By Nafisa Muhammad Iman
A Coalition of transparency groups has slammed attempts by a group of desperate detractors to discredit the process that led to the appointment of Professor Uduma Oji Uduma as the new Vice-Chancellor of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), calling the criticism a “misinformation campaign”.
The Coalition for Transparency in Tertiary Education (CTTE) said recent publications have sought to manufacture a crisis and distort facts, questioning the integrity of the Governing Council and smearing the reputation of candidates and officials.
In a press release, the CTTE affirmed that the appointment process, led by the Governing Council, adhered to due process, transparency, and regulatory guidelines.
The coalition said Professor Uduma’s appointment is a confirmation of his exceptional and transparent qualifications which the council relied on
The needless controversy surrounding the appointment has sparked heated debate, with some critics questioning the qualifications of the new VC.
However, the CTTE said the allegations are baseless and lack evidence, and are an attempt to undermine the credibility of the institution.
Professor Uduma, a distinguished scholar and seasoned administrator, is expected to bring a new level of excellence to the institution.
The CTTE said the appointment is a major boost for NOUN and a testament to the institution’s commitment to academic excellence.
The coalition praised the Governing Council for its dedication to transparency and fairness in the appointment process.
The CTTE also commended Professor Uduma for his exceptional qualifications and leadership skills.
The appointment has been widely welcomed by stakeholders, who see it as a positive development for the institution.
The CTTE said it will continue to monitor the situation and ensure that the institution is not undermined by misinformation.
The coalition urged all stakeholders to support the new VC and the Governing Council in their efforts to drive the institution forward.
The appointment of Professor Uduma is seen as a major coup for NOUN, and is expected to enhance the institution’s reputation.
The CTTE said the controversy surrounding the appointment is a minor setback, and that the institution will overcome it.
The coalition reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and accountability in the education sector.
The CTTE said it will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that the institution is run with integrity and transparency.
FULL TEXT OF THE PRESS RELEASE / REJOINDER BY THE COALITION FOR TRANSPARENCY IN TERTIARY EDUCATION (CTTE)
Setting the Records Straight on the NOUN Vice-Chancellor Selection Process
Recent publications have sought to manufacture a crisis where none exists, distort facts, impugn the integrity of the Governing Council, and smear the reputation of candidates and officials with irresponsible insinuations. These narratives – built on ignorance, mischief, and desperation – must be corrected for the sake of the public and the University community. The Coalition for ………. thus deems it necessary to issue this comprehensive rejoinder to address the series of misleading, uninformed, vexatious and sometimes malicious narratives being circulated in the media – particularly those sponsored by individuals and interest blocs seeking to delegitimize the transparent process that produced Professor Uduma Oji Uduma as the next Vice-Chancellor of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN).
Regrettably the publications which are widely distributed to several external bodies are founded on distortions, revisionism, unverified hearsay, and an inflated sense of entitlement. Indeed, the recklessness with which the petitioners attempt to malign the Governing Council, the integrity of the selection process, and the reputations of multiple individuals compels us – as a coalition with stakes in the stability and credibility of our University – to issue this comprehensive rejoinder. In addition, it is instructive that the sensational claim that the NOUN VC appointment for 2025 is engulfed in crisis is simply false. This fiction is sustained by unnamed sources, imaginary coalitions, and individuals hiding behind fabricated petitions. Their goal is not truth but disruption – an attempt to weaponize misinformation because their preferred outcomes did not materialize.
This response needless to underscore is necessary to defend the truth, protect the institution, and stop the weaponization of half-truths against the Council, the University, and the newly appointed Vice-Chancellor, Professor Uduma Oji Uduma
1. On Prof. Joy Eyisi’s Petition
Prof. Eyisi’s petition raises concerns regarding meritocracy, transparency, and gender equity in the Vice-Chancellorship selection. While every academic is entitled to express interest, her claims are factually incorrect and self-serving, reflecting a personal grievance stemming from the 2025 selection process.
