 shops within the SUB building into their accounts. Thus, all members of the CEC were impeached until they refund a sum of ₦1,744,000 within 1 hour of the release, except the President, Omoboriowo Isaac Damilola (Dr. Bush); the Secretary General, Babatimehin Kinfeosi (Kinfeosi); and the Assistant General Secretary, Omisore Micheal (Prof Mike), provide a comprehensive report as a rejoinder to disprove the claim, and failure to do so within the stipulated hour will result in permanent impeachment of the CEC members.
Additionally, as contained in the release, the SRC impeached both the Secretary General and the Assistant Secretary General with immediate effect on the ground that the receipt presented which showed that they both received ₦120,000 and ₦15,000 for SUB CAR PARK and the SUB TV ROOM respectively and specifically that the Assistant Secretary General collected ₦12,000 and ₦7,500 for SUB TV ROOM which did not reflect in the Union’s account. Given this, the SRC therefore ordered that the union officers refund a sum of ₦250,000 within 2 working days as meted out for the embezzlement of funds as contained in the release. Following this, the SRC warned all current and future occupants of space within the SUB Building to henceforth pay only into the recognised Union account and not the personal account of any person or group of persons.
Similarly, the SRC also raised serious allegations regarding the blatant display of contempt by Omobriowo Damilola, the President, during the Business Sitting where the Electoral Commission was inaugurated. The House proscribed the President on the ground that: firstly, he, in a full rage, disrupted the proceedings; secondly, that he furiously jumped to the podium to attack the speaker; an act which the House deemed uncultured and malicious. Hence, as contained in the release, anyone who contravenes this order would immediately have their seats declared vacant.
In light of this gross misconduct, the House resolved, by unanimous vote, to impeach the president with immediate effect. As quoted in their release, “a leader who willfully incites chaos and disregards due process is unfit to hold the office of the president and does not represent the values, disciplines, and culture of Great Ife.”
Conversely, concerning the previous release on the case of financial misappropriation, the House listed the officers who had been refunded as of the time of the release. The officers listed are: Christiana Odediji (the Vice President), Aka Daniel (Public Relations Officer), Ikeoluwa Fajuyi (Financial Secretary), Tijani Yusuf (Director of Socials and Culture), and Oluwayimika Pelumi (Director of Sports).
ACJOAU reached out to the parties concerned in the story to get their parts of the story. These individuals include: Omoboriowo Damilare, Babatimehin Kinfeosi, Omisore Michael, Oladapo Olakunle, and Alawode Ewaoluwa.
Omobriowo Damilola
Speaking with ACJOAU Correspondent, Omoboriowo Damilola Isaac (Dr Bush), stated that he was surprised by the haphazard quorum formed by the SRC to suspend him and other CEC members. In his words, he noted that, ‘Frankly, I cannot pinpoint what led to the court case because I wasn’t present during the sitting where the impeachment occurred. Very few people were. The number didn’t even meet the quorum required for such a decision. People were later called in to boost numbers, but even then, the count remained inadequate,’ he expressed.
Accordingly, Dr Bush, referencing the constitution, stated that ‘the final parliamentary sitting should take place only after the electoral commission has been formed and elections held. Those events had already taken place, so technically, parliament had already concluded. I was absent that day because we were hosting the final round of a long-scheduled faculty quiz competition. The event had been delayed before due to a lack of funds, and we could not postpone it again. While I was at the quiz, I saw a release announcing my impeachment, without prior notice, explanation, or any formal accusation. Nobody reached out to me. The release claimed “financial misappropriation”, but they had no evidence.’
Adding further, he claimed that he still seeks to take the matter to a higher court other than the Judicial Council of the Students’ Union that exonerated him from the misappropriation of funds and gross misconduct charges levelled against him and co-executives, and as such, would not release other valid evidence he has as instructed by his counsel. ‘I am pursuing further legal action for defamation in a higher court because the Judicial Council, by constitutional limits, cannot handle defamation—they can only sit on matters related to corruption or constitutional violations.’
