The Battle of Stamina: The LASUSU Legal Director Vs. The Former SAA President

The issue began with a LASU Life newsletter titled “Why does LASUSU have a PRO.” The article questioned the relevance of the position of the Lagos State University’s Students’ Union’s Public Relations Officer (LASUSU PRO) challenging the reason why the president, Comrade Ayomide Joldie Adebobola has been releasing press releases from his office bypassing the PRO’s responsibility.

The publication featured a comment from David Akinwumi, a 500 level law student and the former president of the Student Advocate Association (SAA) who interpreted Section 32 (7) (a), (b) and (c) and Section 32 (1) (b) and (c) of the Supreme LASUSU Constitution.

In response, the LASUSU Legal director released a statement defending the role of the PRO and the President. However, what followed was a series of events that have led many to wonder if the issue has become a personal beef rather than a legitimate debate about the union’s structure.

Here are the relevant provisions of the LASUSU Constitution 2022.

Under Section 32 (7) (a), (b) and (c) provides the duties of the PRO to include:

(a) Be the mouthpiece of the union

(b) Be responsible for the proper dissemination of information to members of the union as relating to the union.

(c) Prepare press release of the union activities with the approval of the SEC

Also, Section 32 (1) (b) and (c) states that, The President shall:

(b) Serve as the link between the union, the university as well as outside the university

(c) Coordinate and harmonise the unity of the SEC

DAVID’S STANDPOINT

According to David, the LASUSU Constitution has clearly defined the roles of the President and every other member of the executive, not just the PRO and it is trite – very common fact that when the President takes on the role of any other executive members, he has acted ultra vires -beyond his powers.

Quoting legal authorities, he noted that the LASUSU President does not have the power to take on the role of the PRO as doing such is outside his constitutional power and therefore constitute a gross abuse of power (George v. FRN (2011) 10 NWLR (pt.1254) @ 86 par. A-B.).

Responding to if there could be a loophole that permits this in the LASUSU constitution, Akinwunmi says, “Section 32 (1) (b) of the LASUSU Constitution as stated above does not create a loophole. It is not even near a defense for the President and Section 32 (1) (c) could be close, but it does not even serve as a defense.”

THE LEGAL DIRECTOR’S STANDPOINT

In his statement, Alimi emphasizes the legal framework underpinning the role of the President of the Lagos State University Student Union (LASUSU) in relation to the union’s governance and the recent criticisms raised in the LASU Life newsletter.

Relying on legal and statutory authorities, Alimi begins by clarifying that the legal provision of the LASUSU Constitution should be given a literal interpretation relying on the fact that when the words of a statue are clear and unequivocal, effects have to be given to their literal meaning irrespective of whether it produce a harsh or inconsistent result.

Interpreting the provision of Section 32(7) of the Supreme LASUSU Constitution. Alimi noted that the duties of the PRO are to relay information and, most importantly, to act in line with the decisions of the Student Executive Council (SEC), Student Parliamentary Council (SPC), and the Student Judicial Council (SJC) in carrying out these actions.

He noted that the actions concerning the Union as a whole should be fundamentally and necessarily separated from the actions from individual members (including the union).

According to him, “the PRO is only responsible for activities coming from the Union as a whole. It is quite clear that this office is liable individually for offences from the execution of their duties, as a testament to the separate legal personality and individual capacity differentiated from the collective Union. Kindly be aware that the publication of the President is not a resolution of the SEC or the Union, but rather an address on the matter in the personal official capacity of the president. I believe this slice of bread and butter is essential.”

Alimi addresses the accusations levied against the President, asserting that the critiques lack a comprehensive understanding of the constitutional provisions that guide the union’s leadership. He defended the President’s authority to act in the best interests of the student body, highlighting that the President is not only a leader but also a representative tasked with making decisions that align with the union’s objectives.

In conclusion, Alimi calls for a more informed dialogue regarding the roles and responsibilities within the LASUSU framework.

He further encouraged everyone to engage with the constitutional guidelines rather than resort to unfounded criticisms, emphasizing the need for collective efforts to enhance the student union’s integrity and effectiveness.

THE UPROAR

In a response to the legal director’s address, David Akinwunmi, in a statement, expressed deep disappointment regarding the public statement from the Legal Director of the Students’ Union while asserting that the statement comprised of unfounded attack on his personality.

David noted that the misrepresentations and personal attacks undermine the integrity of the institution and that the legal director’s message could have been well passed without undue attacks on his personality.

Quoting David Akinwunmi, “the legal director could have passed his message in a very clear manner, yet, respecting his differing opinion.”

THE COMPROMISE

According to our editorial, the position of the legal director is clear and very informative. However, we are of the strong contention that every of the opinions are strong, they represent varying perspectives for both legal luminaries. As such, since law has various perspectives, it is so important to respect the varying perspectives of the legal luminaries.

NB- This article aims to give a neutral standpoint.