HOW DO WE UNTIE THE GORDIAN KNOT: AN INTERVIEW WITH THE FHR SPEAKER?

 

By Emmanuel Akinwale 

FATSSSA Press: Good day. Can you introduce yourself?

 

 The FHR Speaker: I am Rt. Honorable Adekola Olajumoke, the speaker of FATSSSA House of Representatives, a student of the Department of Political Science, also a representative of the 400L constituency.

 

FATSSSA Press: Before the commencement of this interview, you stated earlier about the urgent need to give clarifications. Can you proceed with that?

 

The FHR Speaker: I heard some speculations that the press wanted to make a press release, so I wanted to do a fact-check from you; that's the clarification I wanted to make

 

FATSSSA Press: All right. Moving on to the specifics:

 

FATSSSA Press: How do you interpret the constitution about the authority and discretion granted for financial decisions, such as issuing a #200,000 loan to the Social Director for organizing the FATSSSA picnic?

 

The FHR Speaker: Alright, thank you very much for this question. It is not stated categorically in any part of the Constitution that loans be granted out to any member of the Executive Council. No constitutional provision addresses that in any way in the Constitution. So you need to know that the decision made by the House or this loan granted to the social director was based on the discretion that the House applied. They are not situations addressed by the Constitution; they are not. Not all conditions are envisaged by the Constitution, and in cases like that, it is expected or only logical that discussion be applied. So, issuing the loan to the social director was a logical solution then, and it was a request made by the Social Director. There is a lot of evidence that backs this up, and even this press is Privy to this. There is strong evidence that backs this up. The social director requested that he be granted a loan to kick start the project, although the constitution does not provide for it. By that point in time, discretion was applied. Thank you.

 

FATSSSA Press: From your perspective, how has the issuance of this loan impacted the overall functioning of the house, particularly in its ability to address issues affecting students of the FATSSSA community?

 

The FHR Speaker: Well, it has not impacted or affected the overall functioning of the house in any way. The house still held an emergency sitting even after the loan issuance. After the loan disbursement, we had two

sittings, and we had an emergency sitting on Tuesday. So, whatever item being discussed on this agenda and the agenda for the legislative sittings that we've had after the issuance of the loan, they all affect FATSSSAites; they all affect the community of FATSSSAites. So it

has not, it has not affected or impacted the overall functioning of the house in any way. We are committed to the oath that we pledged to. Take for instance, even after the issuance of the loan the house deliberated on the FATSSSA book and shirt, these are one of the issues that affect FATSSSAites. Budgets for the FATSSSA book were approved. The amount for the shirt was approved. Other pressing issues like the FATSSSA toilet, GES exam and course registration were discussed. We also approved funds for the cost of running the FATSSSA TV. A lot of issues have been addressed after that. You can refer to the resolutions and the minutes of the house.

 

FATSSSA Press: Regarding the conduct of an interview with the Social Director by an FHR member, what role do you believe such discussions play in maintaining transparency and accountability within the house?

 

The FHR Speaker: Well, such an interview has not played any positive role because what transparency and accountability exist in a one-sided interview? Just one party was interviewed. What about the other party? What was the perspective of the other party? Now, even if you say it was an honorary member who conducted the interview, does that one voice stand for all? Does it stand for the voice of the whole house? The voice of the entire house was a resolution. The voice of the whole house was binding on all the thirty (30) representatives whether they were at that sitting or not. And this person in question [The honorary member who interviewed the Social Director] was at that sitting. The resolution of the House binds everybody. So if someone else or one of the other members goes outside to start making new resolutions, that one person does not stand for the voice of everyone. So, the interview has not shown any sense of accountability or transparency. A one-sided interview is not what is called transparency and accountability. It has not played any role in addressing the transparency and accountability within the House at all. It hasn't.

 

FATSSSA Press: Can you elaborate on the perspectives within the house regarding the Social Director's loan and how these perspectives may contribute to anger within the FHR?

 

The FHR Speaker: Alright, thank you so much. I've been expecting this question. So basically, what happened was that on the 6th of October, on the third legislative sitting of the House, the social director came with a budget of #405,000 for the picnic, the Crocs and slides picnic. So the House looked at this budget, and he mentioned that ([in fact] [it] is in the reports) this budget was projected to cater to 400 people, right?