1.1 Fairness does not mean entitlement
Her petition wrongly assumes that prior participation in a previous VC selection process, or scoring above a threshold in a past cycle, entitles a candidate to preferential treatment in a subsequent one, accordingly her 2021 performance should create entitlement or a backlog of “owed victory”. This is utterly incorrect, indeed puerile. A Vice-Chancellorship selection process is:
fresh, independent, and sovereign
non-cumulative
not compensatory
and not determined by a candidate’s past attempts
Each cycle is assessed de novo, entirely fresh, independent, sovereign exercises conducted on the strength of current applications, current performance, and current assessments.
1. 2 Tests do not determine the VC outcome
Prof Joy Eyisi repeatedly recycles the narrative that because she once scored highest in an internal test component, she should have been automatically elevated. Contrary to her repeated insinuations, there is no law, no statute, no regulation, and no Council resolution obligating NOUN to appoint a Vice-Chancellor based on ICT or ODL test scores.
The ONLY legally enshrined and Council-binding determinant is the ORAL INTERVIEW and the holistic assessment of the candidates by the Joint Council–Senate Selection Board.
Her attempt to revive a 2021 internal scoring template – as though it were a legally enforceable standard binding on future Councils – is unfounded, misleading, and procedurally illiterate.
1.3 Each Selection Cycle has its Own Guidelines
Council is not bound to repeat the exact model of 2021 or 2016. The claim that “the 70% rule” is a universal qualifying standard is simply false. Thus, the 2025 Council never adopted the 2021 scoring pattern or the so-called “70% rule”. There is no statutory document binding the University to reuse the same format indefinitely.
It is therefore improper for Prof Eyisi to import her own preferred scoring philosophy into a process conducted under a different Council with updated priorities and evaluation frameworks. Suffice it to underscore that her attempt to import a 2021 template into a 2025 exercise is procedurally naïve, ambitious and misleading.
2.0. RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC CLAIMS
2.1. On the Claim of Being “the Only Candidate Above 70% in 2021”
This argument is irrelevant, outdated, and misleading. Even if she indeed scored highest in 2021, the Council is:
not obligated to appoint the highest-scoring candidate,
not bound to treat previous performance as a credential for future cycles,
not required to rehearse a past outcome,
and certainly not obliged to “correct” a past result in 2025.
In 2021, the Council – as empowered by the law – opted for a vote after interviews; this was legal, valid, procedural, and binding. Prof. Joy Eyisi accepted that outcome publicly and served under the resulting VC without protest; she even authored a 5-volume Festschrift on that VC. Resurrecting it in 2025 as evidence of “injustice” demonstrates selective grievance and retroactive entitlement, not a commitment to transparency.
2.2. On the Claim That the 2025 Process Was Predetermined
This is a grave allegation, yet the petition provides no evidence, relies entirely on hearsay, and attributes unverified statements to unnamed individuals.
The entire claim is anchored on conversations allegedly held with one interview panel member. Not only is this improper conduct, it calls into question the professionalism and the propriety on her part of engaging with a panel member before or after interviews as well as the reliability of unverifiable “private conversations” as evidence.
Her claims of predetermination are completely unsubstantiated; the entire allegation rests on unverifiable statements, gossip attributed to a single interview panellist, and informal conversations outside proper channels. Such hearsay cannot form the basis for discrediting a lawful process.
On the contrary, the interview records, scoring sheets, attendance entries, and signed results demonstrate:
unanimous agreement on the three top performers,
consistent scoring patterns across multiple assessors,
and no anomalies whatsoever.
3.3. On the Claim of Gender Bias
This is both factually incorrect and morally unfair. The Governing Council of NOUN currently includes multiple women in strategic leadership roles. In fact,
NOUN has produced female Registrars,
female Directors,
female Senate representatives,
female Council members,
and female Heads of Departments & Units.
Her suggestion that NOUN deliberately excludes women is baseless and contradicted by institutional history. What the University cannot – and will not – do is promote a candidate by gender sympathy where performance, interview quality, leadership suitability, and credibility assessments do not justify such elevation.
It is also pertinent to highlight that in the 2025 VC selection cycle, the top three candidates after final Council adoption included:
a male candidate (1st)
and two female candidates (2nd and 3rd)
This directly negates her claim that a qualified woman is systematically denied opportunity. Her assertion is therefore an emotional construction, not a factual one.