READ ALSO: The 53rd Executive Council Welcome Address
Condemning the impeachment, Dr Bush said, ‘The impeachment lacked proper investigation and due process. It happened at a session with no quorum, as it is rushed and has a political undertone behind it.’ He then said he intentionally refrained from speaking publicly and has instead resorted to legal action. Similarly, he claimed he did this intentionally so that what he says or reacts to will not be used or misconstrued in a context that would render his evidence null and void before the court. Thus, he maintained while speaking with ACJOAU Correspondent that he will not release some other valid proof he has until he takes the matter to a higher court.
Dr Bush, on the falsification of signatures, accused the SRC of presenting documents that had forged signatures. He said, ‘The Judicial Council has now heard the case. It took five attempts to get it to that point, starting July 1st. Everyone presented evidence. Their key evidence—an attendance sheet—was falsified. Signatures did not match with prior sessions. I have proof and can share images to show the forgery. The political environment was tense. There was pressure to include certain names.’ He asserted, ‘I have evidence to disprove their claims, but since legal proceedings are ongoing, I’m being careful not to disclose them prematurely.
Dr Bush, in the evidence provided, stated that names like Osundele Precious (number 40 on the attendance list), Bamitole Festus Ayobami, ETF hall chairman (number 39), Ajao Sodiq, Faculty of Science (number 21), and Olorunnisola Oluwatayo, among others, have signatures that do not tally.
On Suspension, Standing Orders & Sitting Events
On matters of suspension, standing orders, and sitting events, Dr Bush highlighted a “breach of conduct” and the Speaker’s inability to convincingly define what a standing order is or specify what a quorum entails. In his words, he said,’ they later claimed my suspension was due to ‘breaching conduct’ at the sitting, not financial misappropriation. But their first release accused me of that. Both releases exist, and I’ve read them. When the speaker was called to the witness box to define standing order and what a quorum constituted, he did not know the definition of standing order, nor did he know what a quorum entails, even after being him enough time.’
In light of the gross misconduct and disruption of the peaceful proceedings, he claimed that he was not aware that there was any Standing Order already established by the SRC. He, however, said, “The sitting in question had already been postponed multiple times. It was meant to nominate the electoral commission. Faculties usually nominate one commissioner each. Now, with a new faculty added, there were 14 faculties—so 14 commissioners should have been chosen.
Dr Bush stated, ‘The Speaker insisted on nominating only 13 and claimed that was sufficient. Interestingly, two of those 13 were from the Speaker’s faculty. That leaves two faculties—Clinical Sciences (mine) and Social Sciences—without representation. Social Sciences had multiple candidates for key positions, and yet, when a student from that faculty was called to nominate, others from the same faculty protested. The Speaker ignored this and kept pointing to the same person repeatedly, rather than choosing another representative.’
He proceeded by stating that when his faculty was passed over entirely, he stood up and said the process must be completed fairly. Two faculties being excluded from representation in the electoral commission is, according to him, unjust.
On the issue of the Standing Order, Dr Bush said, ‘It was claimed I violated a standing order by approaching the podium—but I was not the only one. Many others did so before me. The order supposedly said “no one should debate leadership” and “no one should approach the podium’ and that violating either of the standing orders would lead to impeachment.
Furthermore, he claimed that ‘these standing orders were unconstitutional. The constitution already defines an impeachment process (Section 67 or 68). Standing orders cannot override it unless two-thirds of the members vote to suspend that section. That never happened. Moreover, I did not even know the standing order existed until afterwards. It was not declared in line with constitutional provisions. Even if they claim I violated it, their process was illegitimate.’
