- By James Osaramen
Nnamdi Azikiwe University (UNIZIK) recently made headlines over a protracted leadership succession crisis. The situation began with the appointment of Prof. Joseph Ikechebelu as acting vice-chancellor, whose abrupt and almost chaotic removal paved the way for Prof. Carol Umobi to take over. Not long after, the Governing Council, in a manner described by many as “commando-style,” appointed Prof. Joseph Odoh as the substantive vice-chancellor. However, this controversial decision backfired—Prof. Odoh was eventually removed, and the Governing Council dissolved for gross irregularities and disregard for due process. In the aftermath, Prof. Ikechebelu was reappointed, only to be succeeded once more by Prof. Carol Umobi. The academic community now awaits the appointment of a substantive vice-chancellor. Worryingly, concerns of bias have already surfaced, as Prof. A.U. Nonyelum, despite being favourably screened, was bypassed in the latest acting appointment process.
If, within the duration prescribed by law, a substantive vice-chancellor is not appointed, it would become necessary to nominate another person as acting vice-chancellor. The pertinent question now is: how many months does Prof. Carol Umobi have left? The law, as it stands, is unequivocal – no acting vice-chancellor shall serve for more than six months under any circumstance. Her current reappointment, following a previous three-month stint before being replaced by a substantive vice-chancellor, cannot be regarded as a fresh term. It is, in legal terms, a continuation of her earlier appointment. Consequently, her cumulative tenure must not exceed six months.
Those who support a fresh six-month appointment often forget that Prof. Umobi was not removed arbitrarily and was also first appointed by the Council. Her tenure ended naturally with the appointment of a substantive vice-chancellor, a situation fully contemplated by the law. It was not an illegal or capricious removal, nor did it violate her rights. It simply reflected the proper functioning of the university’s leadership succession process. Her current reappointment does not – and cannot – reset the statutory clock.
The legal foundation for this position is found in Section 5(14) of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act 2003, which reads: “An Acting Vice-Chancellor in all circumstances shall not be in office for more than six months.” This provision is absolute, unambiguous, and carries three distinct dimensions: it is limiting, prohibitive, and mandatory. It places a ceiling on the time an acting VC can occupy that office, regardless of whether that period is served continuously or in split segments.
Read Also: Ponzi schemes: Senate probes N1.3tn CBEX scam
To interpret the six-month limit otherwise is to risk dismantling the very legal framework meant to curtail opportunistic tenure elongation. Consider the absurdity that would result from viewing each appointment, even to the same person, as a fresh six-month term. A governing council could simply reappoint the same individual indefinitely, so long as each appointment was labelled “acting.” That is precisely the mischief the law was designed to eliminate – a mischief well-identified by Prof. Ehi Oshio in his seminal legal commentary. He rightly observes that the six-month provision was enacted to forestall “unscrupulous and mischievous methods” used by some to extend acting tenures under different guises.
In Umobi’s case, the facts are straightforward. She was appointed acting vice-chancellor and served for three months. She stepped down because a substantive vice-chancellor was appointed. That should have ended her acting tenure. Her recent reappointment, while perhaps morally justifiable in light of her abrupt displacement, is nonetheless constrained by law. At most, she may complete the remaining three months of the originally allotted six. Anything beyond that violates both the letter and spirit of the law.
This position is neither harsh nor unduly technical. Rather, it flows from a healthy respect for legal interpretation and public governance. The statute does not grant exceptions. It does not say “six months, unless removed for a good reason.” It says, emphatically, “in all circumstances,” thereby foreclosing any situational elasticity. The word “shall” is not a suggestion – it is a command.
In Nigeria, we must resist the temptation to govern institutions by sentiment, political expediency, or bureaucratic improvisation. Legal certainty is what strengthens institutions. The tenure of an acting vice-chancellor is not a political matter; it is a statutory one. The six-month ceiling is not optional; it is binding. No Senate vote, no Council resolution, no ministerial nod can override the clear provisions of an Act of the National Assembly.
Indeed, if Prof. Umobi were allowed to serve more than six months on the ground that her previous stint was incomplete, the precedent it sets would haunt future university governance. It would encourage governing councils to dismiss, recall, and rotate acting VCs as it suits internal politics – all under the guise of fresh appointments. The integrity of the law must not be eroded in pursuit of administrative convenience.
The only correct legal and ethical course is to limit Prof. Umobi’s return to three months – the balance of her original tenure. This interpretation preserves the law, respects institutional order, and affirms our collective commitment to the rule of law. It must remain firm, clear, and binding – for when institutions begin to treat legal boundaries as optional, they chip away at the very foundations of order, justice, and accountability.
•Osaramen is a Benin based legal practitioner.