Further, Prof. Joy Eyisi omits that she served one tenure as Deputy Vice-Chancellor at NOUN. During this period, she acquired a reputation widely acknowledged across Senate, staff, and administrative units for administrative inefficiency, poor interpersonal relations, alienation of colleagues, inability to manage people constructively, and a leadership temperament unsuited to the office of Vice-Chancellor.
Her tenure as DVC remains one of the most internally contentious and unpopular in recent memory. This background – and not gender – explains the low leadership ratings she repeatedly received in subsequent cycles.
2.4. On the Claim That Holding Two PhDs Guarantees Leadership Superiority
This reflects a misunderstanding of university leadership philosophy. A Vice-Chancellor is appointed based on vision, managerial maturity, institutional calmness, demeanour, professional balance, community acceptance, and emotional intelligence. Not on the number of certificates one possesses.
Leadership in a complex ODL system requires temperament, administrative steadiness, institutional respect, and broad acceptability – not accumulation of degrees. Indeed, the attempt to weaponize academic titles as entitlement to the office reflects a misunderstanding of the role. A Vice-Chancellor is not a certificate collector; he or she is a leader of people and systems.
2.5. On the Claim That She Has a Unique Advantage Because She Holds a PhD in ODL
This statement ignores the obvious:
an ODL PhD does not automatically translate to Vice-Chancellorship,
hundreds of global ODL institutions are led by scholars from diverse backgrounds,
NOUN itself has been successfully led by VCs without ODL doctorates.
The Coalition notes, with concern, Prof. Eyisi’s repeated effort to present an ODL PhD as a monopoly of competence, when in reality it is one among many relevant strengths, and cannot override broader leadership suitability.
2.6. On the Claim That a Council Member “Praised Her Documents” Before the Interview
Private compliments or praise during informal review do not constitute institutional endorsement. Council decisions are made by formal scoring and signed official records, – not by casual comments during “mock reviews” or private praise. Selecting individual compliments and elevating them into allegations of injustice is emotionally earnest but procedurally empty.
2.7. On the Claim of Bribery or Inducement of Panel Members
This is a serious accusation built on assumptions, gossip, and unverifiable statements allegedly made in private conversations. It would be abysmally ridiculous to dignify such unsubstantiated claims. If such allegations were true, she would have submitted an affidavit, named individuals, presented proof, and filed a report with ICPC or EFCC. Making sweeping allegations without evidence is defamatory and irresponsible.
2.8. On Prof. Willy Ugwuanyi’s alleged statements
In addition to addressing the inaccuracies and distortions contained in Prof. Eyisi’s petitions, the Coalition finds it necessary to respond to the alleged statements made by Prof. Willy Ugwuanyi, himself a member of the Selection Committee entrusted with the solemn responsibility of assessing candidates for the Vice-Chancellorship of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN).
His remarks circulated in defence of Prof. Eyisi represents a troubling departure from institutional ethics, documented reality, and the neutrality expected of a committee member.
Prof. Ugwuanyi was present during the interviews. He participated in the scoring. He endorsed the documentation. He knows and cannot credibly deny that the results placed the top four candidates (two of whom are women) above Prof. Eyisi’s score of 67%, placed her fifth.
For Ugwuanyi to now claim that Eyisi was “the most qualified” is to contradict his own professional work, disown the records he helped generate, and attempt to rewrite a process that was transparent, collective, and meticulously recorded.
Members of a selection committee are bound by strict ethical obligations – confidentiality, objectivity, impartiality, and fidelity to the collective judgment of the panel. Ugwuanyi’s alleged statements amount to a breach of this trust. Instead of upholding the integrity of the process he contributed to, he now seeks to weaponize his insider status to cast unwarranted doubt on a procedure he personally validated. Such behaviour is unbecoming of a committee member and risks misleading the public through calculated distortion.
Suffice it to underscore that Ugwuanyi’s commentary echoes the same pattern seen in Eyisi’s petitions: elevate sentiment above merit, ignore comparative scores, conceal administrative inadequacies, and manufacture the illusion of injustice where none exists. His narrative conveniently omits Eyisi’s well-documented deficiencies, and interview performance that lagged significantly behind the leading candidates.
Instead of encouraging improvement or accountability, Ugwuanyi attempts to cloak Eyisi in victimhood to justify an outcome the facts cannot sustain.