Section 67 of the Sancosant constitution of the Great Ife Students’ Union talks about “REMOVAL OF OFFICERS OF THE UNION”. It states:
(1) The SRC shall approve the Union shall cease to hold office if a motion for hisremoval is supported by two thirds of the members of the SRC present andvoting at a meeting provided quorum is formed. (2) If:(a) A notice in writing is given to the Speaker of the SRC that the conduct ofthe officer be investigated so as to ascertain whether he is quiltmisconduct in the performance of the functions of his office; and(b) The notice is signed by not less than one quarter of all members of theSRC to consider the matter and he or any other person presiding at themeeting, shall after permitting the motion/notice and the officer shall bedismissed on a vote of at least two thirds of the members of the SRCpresent and voting.REMOVAL OF OFFICERS OF THE UNION(1) The SRC shall approve the Union shall cease to hold office if a motion for hisremoval is supported by two thirds of the members of the SRC present andvoting at a meeting provided quorum is formed. (2) If:(a) A notice in writing is given to the Speaker of the SRC that the conduct ofthe officer be investigated so as to ascertain whether he is quiltmisconduct in the performance of the functions of his office; and(b) The notice is signed by not less than one quarter of all members of theSRC to consider the matter and he or any other person presiding at themeeting, shall after permitting the motion/notice and the officer shall bedismissed on a vote of at least two thirds of the members of the SRCpresent and voting.
Dr Bush explained that the Speaker ended the sitting early, calling for a recess. At that point, parliament was not in session, and standing orders no longer applied. Yet, he used that moment to declare that only 13 commissioners would serve, excluding faculties like his and Social Sciences, which had multiple candidates running in the upcoming elections. He asserted, ‘I stood up to protest the marginalisation of two faculties. It was never about personal interest, but about fairness.’
Babatimehin Kinfeosi
In a conversation with Babatimehin Kinfeosi, she stated, ‘we submitted a petition concerning the impeachment carried out against us. However, the SRC challenged our jurisdiction to submit the petition. Due to this, we were asked to rewrite it as private individuals rather than as officers.’ We submitted the revised petition, and the hearings began based on that. The hearings were held over four days, Saturday through Tuesday. Everyone presented their case. Some presented evidence; some couldn’t. One major issue was the attendance sheet used for the impeachment sitting; many of the signatures didn’t match previous records.
Kinfeosi explained that the impeachment happened during the final SRC sitting. I was not present that day—my phone was off, and I could not be reached. She said, ‘After the sitting, I was informed that I, the Assistant Secretary General, and the President were impeached. The grounds for my impeachment were allegations of fund suppression. For the President, it was about a standing order I wasn’t even aware of.’
Kinfeosi affirmed that she can account for every kobo she received. She stated that they were operating an administration without allocated funds. She said, ‘The SRC delayed submitting the budget to management until the last week of the administration, so we had to run activities with our resources and later relied on dues meant for rent.’
She stated further that, ‘the money—about ₦2 million—was meant for the rent of the Students’ Union Building (SUB). It was agreed that it should pass through my account for faster disbursement. It was not a personal decision. We even had a Central Executive Council (CEC) meeting where it was agreed to divide the money among 9 executives. I could not make too many transfers in one day, so I sent 7 shares to the Public Relations Officer, who then distributed them to union officers. The president opted out.’
When asked about the SUB car park funds, Kinfeosi explained that the ₦120,000 for the car park came to her because it is faster to disburse from a personal account than through the union account, which takes time. This is due to the fact that when money is paid for the SUB car park, part of the money is usually used to pay cleaners, security, and others who help run events. According to her, withdrawing directly from the union’s account requires process. She said, ‘As the Secretary General, I also handled the maintenance of SUB throughout the administration, without receiving a dime from the union. Sometimes I had to redirect funds from activities to handle urgent repairs,
According to Kinfeosi, the impeachment was not based on a fair hearing. She said, ‘They picked a day when I could not defend myself. There was no invitation, no notice. The constitutional steps for impeachment were not followed. They could have referred the case to the incoming council for proper investigation, but instead, they went ahead with the impeachment on the last day of administration. It was an agenda-driven move.’