However, the price for the ticket was to be pegged at 1000 naira. So the House approved that 1000 Naira to be pegged for the ticket sales. Now [for the] budget itself. There were suggestions after scrutinizing the budget that the budget should be reduced, But then, the knowledge that this budget, if we cut it down, means that you're only being unfair to the 400 people who contributed 400,000 naira for their picnic. If you drop it down and reduce it to [#300 000] or [#200 000] or [#350 000], what about the other 50 who paid? It means that the value they paid [for] and the value they will get for their money will be diminished. So well, the House looked at it and said, OK, it's not logical for the House to cut down this budget because if it flops, they will say: "It was the House that cut down our budget.” OK, let's leave

it at [#398 000] after much scrutiny. So, the House approved [#398 000] as a budget for the picnic. However, where would the social director get [#398 000] as expected from the ticket? 

Sales, right, because he mentioned that this picnic was going to be funded by ticket sales. However, he said that it was this Waiting for people to come and pay or

buy tickets that would affect the success of this picnic because some

people may even pay on that day. So, how will he make a down payment when you rely on ticket sales? How is he going to make down payments for the vendors? He already contacted the vendors he needed to make down payments so that he could purchase [all that] he wanted to buy so that he wouldn't have to rely on the ticket use necessarily.

So he indulged the house. He asked... I'm quoting the live report that the press sent out on that day. He asked the house to borrow him the sum of 200,000 naira to kick start the project. He ASKED that the house BORROWS him. He ASKED that the house BORROWS [emphasis on] the word BORROWS. So where these speculations are flying around, that it was the house that brought the suggestion. I don't know where that is coming from. I don't know where that is coming from. I'm quoting the live report of the press. He ASKED that the house BORROWS him and BORROW is different from GRANTS. The budget was not presented on that day as a budget that the Association would entirely fund. So the House moved the motion concerning the #200,000 after the social director indulged the House to grant him that loan that AFTER he realizes money from the sales of the tickets, the 200,000 Naira will be asked [for] [and] will be returned to the association's account. That was what prompted a question that I, the speaker, asked on that day. I said, "Are you SURE that you will get these 400 tickets SOLD? Are you SURE? He said he would try his best. I asked several times repeatedly on that day [that], "Are you SURE you're going to sell this [400 tickets]? He said he was

going to try his best. Motions were raised for BORROW. He walked out of that sitting, knowing that a loan was granted to him. So, if he denies that loan, I don't know where that denial is coming from. If he is saying that he does not know that it was a loan, yeah, I don't know because, from the press releases that have been sent out, these wrong misconceptions that the press has sent out [on November 22, 2023] is, really repugnant, very, very disgusting. I will send you the evidence of the live report that the press sent out on the 6th of October, backing proof that it was not an idea of the house that the loan be granted. It was the idea of the social director that he would get this, and after the loan, he would pay it back after realizing money from the ticket sales. That was what he said he would pay, Return the 200,000 naira to their decision. Honourable members can attest to it. Observers can attest to it on that day. Even the executive council can attest to it. Those present can attest to it. So that's the perspective of the House.

 

(The Speaker then proceeded to tender evidence she believed would back up her claim)

(The speaker proceeded thus) If he had requested that the association solely sponsor the picnic, that would have been a different case. I can tell you categorically that the social director has presented budgets on the floor of the house that were sponsored by the association, although not entirely. The FATSSSA Got Talent had the funding of the association. There were even suggestions that the FATSSSA Got Talent program be sponsored with the sales of tickets, but the social director gave his stance for making it a free event, and the House approved funding some aspects of the event. If the Social Director claims that he didn't request a loan when motions were moved on the house floor, he should have called the speaker to order that he didn't come to request a loan; he came instead to request a grant. He walked out of that sitting with full knowledge that he asked for a loan; if he didn't, why did he mention that he would return the money after generating funds from the ticket sales? You return loans; you don't return grants

 

FATSSSA Press: In light of the potential challenges arising from these issues, what measures should be taken to foster a more constructive and harmonious environment within the FHR?