By contradicting the committee’s decisions after the conclusion of the exercise, Ugwuanyi’s alleged statements suggest a post hoc political intervention, not an honest assessment. He had ample opportunity to object during deliberations, but he did not. He had access to the scores, but he raised no dissent.
He had a vote, but he never used it to favour Eyisi. His newfound position, therefore, lacks credibility and appears driven by external pressure or after-the-fact lobbying.
The timing and content of Ugwuanyi’s alleged remarks align disturbingly with the pattern of Eyisi’s petitions, which rely on ambiguous insinuations, misleading narratives, unfounded allegations, and attempts to manufacture a crisis where none exists.
Ugwuanyi’s involvement, given his committee status, is particularly problematic, as it risks misguiding the public, misrepresenting the process, and pressuring statutory bodies with distortions rather than evidence.
The Coalition firmly states that:
Prof. Ugwuanyi’s alleged statements are inconsistent with the official records.
They contradict the outcomes he helped ratify.
They represent a breach of committee ethics and a mischaracterization of a fair and transparent process.
They should be regarded as a personal, post-process political intrusion, not a credible reflection of the Selection Committee’s work.
The Coalition reaffirms its full confidence in:
the integrity of the Governing Council,
the rigour of the selection procedure,
the validity of the final ranking, and
the unimpeachable merit of the top candidates who outperformed their peers by wide margins.
Any narrative whether from Eyisi or from Ugwuanyi that seeks to overturn merit through distortion stands rejected, discredited, and exposed.
2.9. On the Claim That Her Performance was Ignored
The Coalition notes that from available Council records her application was attractively packaged, but underscores the difference between beautiful packaging of documents, and actual performance before the Board. While her submitted documents were colourful and elaborately designed, her presentation, strategic reasoning, leadership articulation, and question-handling were widely adjudged to be significantly below expectations.
In essence, her documents were colourful, but her delivery was not competitive. Selection is not awarded for packaging but for actual performance before the Board. The top three candidates outperformed her, not by manipulated scoring.
3. On Adedapo A. O.’s and the faceless “Coalition” Petition
3. 1. PhD Without Master’s Claim
A careful reading of the petitions authored by Dr. Adedapo and the faceless “coalition” secretly coordinated by Prof. A. G. Suleiman reveals a shocking degree of academic ignorance, misinformation, and illiteracy about basic university regulations. This ignorance is so profound that it raises questions about the competence and motives of the petitioners.
The most glaring display of this ignorance centres on their false claim that a person cannot earn a PhD without first having a Master’s degree. This statement is embarrassingly false, demonstrably uninformed, and not in line with Nigerian university regulations, let alone global best practices.
Direct PhD Admission is Long-established in Nigerian Universities. Long before either Adedapo or Suleiman rose to senior academic positions, the following pathways have existed and remain legitimate:
Direct PhD admission for First-Class and exceptional Second-Class Upper graduates
MPhil/PhD integrated programmes
Conversion from MPhil to PhD after outstanding performance
Direct PhD enrolment upon academic distinction or faculty recommendation.
These are not “irregularities.” They are explicit Senate-approved policies and pathways in leading Universities across the globe and in respected Nigerian universities – including University of Lagos.
For two supposed academics, one of them supposedly a Professor, to be unaware of this standard pathway is astonishing and deeply embarrassing.
In fact, Prof. Uduma’s academic journey exposes their ignorance; had the petitioners taken even five minutes to verify their claims, they would have discovered the following undisputed academic facts about Prof. Uduma Oji Uduma, the selected Vice-Chancellor:
A. First Degree: University of Calabar (UNICAL), graduated with exceptional distinction, overall best student of the Faculty of Arts, demonstrated academic qualities far above the national norm. This category of graduate is, by long-established practice, eligible for direct postgraduate progression into accelerated or integrated PhD-track programmes.
B. Postgraduate Admission: University of Lagos (UNILAG)
UNILAG, arguably one of the most reputable universities in Africa admitted him into its MPhil/PhD integrated programme, a standard track for:
Distinction-level graduates
Exceptional academic performers
High-potential scholars preparing for research careers.
