Fresh controversy has trailed the appointment of Prof. Hakeem Fawehinmi as substantive vice-chancellor of the University of Abuja, with growing scrutiny centred not on his personality but on the legality of the process that produced him.
The dispute revolves around an alleged breach of clearly defined eligibility criteria governing vice-chancellor appointments, particularly the requirement that candidates must possess a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degree.
The university’s vice-chancellor position was advertised in 2025 with explicit conditions, including possession of a PhD qualification and a minimum of 10 years’ experience as a professor.
According to those who were privy to the development, more than 50 applicants jostled for the position, out of which 10 were shortlisted after undergoing security screening by the Department of State Services (DSS).
The candidates subsequently participated in a rigorous two-day interview conducted by the joint council/senate selection board.
Following the selection process, three candidates emerged, and the Governing Council adopted a merit-based system, selecting the candidate with the highest score — leading to the emergence of Fawehinmi as the council’s preferred candidate.
However, concerns have now been raised over whether the eventual appointee met the fundamental academic requirement stipulated in the advertisement.
It was gathered that both the Federal Ministry of Education and the university’s Governing Council are in receipt of a formal petition challenging the legality of the appointment process on these grounds, effectively placing the matter under possible official review.
Central to the controversy is the distinction between academic and professional qualifications. The appointment is being challenged on the grounds that a medical fellowship reportedly held by the appointee does not constitute a PhD or its equivalent, thereby calling into question the validity of his participation in the selection process.
This argument relies on a May 8, 2025 judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria in Suit No. NICN/ABJ/421/2024, which reportedly held that medical fellowship qualifications cannot be equated with a PhD.
The court was said to have made a clear distinction, stating that a postgraduate diploma conferring medical fellowship status does not meet the threshold of an academic doctorate.
Further reinforcing this interpretation is a March 5, 2026 clarification by the Federal Ministry of Education, which reiterated that while postgraduate medical colleges may be accredited to award PhDs, their fellowship certifications remain professional qualifications rather than academic degrees.
The arguments imply that if the advertised requirement was strictly a PhD or its equivalent — and if a fellowship does not meet that standard — then the eligibility of the appointed candidate, and by extension the integrity of the entire process, may be fundamentally flawed.
The university’s Governing Council must note that adherence to advertised criteria is not merely procedural but foundational to the legitimacy of such high-level academic appointments.
Beyond the University of Abuja controversy, a spotlight on Nigeria’s university system reveals a disturbing pattern that appears to be entrenching itself across public universities — the alleged breach of laws and procedures guiding the appointment of vice-chancellors and other principal officers.
What should ordinarily be a transparent, merit-driven process designed to safeguard academic excellence is increasingly degenerating into a theatre of controversy, power struggles, and institutional instability.
Under the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1993, as amended — often referred to as the University Autonomy Act — governing councils are empowered to advertise vacancies, constitute search committees and conduct interviews to select qualified professors, typically with at least 10 years’ experience, for a single five-year tenure.
University autonomy was intended to shield institutions from undue political interference and bureaucracy, enabling them to manage their affairs efficiently and competitively.
However, from the crises surrounding vice-chancellor appointments reported across public universities, it is evident that rather than strengthen governance, some councils have been accused of manipulating appointment processes, sidelining merit and ignoring statutory requirements in favour of preferred candidates.
Federal authorities have maintained that while professional fellowships are critical for clinical expertise and career advancement, they do not replace the PhD, which remains the benchmark for academic leadership roles in universities.
As the matter remains contested, attention is firmly on whether the governing council — the appointing authority — will uphold the decision or revisit the process in light of the legal and regulatory questions raised.
In view of the foregoing, the key question that remains is: who is responsible for the alleged disregard of the law and the fundamental requirement reportedly ignored?
Or better still, whose interests were served by turning a blind eye to a requirement considered fundamental to the process?
More questions will certainly need to be asked — and answered — by the governing council and the supervisory ministerial department.