Omisore Michael
Omisore Micheal, when reached out to by ACJOAU concerning the court sitting. He provided a rundown of what led to taking the case to the Judicial Council. He responded by saying that what happened the day the impeachment was made by the SRC, both he, the Secretary General, and the President were not present at the meeting. Stating further, he claimed that it was not as if they deliberately chose not to attend the sitting. Similarly, Prof Mike said that ‘The day and time the sitting was scheduled, we were at an event organised by the Office of the President. We were never notified that an impeachment process would happen that day, and we were not allowed to speak or defend ourselves.’
He stated further that, ‘after the event ended, we learned—through official release by the SRC—that we had been impeached. This resolution was circulated without a fair hearing from us. Since that sitting was the final parliamentary sitting of the session, there was no chance for a follow-up or redress within the house. So, following this, we filed a formal petition to the Judicial Council of the Union, as well as to external supervisory bodies like the Council Advisory Committee (CAC). The Judicial Council held about five hearings on the matter. Eventually, judgment was given in our favour. The Council ruled that the impeachment was invalid, as we were not granted a fair hearing, and the process violated constitutional procedures outlined for impeaching a union officer as contained in the sacrosanct constitution of the Union.’
Additionally, Prof Mike affirmed that he was never involved in any misappropriation of funds alleged by the SRC. Building on this, Prof Mike maintained by saying that ‘if anyone believes someone has misappropriated funds, due process requires you allow them to explain themselves. Unfortunately, we were not allowed to do that. It was evident that the intention behind the accusations was deliberate, possibly to target a specific group of people. That said, I maintain that we had no part in the alleged misappropriation.’he concluded.’
Oladipo Olakunle
In a telephone conversation with the erstwhile Speaker of the SRC, Rt. Hon. Oladipo Olakunle (Olabest), concerning the court sitting in which the SRC’s impeachment verdict was rendered null and void by the court on the ground of lack of substantive evidence, he explained that the issue arose when the president disrupted the legal proceedings of the House. Sanctions were already in place, so there was no need to deliberate further on the president’s misconduct at that point. He stated that, ‘during the deliberation on the union’s financial statement (as listed on the agenda), we discovered clear evidence of financial misappropriation.’
On the issue of finances, which triggered the impeachment, Olabest affirmed that the impeachment took place during the deliberation when the House discovered that the Central Executive Council (CEC) held a meeting and agreed to collect rent meant for the Students’ Union Building and shared it among themselves. He further said that a total sum of ₦1,744,000 was transferred to seven CEC members, and that the money was paid directly into the personal account of the Secretary General, Babatimehin Kinfeosi.
On the issue of some of the CEC members being absent, he explained that all SRC members were expected to attend that sitting. He said, ‘It is standard that if a member is absent without being excused by the Speaker, their seat is declared vacant.’
Olabest also affirmed that ‘Even with a one-hour grace period given during the deliberation, the clerk reached out to several members and officers involved, inviting them to clarify how the funds were spent. However, they failed to show up. Interestingly, seven out of the nine executives involved in the sharing of funds admitted to it, and five or six of them had refunded their share within the one-hour ultimatum stipulated.’
Reacting to the refund claim by the SRC, he stated that, “Once the refunds were made and the house had voted unanimously, the impeachment process began, first addressing the misconduct and unaccounted funds, then the president’s uncultured behaviour followed. The president’s attitude, including public outbursts and disrespectful conduct, was unbecoming of a union leader. Videos and evidence were available. Such behaviour doesn’t reflect leadership qualities. The decision to impeach was not just about money; it included violations of house rules, disrespect for procedures, and a lack of decorum,” he asserted.
Alawode Ewaoluwa
Ewaoluwa explained that the impeachment carried out by the SRC was based on three counts. The first issue involved the collection of Students’ Union Building (SUB) rent from shop owners, which was allegedly shared among members of the CEC. Reports indicate the total amount was over ₦2 million, but in the last parliamentary sitting, CEC members who were present admitted to collecting ₦1.7 million, which they divided among themselves. As a result, all CEC members were impeached pending the refund of their shares. At that sitting, five members refunded ₦249,000 each—these included the PRO, Vice President, Financial Secretary, Director of Sports, and Director of Socials. A subsequent resolution of the House stated that those who had been refunded had their seats reinstated.