This admission pathway is neither unusual nor controversial; it is normal, legal, established, authorised, and documented.
C. Coursework Performance: Distinction Level
Prof. Uduma proceeded to earn DISTINCTION in his postgraduate coursework at UNILAG, a feat that confirms the correctness of his admission, demonstrates superior academic competence, and
validates his placement on the PhD track.
A man with this academic strength does not need shortcuts. He earns his way through merit, excellence, and verifiable performance.
For Adedapo and Suleiman to assert that such a scholar cannot earn a PhD without first having a Master’s degree is not only fatuous but reveals:
Lack of understanding of Nigerian university regulations
Complete ignorance of MPhil/PhD structures
Embarrassing unfamiliarity with Senate-adopted admission routes
A reckless disregard for fact-checking
A desperation to mislead public officials
A malicious attempt to tarnish the reputation of the most qualified candidate.
This level of ignorance is unbefitting of any academic, let alone one who presumes to speak on matters of higher-education administration. The coalition thus sadly note that Suleiman and Adedapo are not defending standards, they are displaying their illiteracy and gnawing gaps. Their petitions misrepresent basic academic norms, misstate admission procedures, mischaracterize postgraduate structures, ignore the long history of direct PhD and MPhil-to-PhD pathways, pretend that their personal bitterness is a national crisis, attempt to use falsehood to overturn a lawful selection process. These are the actions of bad losers, not defenders of academic integrity. If anything, their submissions indict their own academic awareness, not the qualifications of Prof. Uduma.
The Coalition affirm that the allegations targeting Prof. Uduma’s qualifications are rooted in ignorance, vindictiveness, and deliberate misrepresentation. They do not survive even the lightest academic scrutiny. By contrast, Prof. Uduma’s academic history from UNICAL to UNILAG MPhil/PhD dplaces him clearly within the league of scholars for whom direct PhD progression is both justified and expected. His record speaks for him; their ignorance speaks for them.
3.2. Adedapo on Determination of Professional Standing by the Order of Degrees
Adedapo purports to be concerned about the proper sequence of academic degrees, but unfortunately, he betrays his ignorance as his submission riddles with factual inaccuracies, academic misconceptions, and procedural errors. He is clueless that a candidate’s professional standing is not diminished by the sequence of degrees, his attempt to weaponize his misunderstanding is both unfortunate and academically embarrassing.
Contrary to his assertions, professional standing in academia is determined by research output, teaching excellence, administrative capacity, integrity, peer recognition, and contribution to knowledge. It is not determined by whether an MA appears before or after a PhD, nor whether a direct PhD pathway was used. Her fixation on superficial credential order reflects a shallow understanding of academic professionalism.
His attempt to malign Prof. Uduma Oji Uduma by suggesting that NOUN “should not have screened him” demonstrates a confusion between credential sequencing and professional competence. Adedapo’s personal animus and focus on procedural minutiae blinds him from realizing that Prof. Uduma is a distinguished scholar with a national reputation in philosophy, research, and academic leadership in multiple academic and administrative capacities; that he is not a NOUN Professor, and that his record demonstrates competence, integrity, and suitability for leadership.
3. 3. On Adedapo’s Confusion of Administrative Errors with Academic Fraud
Adedapo repeatedly insinuates that the Council was “docile” for allowing some candidates to rise to professorship. But the positions she cites – DVC, Director, etc. are administrative, not academic certifications.
The Governing Council does not award professorships in NOUN, nor anywhere in Nigeria. By his own logic, if he finds these promotions unbelievable, his frustration is with internal administrative discretion, not academic fraud. His petition therefore misdirects blame while misunderstanding basic institutional structures.
3.4. On Adedapo’s Misplaced Allegations against Professor Danfulani
His allegations about Professor Danfulani are filled with half-truths, contradictions, and unverifiable claims; assuming without admitting that his allegations exist, he at best conflates political accusations with academic qualifications, and misuses newspaper speculation as evidence.
Based on the foregoing, the Coalition states unequivocally that:
Dr. Adedapo’s publication is grounded in ignorance, not evidence.
His conclusions reflect a misreading of how academic qualifications work.
His attempt to impugn the integrity of respected scholars collapsed when subjected to academic scrutiny.
