Guardian

SIX out of the University of Lagos’ (UNILAG) 12 faculties are understaffed while its academic staff members, who have been responsible for its enviable academic reputation are now ageing and retiring, according to the Federal Government’s White Paper on UNILAG’s  Visitation Panel Report.

The report, which covered 2004 – 2010, named the six understaffed faculties as Business Administration, Education, Engineering, Environmental Sciences, Pharmacy and Sciences.  However, four out of the remaining six faculties (Arts, Law, Social Sciences and Medicine) are over-staffed, with Arts having 30 per cent more staff than allowed by the National Universities Commission (NUC).

The report argued that with most of the academic staff members who were trained abroad in the 1970s and 1980s now ageing, it would be necessary for UNILAG to widen the scope of the upcoming ones. It regretted that the younger academics rarely receive the opportunity for international training and exposure, resulting in in-breeding, with many of them receiving all their degrees, including the doctorate (PhD), from the University.

Although, UNILAG promotes capacity building and staff empowerment for all categories of staff, the visitation panel discovered that promotion of staff to top positions, like Professorship, is tied to availability of funds rather than available vacancies. To that extent, the panel observed that quality work performance was being hindered by limited facilities and unsatisfied needs of staff members, such as “poor research laboratories, unpaid entitlements and delayed promotion.” The institution is, however, currently believed to be promoting staff members on schedule.

The panel also discovered that the relationship between the institution’s College of Medicine (CMUL) and the Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) was not as cordial as it should be during the period under review.  The development, it noted, was informed by the promulgation of Decree 10 of 1985, which created LUTH as a separate entity. As a result, LUTH has its own governing council, while the UMUL is under the University’s Governing Council. While LUTH is being administered by a Chief Medical Director (CMD), who is answerable to the Federal Ministry of Health, the CMUL is being administered by a Provost, who is answerable to the Federal Ministry of Education, through the University.

Nevertheless, both entities co-exist in “proximate and contiguous” premises and share the same municipal services. The panel noted: “the commitment and discipline of staff and the maintenance of the municipal services caused some concern sometimes. The way things were and are going, the relationship may turn awry if nothing drastic is done. So far, maturity has been brought to bear on the fragile relationship. This frosty relationship should not be allowed to continue in national interest and in the interest of best practices in the training of medical doctors.”

However, the federal government only “noted” the panel’s recommendation for a review of the Decree that created the LUTH as a separate entity, placing it under the Health Ministry and its plea for LUTH’s restoration to the pre – 1985 situation.

On accreditation, the report declared that UNILAG’s ranking seemed to be declining. It observed that while the institution came third in overall academic ranking in 2004, it received only interim accreditation for its MBA (Master in Business Administration) programme, a cause for concern for a university that pioneered the programme. By November 2005, 28 of its 38 programmes were fully accredited; while in 2006, 16 programmes got full accreditation. In 2007, it had full accreditation for nine out of 13 programmes, but the panel affirmed that UNILAG slipped to its lowest ranking in 2008, when it had only two out of seven programmes fully accredited. “Significantly,” the panel averred, “four out of these five programmes were in the Faculty of Education which has been shown to be under-staffed, while one was in the Faculty of Medicine.”

The report also acknowledged some leakages in the Income Generating Units of the institution. It stated: “It would appear that a combination of absence of strict target-setting and monitoring of staff, as well as complacency and lack of aggressive supervision on the part of management, has created a situation whereby the income that should accrue to the University is either allowed to drain away through wastage and ineptitude, or converted to private use through manipulative corruption.”

The federal government accepted the panel’s recommendations on “staffing”, “decline in accreditation performance” and “leakages in Income Generating Units.”  For staffing, the panel recommended: “The University should be assisted to sponsor many of its young academic staff for overseas training by the Education Trust Fund (now Tertiary Education Trust Fund) and (the) Petroleum Technology Development Fund; the University should also address the shortages in the Faculties of Business Administration, Education, Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Pharmacy and Sciences as well as the over-staffing problem in the Faculties of Arts, Law, Social Sciences and Medicine.”

On the second item, the panel recommended: “The University should set up an Internal Quality Assurance Mechanism to ensure continuous conformity with set standards and to conduct mock accreditation to ensure that all its programmes achieve 100 percent full accreditation all the time.”

On leakages, it proposed: “the University should re-organise its Income Generating Units.”

The panel also discovered that UNILAG’s Master Plan was last reviewed in1984, describing this as unhealthy. It also noted that about 48 percent of the University’s land is water logged, while the water production capacity “is not adequate to meet the water demand of the University.” It estimated UNILAG’s power needs during peak periods at 7.5 megawatts, “but only 48 percent of this can be met by the internal power supply during power outages from PHCN (Power Holding Company of Nigeria).” It said the development had resulted in power rationing “which is not ideal for teaching and research works.”

