FHR in the Hot Seat: Unmasking Loans, Biases, and Constitutional Dilemmas in the FHR Saga

 

Editorial: By Eniola Fase

On October 21st, 2023, Joy Ohime, a member of the FATSSSA House of Representatives for the 200-level constituency of the Department of Psychology, voiced discontent on his YouTube page regarding the FHR decision. The focal point of the disagreement was Ashcroft Omoniyi, the Social Director of FATSSSA, who purportedly failed to repay a 200,000 naira loan borrowed from the association.

In an unexpected twist, Joy Ohime offered a platform for Mr. Ashcroft to present his perspective, setting the stage for a potential clash of narratives. Before delving into Mr. Ashcroft's accusations of bias and subjectivity against the FHR, it's crucial to scrutinize a disturbing trend within the House. Members of the FHR appear to be converting the association's funds into a lending service, reminiscent of the previous administration's controversies with Mr. Wole, the former Social Director.

As this unsettling tradition unfolds, questions arise about the prudence of transforming the association into an ad-hoc financial institution. Now, turning to the crux of the matter, Mr. Ashcroft, in his interview with the displeased Honourable Joy, accused the FHR of bias and delivered verdicts based on personal opinions. He pondered, "If it is like a plan or scheme to get at me, I don't understand…” This prompts the critical question: Is there something crucial we're overlooking? While we contemplate, one glaring conclusion emerges—the FHR's apparent disregard for the Constitution.

Referring to the reviewed FATSSSA Constitution Chapter 4, Section (viii), subsection IV, it states, “The Social Director shall provide the Association with instruments of entertainment under the sponsorship of the Association and take charge of them.” However, Mr. Ashcroft reported that when he presented his budget as constitutionally obligated, the Speaker of the House, Miss Olajumoke, declared that the association would not release any funds, insisting he should finance the picnic solely from ticket sales.

The FHR's denial of the Social Director's right to present a budget sponsored by the association raises concerns about constitutional adherence. During FHR sittings, discussions often veer into matters contrary to the constitution, exemplified by debates on whether those who haven't fulfilled financial obligations should join faculty committees—a direct contradiction of the constitution. The recurring theme raises questions about the FHR's perception of itself as a law-making body seemingly above the law.

Now, delving into the hypocrisy of this entire issue. The FHR has washed its hands of every responsibility to the 200,000 naira loan that could not be repaid while pushing all responsibility onto the Social Director’s head. In their quest to distance themselves, they showcase a lack of accountability, leaving lingering questions about the House's commitment to fairness and transparency. This leads us back to Mr. Ashcroft's accusations of the House scheming to get him, creating an atmosphere of distrust within FATSSSA's corridors of power. As the controversy continues to unfold, the association grapples not only with financial turmoil but also with the erosion of trust among its members, casting a shadow over its future endeavors.