The Governing Council is right to ignore his sensationalism and rely on objective evaluation.
A PhD is a PhD, whether preceded by a Master’s degree or obtained through a recognized direct-entry route. His attempt to invalidate legitimate scholars because of his own limitations and misunderstanding is unacceptable, unfounded, and rejected. His petition is factually baseless, legally and academically misinformed, and reflects personal misunderstanding rather than objective critique.
3. 5. On the Lack of Credibility and Personal Motivation of the Coalition for Development and Justice (CDJ)
We respectfully submit that the Coalition for Development and Justice (CDJ) is a non-existent, faceless, unregistered collection of anonymous individuals, with no physical office, no known leadership, no prior publications, no policy track record and no identifiable membership, whose spokesperson allegedly operates on behalf of a candidate who failed in the recently concluded Vice-Chancellorship selection process. There is no evidence of genuine stakeholder representation or institutional credibility. In fact, available evidence weighs heavily that the Coalition is nothing more than an anonymous mask used by Prof. A. G. Suleiman a disgruntled aspirant in the interview process. This explains:
* The coalition’s fixation on denigrating the process
* The personal tone of its petitions
* Its misinterpretation of procedure
* Its alignment with arguments Suleiman previously made privately on the floor the Governing Council
* Its silence on all other candidates except those ranked above him
Like Prof. Eyisi’s petition, this surreptitious platform being orchestrated by Prof. A. G. Suleiman represent the megaphone of individuals who are unable to accept objective outcomes and are attempting to weaponize grievance and misinformation. Little wonder the two petitions share the same features: bitterness masquerading as advocacy, self-serving misrepresentations of procedure, ignorance of basic university regulations and academic norms, a desire to overturn a transparent, well-documented process simply because they lost and an attempt to mobilize public opinion without substantive evidence.
3. 6. On the Coalition’s False Claim of Corruption and Bribery
The trumped-up Coalition alleges without any evidence whatsoever that Prof. Uduma bribed Council members. Yet not a single Council member has reported, hinted, or insinuated any such incident, no complainant from within the University community has made such allegations, the petitioners name no amount, no beneficiary, no date, no transaction, no proof.
We affirm that the allegation is purely defamatory, constructed to scandalize an impeccable academic known nationwide for his scholarship, modesty, and integrity. A petition that cannot supply a shred of evidence does not rise to the level of an allegation, only manufactured fiction. We challenge the petitioners to produce even the slightest credible evidence. They cannot because none exists.
3. 7. On the Coalition’s False Claim of “Religious Bias” and Federal Character Violation
The petition states that out of 16 persons involved in the selection, only 1 was Muslim. This is an easily verifiable falsehood. At the time of the interviews/appointment, four (4) Muslims, namely:
His Excellency, Malam Dr. Isa Yuguda – Pro-Chancellor and Chairman (Muslim)
Professor Shehu Usman Adamu – Senate Representative (Muslim)
Professor A. G. Sule – Congregation Representative Member (Muslim)
Malam Marafa Nasiru – University Bursar (Muslim)
sat in the NOUN Governing Council. This is a 25% representation, not “one among sixteen.”
Moreover, the Federal Character Principle applies to federal appointments, not to university Governing Councils constituted following the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. In addition, the selection of a Vice-Chancellor is a competitive merit-based process, not a religious balancing ritual. Further, candidates themselves came from both faiths, and the composition of the Council never influenced scoring. The petition’s attempt to inject religion is therefore false, reckless, inflammatory, and extremely dangerous.
3. 8. On the Allegation of Procedural Manipulation
The petition claims that the Council “altered the whole structure and evaluation criteria.”
This is factually incorrect.
The Governing Council followed the exact Federal Government circular on VC appointments.
The shortlisting, scoring, presentations, and interviews were all conducted in strict adherence to procedure.
Every candidate received equal time, equal assessment parameters, and equal consideration.
The scores were tabulated in the presence of observers and validated before announcement.
At the end of the process:
Two women placed 2nd and 3rd respectively, scoring 76.8% and 76.2%
Prof. Uduma scored 92%, highest
Prof. Eyisi – contrary to her public grandstanding placed 5th with 67%.