Ewa further explained that the second count was the impeachment of the Secretary General and Assistant Secretary General (ASG). According to her, this was a separate matter of financial misappropriation. She said, ‘They allegedly collected money for the use of the SUB car park and TV room, which they deposited into personal accounts. This came to light during the last business sitting while reviewing the union’s statement of accounts. Honourables noticed that several transactions involving the Secretary General and ASG were missing from the accounts. Receipts and proofs were provided, but weren’t reflected in the union’s books. Both the Secretary General and the ASG were impeached and fined ₦250,000 each.’
Ewaoluwa further spoke about the impeachment of the President. She said, ‘During the last business sitting, the Speaker gave a standing order: no member should debate leadership structure or approach the podium, due to potential violence. Despite this, the President, apparently displeased, charged towards the House leadership, potentially intending to assault them. Because of this act, and its implications of contempt for the House, the President was impeached as well.’
Regarding the court judgement, Ewaoluwa commented that one of the main issues raised was the lack of a fair hearing. According to her, ‘unfortunately, the court ruled that there was indeed no fair hearing, which is questionable. At the time, CEC members had the opportunity to attend and present their case, but chose not to. They have a known record of missing parliamentary proceedings.’ She added that if Parliament were to wait indefinitely for absentees, no action could ever be taken, undermining accountability. She further explained that the substance of the impeachments—financial misappropriation—was never debated in court. The court only addressed fair hearing, defamation, and jurisdiction, not whether the accused committed the offenses. She added that she sees the entire process as a blow to the integrity of the union. She said, ‘It is disheartening that elected leaders, who should act in students’ interests, were instead enriching themselves. If any further actions will be taken, they will be announced in due course.’
Ewaoluwa was further asked if the SRC had been notified that the President, Secretary General, and ASG had an event on the day of the sitting when the impeachment. She responded by saying, ‘No, we were not. Standard parliamentary procedure requires members to inform the Speaker in writing if they’ll be absent. They have done this before for other sittings, so they know the process. Regardless of whether there was an event, they did not notify us, so we could not consider that.’
Ewaoluwa is of the belief that the conclusion is unfounded. She said, ‘The SRC had substantial evidence showing that certain officers diverted union funds into their accounts. She stated, ‘If you had not misappropriated union funds or received money into your account, why would you make such a refund?’
She also explained that it is important to note that the union has a separate account, independent of the funds disbursed by management. When any officer needs money for an event or expense, there is a process in place: they can submit an IOU or write to the House requesting funds. If the request is deemed reasonable and we have the funds, the House can approve it. But due process must always be followed. According to her, some members of the CEC claimed they took money under pressure to organize events. She said, ‘Pressure is not an excuse. The money does not belong to anyone, it belongs to the union. If they truly needed money for legitimate union business, they should have gone through the proper channels. None of that was done. She stated that the SUB rent was collected and shared among them. ‘What makes it worse is that the House had already issued a standing order that all proceeds from SUB rent were to be used strictly for the maintenance of the union building. That money was not meant for events or office demands, ’ she said. She concluded that any funding for events should come from their officially approved budget, not from SUB rent. She said, ‘Just look around—the union building is in a bad state: broken furniture, no functioning toilets, basic things are missing. And yet, the funds meant to fix these were misused.’
