A group of senior academics under the aegis of Concerned Academic Stakeholders, University of Abuja, has raised fresh concerns over the ongoing controversy surrounding the appointment of a substantive Vice-Chancellor for the institution.

The stakeholders are drawn from six faculties: Prof. Oluwaseun Fayose, Faculty of Law; Prof Fatima Ribadu, Faculty of Social Science; Prof. Folake lge, Faculty of Arts; Prof. Khalid Ibrahim Musa, Faculty of Sciences; Prof. Ibinabo Hart, Faculty of Management Science; and Prof. Sambo Ishaq, Faculty of Education

In a detailed analysis made available to newsmen in Abuja, the academics faulted the appointment process, saying it failed to comply with the advertised minimum academic requirements, which they described as the “primary legal foundation” for any valid university leadership recruitment.

The stakeholders said that once a university publishes eligibility criteria, such conditions become binding instruments that the appointing authority cannot lawfully waive.

According to them, the publicly advertised possession of a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) for the office of Vice-Chancellor aligns with mandatory benchmarks of the National Universities Commission (NUC), the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act and established academic norms.

They warned that deviation from such a requirement amounts to an ultra vires act, an action outside legally permitted powers — rendering the appointment “null and void from inception”.

The group drew a sharp distinction between professional fellowships and academic doctorates, stating that a fellowship, regardless of specialisation, does not replace the Ph.D. required for university-wide academic governance.

They cited judicial interpretations that clarified that fellowships, especially in medical and professional fields do not constitute terminal academic research degrees and therefore cannot be substituted for a Ph.D. in senior academic leadership positions.

“A Ph.D. certifies original research contribution and advanced academic leadership capacity, which a fellowship does not,” they said.

The academics maintained that the University’s Governing Council, being a statutory body, must operate strictly within federal education laws, NUC regulations and publicly advertised criteria.

They said waiver of mandatory qualifications undermines transparency, equality of opportunity and institutional legitimacy.

The group noted that since its establishment, the University of Abuja had followed a risk-averse leadership selection tradition, consistently choosing candidates with unambiguous qualifications to avoid litigation and protect the University’s reputation.

They argued that the current controversy departs sharply from this tradition, exposing the institution to avoidable legal and regulatory crises.

The stakeholders emphasised that a fully qualified candidate who ranked as second runner-up in the screening process possesses a valid Ph.D. and successfully passed all competitive stages.
They said that in previous national precedents, institutions facing appointment disputes reverted to the highest-ranked, non-controversial candidate to preserve fairness, stability and legal defensibility.

Speaking on possible implications of the action, they said sustaining an appointment that contradicts advertised qualifications could lead toJudicial challenges against actions taken under the Vice-Chancellor.

They also said it could weaken NUC’s oversight authority, lead to dangerous precedents for other universities, and loss of stakeholder confidence in the institution.

They described the situation as a direct violation of legality, meritocracy, equity and institutional continuity.

The group however recommended the restoration of credibility to the process through the immediate enforcement of the published Ph.D. requirement and withdrawal of any appointment made in violation of this requirement.

They also urged the institution to adopt the highest-ranked fully compliant candidate and reaffirmation of the University’s long-standing tradition of legally safe, controversy-free leadership selection.

They stressed that adherence to these steps was necessary to protect the University’s integrity and ensure alignment with national regulatory standards.