 

The FHR Speaker: Well, first of all, the first measure the house will adopt is to learn from her mistake. The house has committed a regrettable mistake by loaning out the money to the social director, and we assure FATSSSAites that such wouldn't reoccur. Next time, we'll approve what we can and leave the rest. 

 

By that, there won't be an issue of betrayal of trust or confidence, and everyone will live peacefully. What the house put into consideration that made her reason with the request of the social director was that 'let's work harmoniously.’ 'How can we leave the social director to carry out that project without having anything on the ground?' Because the success of the event will be attributed to both the Excos and the FHR.  And as you know, for social events like that people don't purchase tickets on time. Some even purchased tickets on that day, which the social director attested to while giving his report, so how then can the social director rely on the funds from ticket sales solely? Okay, the house said, "Take this as you've requested, use it to kickstart, then when you realize the money, you pay back." This isn't a crime; it's done in more prominent organizations; even the federal government gives states loans, which they'll pay back. But then, when people breach people's trust to be defensive, they make the other person look evil. However, we have learned that what applies in one organization may not apply in the other.

 

Also, the house will adopt thoughtful deliberations as one of its measures in fostering a constructive environment. We'll address issues based on reality, not on emotions.

 

(The Pressman proceeded to render an article written by the FATSSSA press on the 22nd of November)

 

The Faculty Press wrote the article on the 22nd of November

 

FATSSSA Press: Are you aware of the news [above]?

 

The FHR Speaker: Yes

 

FATSSSA Press: The article highlights a significant contradiction between the FHR's statement and Mr. Ashcroft's claims regarding the loan request. Can you clarify how the decision to grant a loan was made and address the apparent discrepancy?

 

The FHR Speaker: Please re-highlight the two parties' statements, so I'll be sure I'm speaking the right thing

 

FATSSSA Press: From what you have stated in this interview, you affirmed that the Social Director ASKED to borrow a loan, but in the, the social director claimed that the house mooted the idea of the loan.

 

The FHR Speaker: I have addressed this earlier in this conversation, and at this point, the live report of the press is the evidence of the house that the social director introduced the idea of the loan. I don't think the press should contradict itself at this point when she claims to stand for "uncovering the truth.”

 

FATSSSA Press:  Can you distinguish between being a "private member" and an honorable house member?

 

Are members of the FHR Honourables only when they are in the hallowed chamber? So once they step out of the chamber, they are private members?

 

The FHR Speaker: Alright, thank you so much. 

 

Firstly, during the interview, the 'honorable member'  introduced himself as Joy Ohime Banks, not honorable Joy Ohime Banks. If it is claimed that he's honorable everywhere, why wasn't he condemned for presenting himself as Joy Ohime Banks without stating his title and his constituency?

 

 That aside, I would not, however, dispute the truth that every honorable member remains a dedicated member outside the chamber, as it has been stated by the press, of which the house is oblivious. 

 

However, the actions that prompted the term 'private individual' resulted from the honorable member's words (that it was unfair for the social director to pay the loan) during the interview. He was present when the resolution of the house was passed, and then, even at the sitting, he acknowledged that the loan ought to be returned to the association and even moved a motion regarding that. 

 

How, then, can you still refer to him as an honorable member when his words during the interview negate his stance at the house during the sitting? The motive behind the video, I believe, should be questioned.

 

FATSSSA Press: The article alleged that the House violated FATSSSA Constitution Chapter 4, Section (viii), subsection IV, about the Social Director's responsibility for funding social events. How does the FHR defend its position, especially considering the history of unsuccessful attempts to fund events through ticket sales?

 

The FHR Speaker: Alright, even if that section of the constitution is to be taken in its literal sense - that the association should sponsor all social events- why did the social director include the need for tickets in his budget?

 

The room for sponsorships has nullified tickets. Remember, he presented a budget of #405,000. It was projected to sell 400 tickets. If the association sponsored the event, what would the #400,000 generated for ticket sales be for? Or where would it go?

 

So, it's glaring once again that the budget wasn't presented as a budget to be sponsored by the association. If the social director had requested that the association fully sponsor some amount, it would have been included in the budget. It's not there!

