Ayobami Atanda 

Members of the National Association of Students of English and Literary Studies (NASELS), University of Ibadan (UI), reacted to the memo sent by the executive council indicating the resolution of misunderstanding between the executive council and Public Relations Officers, Okunola Demilade,  about the adjourned congress summoned for the fair hearing and potential dismissal of the Public Relation Officer, Demilade Okunola. 

The first congress, held for the possible dismissal of the embattled PRO on Monday 5th August 2024, ended in a deadlock, in which members of the 300-level constituency vehemently suggested that the congress should be adjourned as a result of the protracted misuse of timing, which made some of its congress members leave to attend a class. 

For inclusivity, fair hearing, and justice, they demanded that the congress be postponed and Friday 9th August, 2024, was chosen for the reconvening on the PRO’s saga. 

However, the executive council headed by Babatunde Adamson released a memo on the NASELS Family Page titled, ‘Resolution of the Misunderstanding Involving the Executive Council and the PRO’, where it was stated that the misunderstanding had been “resolved amicably”.  

As a result, NASELSites reacted to the release of the executives jointly signed by the President, Babatunde Adamson, Secretary, Doris Okoh, and Public Relations Officer, Demilade Okunola over the congress called by the NASELS President single-handedly, reported by NASELS Press. 

Evangelen wrote, “Why do I honestly feel there is a play of some trickery somewhere? 

If it had been known that the issue would eventually be resolved sidetracked(ly), why the initial stress and unconstitutional call of a congress in the first place?

Or has there been a retreat and a decision to settle amicably due to the foresight of a possible defeat or call outs? 🤔

Me, I’m not understanding sha. 🫠 I’m just saying.“

The Vice President, Hamzat Yetunde Gold responded, “There’s no trickery anywhere, miss .

The issue has been resolved among the executives 

We wouldn’t like to bother you by calling for a congress again

We are after the betterment of individuals and department at large.

And it wasn’t due to any foresight of a possible defeat or call out 🤝” 

In reaction to the response of the VP, Evangeline wrote, “That should have been looked into or considered before the unnecessary call for a congress, madam. 🙂” 

The VP replied, “The congress shouldn’t be seen as unnecessary“

In a post that has gathered over seven reactions as at the moment of writing this report, Faridah reacted and made her demands known. She wrote, “Mr. President, Honorable Members of the Executive Council, and my fellow Naselsites,

I am writing to express my deep disappointment and concern regarding the cancellation of the Fair Hearing Congress, which was initially called to address pressing issues. I was dismayed to learn that the Congress was deemed unnecessary, citing that the issues have been resolved amidst the executives.

Furthermore, I am troubled by the fact that the initial call for Congress was unconstitutional due to the lack of the PRO’s signature. This oversight raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the entire process.

I question the rationale behind calling for a Congress in the first place, only to resolve the issues internally without the input and participation of all Naselsites. This raises concerns about the transparency and accountability of the decision-making process.

I respectfully request that you:

1. Explain the reasons behind canceling the Fair Hearing Congress

2. Clarify how the issues were resolved without the need for a Congress

3. Assure that the resolutions reached address the concerns of all Naselsites

4. Acknowledge the error in the initial call for Congress due to the lack of the PRO’s signature

5. Commit to following established procedures and protocols in the future

By working collaboratively and transparently, I believe we can build trust and achieve our shared goals.

NASELS GINGER!“

However, in the memo used to summon the Congress, the NASELS President wrote in Item 4 of the Procedure subheading that the “Congress will deliberate and reach a decision based on the evidence and argument presented” after the hearing. Nonetheless, the executive council deliberated and made the decision, not the congress. 

Further, in the memo, the allegations made against the PRO were “perennial absence and disregards for council policies”. The former offence leads to dismissal according to Article 11 (vi) of the NASELS Constitution, which says, “Any member who misses three consecutive meetings in a semester without the permission of the president shall be deemed to have forfeited their position in the council.” 

As it stands, the grey area of the PRO’s saga is that NASELSites are not aware of the offence(s) of the PRO that made the president call for Congress on July 31, 2024, nor did they know why the executive council decided to resolve the matter amicably despite claiming in the memo that the decision would be reached by the Congress, a constitutional means. Everything has been swept under the carpet, disregarding the stipulated means of resolving the issue as entrenched in the Constitution.