Concise analysis of Akinyanju v. University of Ilorin (2011) All FWLR 1080, Court of Appeal (Ilorin Division)
Facts
Prof. J. A. Akinyanju, a senior faculty member at the University of Ilorin, wrote a memo to the Governing Council and congregation criticizing the Vice-Chancellor’s sequestration of a colleague’s(Prof .Oluyede’s) salary over a housing-loan dispute. The Council set up a “fact-finding” committee under section 16(1) of the University of Ilorin Act. That committee interviewed witnesses (including the Vice-Chancellor), took documentary evidence, then recommended Akinyanju be sent to the Staff Disciplinary and Appeals Committee (SDAC). At SDAC, Akinyanju was assured he would have a fair hearing, access to his office and files, cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and the right to call his own witnesses. In practice none of those safeguards was honored: the SDAC refused to call or allow cross-examination of key witnesses, excluded certain delegates from voting, and its chairman displayed manifest hostility. SDAC found “misconduct,” not on the contents of his memo, but on alleged “insubordination,” “arrogance” and “indecorous behavior,” then recommended dismissal under section 16. The Council “rubber-stamped” that recommendation and terminated Akinyanju’s appointment. Aggrieved by the crooked process, Professor Akinyanju approached the court for redress.
Procedural History
Akinyanju sued by originating summons for declaratory reliefs and reinstatement. The High Court struck out his summons, ordered him to file a writ, then eventually dismissed his claims. On appeal the Court of Appeal Ilorin (2010) allowed his cross-appeal, revived his case on the writ, and ordered a fresh hearing. After trial, the High Court again dismissed Akinyanju’s claims. He appealed a second time to the Court of Appeal.
Issues in determination in the suit
Whether the disciplinary process complied with the statutory removal procedure in section 16(1) of the University of Ilorin Act.
Whether Akinyanju was denied “fair hearing” and natural-justice safeguards in both the fact-finding committee and the SDAC.
Whether the Council’s dismissal decision was intra vires or ultra vires its statutory powers.
Whether a university professor’s protected right of free expression can be turned into “misconduct.”
Decision of the Court
The Court of Appeal (Agube, Denton-West and Nweze JJ.C.A.) unanimously allowed the appeal:
• The Court held that both the fact-finding committee and the SDAC exercised judicial functions and so were bound by natural-justice rules: the “audi alteram partem” rule (give the affected person notice of the case and a real opportunity to meet it) and the “nemo judex in causa sua” rule (no one should judge his own cause).
• The statutory removal procedure in section 16(1) requires (a) notice of the charges; (b) an opportunity to make personal representation to Council; and (c) if requested, proper arrangements for a joint council-senate investigative committee hearing with confrontation of adverse witnesses. None of these was fully observed. • Akinyanju’s memo fell squarely within both his constitutional right (section 39 of the 1999 constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, as amended) and university staff regulations to publish opinion or information on matters of public interest. Prof. Akinyanju exercise of that right could not be recast as “misconduct.”
•The court further held that, the SDAC went outside its statutory remit, convicted him on fresh charges that were neither in the original notice nor properly investigated, and denied him meaningful cross-examination or the calling of important witnesses. The Council’s reliance on SDAC’s fraught process was ultra vires and in bad faith. Pursuant to the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (“where there is a right there must be a remedy”), the Court set aside the termination.
The condemnatio n of the court of the inappropriateness of the university action against Prof.Akinyaju.
The Court of Appeal delivered some of its toughest language ever about what had happened to Professor Akinyanju. In sum it said that a tax-payer–funded university ought to be a “citadel of learning,” not “a citadel of oppression, of repression, of intolerance and of capricious exercise of power.” It went on to describe the University of Ilorin’s handling of the matter as:
• “crass wickedness, victimization, repression, vindictiveness and insensitivity,”
• “an inglorious, lawless and oppressive exercise of authority,”
• “a most contumelious affront to the University of Ilorin Act,”
• “turning a fact-finding committee into a quasi-judicial tribunal that convicted Professor Akinyanju unheard,”
• and “denigrating the inveterate principles of procedural fairness, which any statutory body must observe when it proposes to terminate a tenured professor’s appointment.”
In short, the Court condemned the University’s action as ultra vires, malicious, and a betrayal of the rule-of-law traditions that a university—an “ivory tower”—should jealously guard.
This decision is a landmark on the reach of natural justice in university disciplinary proceedings. It reaffirmed that a staff member’s critique of university administration, if within statutory/free-speech rights, cannot be transformed into “misconduct” without proper process.
The court of appeal gave one of its strongest and toughest memorable per curiam comments on the need for “rebellious spirits” in universities to hold administrators to account. The court came down hard on the university, describing it as one of the most unnecessarily litigious public institutions in the country, a deviation from its aim of establishment.