As the university careened towards the tail of the 2016/2017 academic session, the state of the Students’ Union became increasingly drowned in the ocean of controversy and wide concern. Open letters and tendentious articles periodically exchanged batons on the social media, most of them criticizing the administration of Mr OjoNifemi Emmanuel.

In the light of this, FactsCount jumped into the arena to get a more palpable and dependable understanding of the current tilt of students’ views of the union and officials therein. Various questions were thrown bordering on the congress which was postponed but which ultimately would up moribund nonetheless, the incumbent administration‘s rate of popularity and the year’s Students’ Union week.

About the Students’ Union congress which was scheduled to be held on Saturday, the 5th of November, a whopping 90.6% of respondents responded that they did not attend while only 9.4% said they did attend.

This is an unprecedented low in recent union history. As a result of this lopsidedness, the congress could not be held. Thus, the agenda of the state of the union, issue of student ID cards, SDC cases, hall account signatories and the released internal memorandum could not be thrashed out by the student body.


We pried further into the underlying reasons behind the general apathy displayed by students, and this is what we found out: 43.8% were discouraged by the level of planning and organization the union put towards it, 21.9% was not available, 15.6% were unaware the union even called for a congress, 15.6% felt the publicity was too low and 3.1% was of the opinion that the congress was not needed. This shows that the vast majority of students did not attend the congress as a result of failings of the union leadership. Only 21.9% claimed not to be available, and even


With respect to the performance of the Students’ Representative Council, more commonly known as the SRC, the majority of respondents (34.4%) at the time thought it is average. 21.9% said it is very good, 18.8% rated it as excellent, 15.6% said it is good, and 3.1% said it is bad. Ditto for very bad and abysmal (i.e. 3.1%). This may be viewed from the perspective that many of the students who were critical felt the Council was colluding with the executives to misappropriate funds which belonged to the union.


By this (Nifemi’s administration), we mean not the general leadership of the Students’ Union but the leadership only as it concerns the executive arm led by Mr. OjoNifemi. On this, the responses were not all too favourable. 40.6% of respondents said the administration has averagely performed, 15.6% said it has been bad, another 15.6% said very bad, 12.5% rooted for good, 9.4% said it has been abysmal, while a meagre 6.3% said the administration’s performance has been very good.


On this question, the majority (43.8%) of respondents swarmed in favour of the Speaker of the Students’ Representative Council, while others spread out quite well among other officials. 15.6% voted in support of the Public Relations Officer, 12.5% for the House Secretary, 6.3% for the Vice President, 6.3% for the Sport Secretary, 6.3% for the General Secretary, 6.3% for the President and 3.1% for the Chief Whip of the SRC. It should be noted that no one voted in favour of the Treasurer, Assistant General Secretary, Deputy Speaker of the SRC and Clerk of the SRC.


The majority of respondents seemed to have cast a vote of no confidence on the President as 31.3% think of him as the least performing official of the union. This, we say, is natural as followers are always inclined to give both undue glory and blame to the leader for the successes or shortcomings of any administration. 18.8% of the same respondents said the Public Relations Officer is the least performing union official. Another 18.8% said it is the General Secretary. 9.4% said it is the Sports Secretary, 6.3% said the Assistant General Secretary, 6.3% said the Treasurer, 3.1% said the Vice President, 3.1% said the Speaker of the SRC and 3.1% said the House Secretary.



The participation of students in the union week was evidently below par. This is also reflected in the responses received in the poll as 43.8% claimed not to have attended any of the about ten (10) programmes held under the week. And for the 56.3% who attended one or more of the programmes, 42.1% said they attended only one (1) of the laid out programmes, 26.3% said they attended only two (2), 10.5% attended three(3), 15.8% attended four(4), while only 5.3% attended as many as five(5) events.

FactsCount additionally asked about which of the programmes respondents enjoyed the most while the week lasted. The majority, 28.1%, replied that it was the Intervarsity Debate. 15.6% said it was the VC’s Half Marathon, 15.6% said it was the Health Day, 9.4% said it was the Variety Night and another 9.4% mostly enjoyed the cooking competition. Again, 9.4% said they liked most the Students’ Union Carnival, 6.3% of respondents voted for the Quiz Competition, 3.1% voted for the Cultural Night, while 3.1% also voted for the Music Blast. It is worthy of note that none of the respondents voted in support of the SU Dinner/Awards. This, perhaps, may be as a result of the extent of student population at attendance.


This poll was started on December 8, 2016 and closed about a week afterwards. However, the resolutions of the Students’ Representative Council to suspend the President, Vice President and General Secretary of the Union at its sitting on the 10th of December, if factored, might now have significant influence on the impression the student community has about its union. This is because several new and damning facts were, at the said sitting, unveiled by the curious arms of legislative oversight.

It remains to be seen though if the series of suspension orders will turn out ultimately to be in the best interest of students, or whether it will only end up crippling the union against imminent management policies which students might take objection to.


The 2016/17 session is yet to begin