 

Secondly, this section of the constitution is highly misquoted by both the social director and the press. Certain situations in the Constitution may not envisage reality. FATSSSAITES pays #3000 for dues, and 30% goes to the FATSSSA package. The 70% contains the cost of running the administration, social events, and other developmental events within the association that affect all FATSSSAites, FATSSSA week, and budgets from other organs. All of these combined to drain the association's purse, and as you know, the faculty is not privileged with a large population, unlike other faculties. So we have limited funds. 

 

If the association agrees to sponsor all social events, how do we cater for other essential activities? Thus, in situations like this, where the reality is not envisaged, then it's only logical that discretion be applied. In this case, the social director thought of this and brought the idea of ticket sales into his budget. 

 

Sponsoring all social events is as good as saying all FATSSSAites have the right to attend faculty dinners without paying a dime. The question is, can the association afford it? Thus, the House has not violated that constitutional provision because, in the first instance, the budget was not presented as a sponsored budget.

 

FATSSSA Press: By the very second point wherein you stated that the Constitution might not "envisage reality," do you know by that very basis, you have established that there are specific provisions proffered by the Constitution which must be "deliberately ignored"? If that is the case, you have posited that the Constitution is not " all valid." If the Constitution is not all valid as it is, why not amend its provisions?

 

Similarly, you have established that the Constitution is too abstract and, to a degree, impracticable.

 

The FHR Speaker: Not at all. I have not established what you insinuated.  I'm not discrediting the fact that specific constitutional provisions may not necessarily be applicable in certain instances. That is why even the Constitution itself gives room for the constitutional amendment. The constitutional review was conducted last assembly, and I'm sure that if the constitutional provision in discussion was noticed, it could have been amended.

 

Speaking from your last paragraph, I have not established that the Constitution is too abstract; I have only pointed out one constitutional provision that does not in any way define the whole of the Constitution.

 

FATSSSA Press: The article suggests a pattern of negligence in learning from past mistakes, specifically regarding the financing of social events through ticket sales. How does the FHR respond to these accusations, and what steps have been taken to ensure a more successful approach in the future?

 

The FHR Speaker: Financing social events through ticket sales is not a bad idea at all. If the social director had worked more effectively to sell those tickets, that initiative wouldn't have been a mistake today.

It'll only relieve the association of that financial burden and, of course, would have been termed a good idea.

 

Secondly, if the social director had stuck to his budget of #405 000 for 400 people, that initiative wouldn't have been a mistake. Contrarily, he spent #362,000 on 162 people only. The margin is very wide. The 'mistake' is not an issue of whether social events are financed through ticket sales; instead, it's an issue of how tactical and proactive the social director is.

 

FATSSSA Press: Finally, given the public nature of the controversy, how does the FHR plan to address the potential impact on its reputation, and what measures are being taken to ensure accountability in handling such matters?

 

The FHR Speaker: Through unbiased media reportage, we hope to project our perspectives on this issue. 

 

 

One of the responsibilities of the press is to hold public officials accountable by reporting nothing but the truth at all times, irrespective of whatever constraint it has. FATSSSAites shouldn't be denied critical information that affects them. Live reportage is one of the essential instruments the press uses to achieve this. We are grateful that the evidence of the house is the live report of the media aside from the minutes of the house. 

 

If there's any effective measure to ensure accountability, information dissemination at all times through the press is very salient. We implore the press to be more effective at this.

 

Secondly, the resolutions of the house are another measure to ensure accountability. We enjoin FATSSSAites permanently to take note of the resolutions of the house. 

 

Thirdly, FHR plans to encourage all FATSSSAites further to attend plenary sessions, where they can share their opinions or reservations and listen to the house proceedings to be able to make proper judgments when controversial issues like this occur.

 

Lastly, the house has notified the faculty management of this issue, which is being handled accordingly.  Accountability has to be enforced.

 

(Before the conclusion of the session, the Speaker requested that she would like to send concrete evidence (report and budget) concerning the picnic)

 

(Following the granting of the request, the documents below were tendered)

FATSSSA Press: That marks the end of the session. Have a wonderful day, Honourable Speaker.

The FHR Speaker: Yes, thank you