Verdict of The Judicial Council
Following the misappropriation and gross misconduct allegations by the SRC, some of the CEC members, led by the President, Omoboriowo Isaac (Dr. Bush), Babatimehin Kinfeosi Joy (Kinfeosi), and Omisore Michael Oluwabamise, jointly petitioned the SRC for the charges. As contained in court case with Suit No: (RC/2024/JC/001) which was submitted before the Judicial Council of the Great Ife Students’ Union, Obafemi Awolowo University, and spearheaded by The Hon. Lord Chancellor, Adebayo Oluwatosin Joseph, the presiding judge, alongside Justice Soyombo Oluwabukunmi Temiloluwa, and Justice Ariyo Micheal Abayomi, the petition by the petitioners was premised on three grounds: first, violation of constitutional procedure, where they alledge that their impeachments were carried out without “the procedural safeguards laid out in Section 68(1)-(2) of the Union constitution, which provides:
The SRC shall approve the removal of any Union Officer who shall cease to hold office if a motion for his removal is supported by two-thirds of the members of the SRC present and voting at a meeting provided quorum is formed.
Secondly, the petition was premised on the denial of a fair hearing. The petitioner, in this light, contends that no invitation or opportunity was given to the CEC members to respond to any allegation before the House impeached them. They disclaim this by referencing Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), which provides:
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations… a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal…
Thirdly, the petition was also premised on the ground of Defamation Publication. Petitioners claimed that the SRC released public statements and a resolution labeling the SRC corrupt and guilty of misconduct without trial or verification by citing similar cases between Amaonwu v. Ahaotu (1998) 9 NWLR and Abalaka v. Akinsete (2023) 13 NWLR to buttress their claims.
The Respondent (SRC), in its Statement of Defence and Preliminary Objection dated July 25, 2025, argued that the suit is incompetent and ought to be struck out for want of jurisdiction. Additionally, the SRC claimed that the petitioners claim that opportunity was given to the petitioners to appear before a disciplinary panel but refused to attend; secondly, the President was impeached with 15 votes out of 23, and while the number falls short of a literal two-thirds of the 16 that is expected to vote in respect of it, they invoked the legal maxim de minimis non curax lex, as mentioned by the council, to argue their claim on the difference between 15 and 16 which they deemed negligible and that substantial compliance suffices; lastly, the council claimed that the Secretary General and Assistant General Secretary were impeached unanimously (42/42) based on embezzlement of ₦1,744,000 which the council thereafter requested that it should be refund by the CEC members.
The Hon. Lord Chancellor, Adebayo Oluwatosin Joseph, after thorough investigation and having heard from both counsels (for petitioners and respondents), discharged and acquitted the accused CEC members impeached due to a lack of substantive evidence to back up the impeachment verdict. The Judicial Council of the Students’ Union hereafter presmised its ruling on the ground that “no documentary or electronic evidence (such as a certified call log, written notice, screenshot, or witness testimony) was tendered before the Judicial council in proof of those alledged calls.” the presiding judge therefore noted that the Clerk of the House, who was the purpoted communicator, was neither in attendance nor presented a witness, nor was any affidavit from the Clerk provided. Given this, the Judicial Council declared that no credible, admissible, or probative evidence was placed before the Council by the Respondent to establish that any of the Petitioners were served with notice, invited to disciplinary hearings, or otherwise allowed to be heard. Again, that all the evident present oral assertion; that is, not properly documented, unauthenticated call logs, and references to third parties fail to satisfy the evidentiary standard required under Section 135(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.
Lastly, the Judicial Council nullified the verdict of the SRC by stating that the impeachment procedures did not follow due process stating that: the impeachment of the Petitioners was conducted in violation of Section 68 of the Great Ife Students’ Union constitution; second, that the Petitioners were denied fair hearing, contrary to Section 36(1) of the 1999 constitution and the procedural spirit of the Union constitution; that the failure to comply with the two-third voting threshold and notice of investigation renders the entire process null, void, and of no effect whatsoever; and also, that any act, resolution, or statement arising from such defective proceedings is constitutionally invalid and must be set aside. Accordingly, ‘in pursuant of Section 1(2) of the Union Constitution, the Council hereby reaffirms the binding supremacy of the Constitution, and reiterates that constitutional violations shall not be tolerated under any guise.’