September 13, (THEWILL) – The visitation panel to the University of Lagos (UNILAG) has ordered the institution’s management to close all its accounts in commercial banks.
The panel also said that the institution’s governing council has the legal backing to remove a sitting Vice Chancellor .
The seven-member panel, led by Gen. Martin Agwai (retd), made these known in a 244-page report submitted to the federal government.
The panel was constituted on March 29, 2021, to probe the affairs of UNILAG between 2016 and 2020.
The panel said it discovered cases of financial abuse by top officials of the institution, noting that it found the university in continuous breach of the directive on the Treasury Single Account (TSA) system.
The report reads: “The festering crisis had its root cause on the conflict in the interpretation of the procurement Act 2007 and the Lagos University Act 1967/University’s (miscellaneous Act 1993 and its amendment Act 2012). On the other hand, there are allegations from Council that financial information of the University were hidden from Council except for sketchy extract which were hardly transparent for an informed decision.
“Unless with the written permission of the President, all the University of Lagos limited liability companies are not allowed to keep their accounts with commercial banks. They are supposed to keep their accounts only with the Central Bank, through the Treasury Single Account, TSA, system that is already in place.
“That any fund not transferred to TSA by the deadline given in the circular as of November 19, 2018, “shall be deemed as hidden and forfeited.
“The panel found the university in continuous breach of this directive and circular by maintaining accounts in commercial banks, without the requisite written permission of the President.
“The council should ensure that the university does not forfeit any of its funds by directing all the university limited liability companies to close all their accounts with commercial banks and embrace TSA, as directed by the Government.
“Council should ensure that competent persons who are verse in University’s administration and financial management be employed to manage the finances of the University.
“There are cases where the principal officers exceed approval limits by approving related and similar expenses that ordinarily should be a single piece of procurement.
“This could be interpreted as splitting of contracts or services for it to be within the limit of an officer and avoid rules governing big tender, breach of the Procurement and Fiscal Responsibilities Acts.”
The panel recalled that Wale Babalakin’s council, at its meeting held on Thursday, November 14, 2019, approved the constitution of a sub-committee to review the 2020 budget estimate of the University of Lagos following the findings of the Chairman of Council that the budget estimates submitted to the National Assembly and the one presented to the Finance and General Purpose Committee was at variance and irreconcilable.
It however, said their explanations were untenable as they were simply trying to justify reasons for contract splitting.
According to the Panel, “There are cases where the principal officers exceed approval limits by approving related and similar expenses that ordinarily should be a single piece of procurement.
“This could be interpreted as splitting of contracts or services for it to be within the limit of an officer and avoid rules governing big tender, breach of the Procurement and Fiscal Responsibilities Acts.”
Regarding approval limits and splitting of contracts and services, the report said, the Bursar and other parties that were interrogated, including the Head of Procurement, based their position on lack of funds to take on the whole contract sum at once and that on overpayments, explained that the excess of amounts paid for services were additional cost on certified work that became inevitable despite expiration of the first contract agreement.
On the power of the University Council to remove the vice-chancellor, the panel report said the governing council of the institution has the legal backing to remove a sitting vice chancellor.
It said Section 5 of the Universities Miscellaneous Act 2003 also caused friction between the council and the management, adding that the university management presented a memorandum to the panel to amend the affected section in the Universities Miscellaneous Act to rid its governing council of such powers.
“While the Act prescribes for the Vice-Chancellor and the Senate to collaborate over academic programs, students, admissions, teaching and research, Section 7(1) of the University of Lagos Act stipulates that the Governing Council is “charged with general control and superintendence of policy, finances and property of the University.
“The Panel observed that the Vice-Chancellor was removed in August, 2020 by the Babalakin led Council. In its Memorandum to the panel, Management referenced the statutory powers of the Governing Council to remove a Vice- Chancellor and sought an amendment of the law in order to ensure that the Governing Council is unable to remove the Vice-Chancellor without the participation of Senate’s two representatives as provided in Section 5(9) of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2003.
“The removal and subsequent appointment of an Acting Vice-Chancellor for the University in 2020 falls within the period of review that this Panel is mandated to review.
“Consequently, it is relevant to consider whether the Babalakin led Governing Council acted in accordance with the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 2003 or not.
“The Panel was informed during interactions that a previous Panel called Special Visitation Panel had looked into the matter. Unfortunately, that Panel’s report is not before this Panel to review and consider. However, the Press Statement by the Federal Government accompanying the reinstatement of the Vice-Chancellor in 2020 is available.
”In respect of the removal of the Vice-Chancellor, it was said that the Babalakin led Council “did not give the Vice-Chancellor an opportunity to defend himself on the allegations upon which his removal was based.” The statement did not reach any conclusion as to whether that Council breached the law in respect of the Vice-Chancellor’s removal.
“Dr. Wale Babalakin appeared before this Panel and presented a Memorandum. His justification for his Council removing the Vice-Chancellor without the participation of two Senate members is that his Council complied with the law fully.
“Babalakin expressed the opinion that, compared to the 1993 Act where the language of the Act is intentionally different, i.e., “at the initiative of the Council, Senate or Congregation after due process” the removal of a Vice-Chancellor for gross misconduct under the 2003 Act is solely a Council decision after Council has determined that the Vice-Chancellor has committed an act of gross misconduct.
“According to him, the Vice-Chancellor received on the authority of the Council, a copy of Dagari’s report. The Vice-Chancellor defended himself orally and also in his letter dated 13th May 2019 which was made available to Council members.
“Applying the well-established canons of statutory interpretation, this Panel finds Dr. Babalakin’s argument very plausible. To be very fair to the University Management, the force of this argument is not lost on them. In their Memorandum to the Panel, on page 29, third paragraph, Management sought an amendment of the 2003 Act to avoid this interpretation.”