The Federal government accepted the panel’s several recommendations under this section, including the need to have a comprehensive review of the institution’s Master Plan.

The University will no longer extend the appointment of any staff beyond the statutory retirement time through contract, following the federal government’s acceptance of the panel’s recommendation in this regard. This followed the panel’s discovery that a former Registrar, Mrs. R.A Abegunde served for only 18 months and had to retire because her predecessor, Mrs. C.F.A. Olumide had been allowed to over-stay in office by two years beyond her compulsory retirement time, through extension of appointment on contract.

Nevertheless, the report described Olumide as “a competent Registrar who had strong passion for her work and a great desire to restore the Registry as a centre of gravity of the University.” It also depicted Abegunde as “competent,” but noted that “her tenure of 18 months was too short to enable her make the impact she would have desired to make.”

The panel also discovered several disputes between UNILAG and certain entities over land. It observed that the institution’s staff housing project located at Arepo, Ogun state, measuring 4,006 hectares was acquired in 1999 for N3.12 million. The land, the panel revealed, was officially released to the University on February 7, 2003. But illegal sale of the land has continued, prompting the management to write a letter to the Minister of Works in 2010.

There is also a dispute between UNILAG and the Federal College of Education (Technical) over a parcel of land between the canal and the Fola Agoro Shopping Complex. The panel urged the Federal Ministry of Education to mediate on the issues.

On staff discipline, the Federal Government accepted the panel’s recommendation that no staff of the university under suspension should be allowed to receive his or her salary. It discovered that UNILAG had about 20 cases in court, with most of them involving staff. “Surprisingly,” the panel declared, “staff whose cases are in court or who are prohibited (suspended) from performing their work still receive their full salaries and allowances based on the provision of the University Act.” The panel recommended that the Act should be amended to stop the practice, and the government has directed the Governing Council to “take necessary action.”

However, the report commended the governing council’s leadership quality. It declared: “The University was fortunate to have Governing Councils during the period under review led by men of exceptional integrity, vision, commitment and public-spiritedness in the persons of Aare Afe Babalola and Deacon Gamaliel Onosode.

“Afe Babalola covered his own expenses when he attended Council and other meetings and used his extensive network of contacts to attract funds and projects to the University, in addition to personally sponsoring the building of the Afe Babalola Auditorium. He was passionate about the University and  wanted to make it a model institution, so he devoted his time, energy and  resources to develop it further. He was awarded the prize for the best Pro –Chancellor in Nigeria by NUC for two consecutive years, 2005 and 2006. However, a section of the University community perceived him as over-bearing and tending towards Executive Chairmanship of the Council.”

On Onosode, the report submitted: “Onosode is dedicating his financial entitlement as Pro Chancellor to some undisclosed charitable cause and being an experienced boardroom man, steers the affairs of Council in an efficient, business-like and transparent manner, keeping himself strictly within the limits of his authority.”

The report also documented its findings on the three Vice Chancellors whose tenures fell within the period under review: Professors Oye Ibidapo-Obe, Tolu Odugbemi and the late Adetokunbo Sofoluwe.

On Ibidapo-Obe, the panel noted: “Prof. Ibidapo-Obe gave the University excellent leadership  and stabilized it after a period of self-doubt occasioned by circumstances under which the previous Vice Chancellor had to leave office. He reached out to donors and other stakeholders to obtain generous donations, endowments and privileges for the University. He was awarded the prize of the Second Best Vice Chancellor in Nigeria by the NUC in 2005.”

On Odugbemi: “Prof Odugbemi was an excellent manager of financial resource. He also gave the University good leadership, beautified the campus and checkmated the activities of cultists. He won the prestigious award of Nigerian National Order of Merit as a serving Vice Chancellor in 2008, on account of the high quality and relevance of his research into medicinal plants. He was perceived by some as too blunt and prone to administrative arbitrariness.”

Although the late Sofoluwe was only 14 months in the saddle at the time of the visitation, the panel submitted that he enjoyed wide acceptability among the various segments of the University community.”

On achievements, the report asserted: “the University has carved a niche for itself as the University of first choice and a centre of excellence in many disciplines. It has produced the highest number of recipients of merit-based national academic awards in the period under review.

“The University has, from inception to date (2011), injected into the Nigerian manpower resource database, not less than 149, 383 skilled people of whom 101, 129 were graduates (68 percent) and 47, 254 (31 percent) were post graduates.”

Members of the panel were: Prof. Munzali Jibril, a former Executive Secretary of the NUC (Chairman); Mr. B.N Uzoigwe; Barrister Marie Umolu; Dr Titi Ipadeola and Architect Olukayode Allison. Others were: Ngozi Monica Okonkwo; Rev. Fr Abaka Oghenejode; Alhaji Salihu Baba Hala and Mrs Ori Okojokwu (Secretary).