The process was transparent, competitive, and rule-compliant, and no candidate has formally challenged the procedure within the University – as required by law.
3. 9. On the False Claim that “a more Qualified Candidate was Removed”
This is another blatant fabrication.
No candidate was “removed” from the process.
Those who failed did so on merit, not due to manipulation.
Prof. A. G. Suleiman whose supporters are believed to be behind this petition, scored poorly in the structure of his application and he lacks the basic administrative experience needed for the exalted position of Vice Chancellor.
Prof. Joy Eyisi, another bitter loser and peevish petitioner, scored poorly in the structured interview, despite submitting an impressively packaged application.
Performance, not colourful CVs determines suitability.
It is mischievous for petitioners to assert that someone who did not meet the mark was “unjustly removed.” We affirm that there is no record, no minute, and no evidence of any such removal.
3. 10. On the Coalition’s Uncharitable and Mischievous Mischaracterization of Prof. Uduma
The petition tries to paint Prof. Uduma as academically questionable, yet it conveniently ignores:
His status as a nationally and internationally respected scholar
His publications across reputable peer-reviewed journals
His 35+ years of teaching, research, and administrative leadership
His reputation as a principled, incorruptible academic
His service to the National Open University of Nigeria
His strong performance during the interview, which earned him the highest score
The pettiness of the petition exposes the real motive: attempt to de-market a scholar whose only “offence” is emerging winner in a fair contest.
4. On the Petitions’ Fundamental Motive: Sour Grapes And Failed Lobbying
Independent findings show that:
A small group of aggrieved candidates and external influencers attempted unsuccessfully to pressure Council members before the interviews.
When such lobbying failed and their preferred aspirants performed poorly, they resorted to propaganda.
Anonymous “coalitions” were suddenly created to publish sponsored falsehoods.
The petition circulated immediately after the announcement is clear evidence of a pre-written strategy of blackmail.
This rejoinder exposes the desperation behind the petition.
5. On the Governing Council Display Of Exemplary Professionalism
Far from the chaos falsely painted by petitioners, the Governing Council:
Conducted a world-class screening and interview process
Ensured gender fairness, regional balance, and strict meritocracy
Produced a transparent, defensible outcome that NOUN staff and students have widely welcomed
There is no crisis at NOUN. Only a crisis of expectations by those who believed they must win at all costs.
6. On Personal Grievance and “Bad Loser” Narrative
Suleiman’s orchestration of the coalition, alongside Eyisi’s petition, reflects personal disappointment at a legitimate outcome. Both individuals are attempting to undermine an objectively merit-based selection process rather than addressing any factual irregularity.
7. General Observations and Rebuttal
1. Meritocracy Prevails: Prof. Uduma Oji Uduma’s selection is fully compliant with NOUN’s regulations, federal guidelines, and international best practices. The selection panel evaluated candidates based on presentation, intellectual competence, leadership vision, and institutional knowledge.
2. Academic Qualifications and Integrity: Prof. Uduma’s credentials are well-documented, verifiable, and fully aligned with his leadership role. Allegations that a PhD cannot be earned without a Master’s degree are false, demonstrating ignorance of Nigerian academic standards.
3. Council Composition and Fairness: The Governing Council includes representation across religion and institutional sectors. Claims of bias are factually incorrect.
4. Professional Conduct and Reputation: Those petitioning against Prof. Uduma, especially Eyisi and Suleiman, appear motivated by personal dissatisfaction rather than evidence-based critique. Their petitions reflect bad-loser behaviour and an attempt to politicize a transparent process.
Conclusion
The Coalition categorically rejects all petitions and allegations against Prof. Uduma Oji Uduma. The assertions made by Prof. Eyisi, Adedapo, and the faceless coalition orchestrated by Prof. Suleiman are factually incorrect, legally and academically misinformed, and motivated by personal grievance and sour disappointment.
Prof. Uduma Oji Uduma’s distinguished academic record, leadership competence, and integrity are beyond reproach. His appointment as Vice-Chancellor of NOUN reflects meritocracy, transparency, and adherence to established governance principles.
We urge all stakeholders to recognize the objective nature of the selection process, dismiss unfounded claims, and support the incoming leadership in the interest of the University, its students, and the nation.