By Briama Siaffa and Jensen Cummings
In a dramatic twist in the developing story of the crisis facing the University of Sierra Leone, the Acting Vice Chancellor and Principal of the university, Professor Lawrence Kamara, has resigned few weeks following his appointment by the Minister of Technical and Higher Education, Dr Ramatulai Wurie to fill in the vacuum left by the departure of former VC and Principal Professor Sahr Foday. Most observers have received this development with optimism in that it would help to calm the tension between the dissolved university court and the supervisory ministry of the university. These observers are of the opinion that the Minister, Dr Wurie, acted tough to resolve the crisis facing the university by quickly appointing an acting vc and principal to avoid a leadership vacuum until the University Court puts their act together to appoint a substantive vc and principal and pro-vice chancellor, and moreover, by quickly taking steps to dissolve the University Court for failing to efficiently perform their role. Official sources have confirmed that the Ministry has since accepted the resignation of Professor Kamara and are now looking for a reputable internationally renowned academic to be appointed as Acting VC and Principal.
The appointment of Professor Mohamed Samai as Pro-VC and by extension Vice Chancellor and Principal of USL by the University Court, following theMinistry of Technical and Higher Educationappointment of an actingVice Chancellor and Principal of the University of Sierra Leone in the person of Prof. Lawrence Kamara, highlights a delayed response from the University Court. It appears that the University Court slept on their wings by retroactively taken action only after the Ministry had already filled the position by naming Professor Kamara to serve in the role in acting capacity.
This sequence of events suggests a reaction from the University Court to the Ministry’s appointment, indicating a potential reluctance, or delay on their part. It’s noteworthy that the Ministry’s decision received the blessing of the Chancellor, adding a layer of legitimacy to their proactive stance in addressing the need for leadership and preventing any disruptions in the university’s operations.
In the latest developments, the situation at the university has escalated to the point where the University Court has been dissolved by its supervisory ministry with a view to set up an oversight committee charged with the responsibility to restore order. The dissolution signifies a significant response to the perceived inefficiencies and delays, and it is announced that a new University Committee will be established promptly with diverse membership. This drastic measure indicates a commitment to addressing the issues that led to the delayed response in the appointment of key leadership positions.
Furthermore, a press release from the Ministry of Technical and Higher Education has disclosed that the Registrar of the University of Sierra Leone and the Finance Director are now proceeding on immediate leave pending investigations. This action implies a restructuring within the university administration, likely aimed at bringing about a fresh start and ensuring that the institution operates with renewed efficiency under the new leadership and Court members to be appointed. The Ministry’s proactive approach appears to be shaping the course of reforms within the university governance structure.
The University Court’s response to the Ministry’s intervention raises eyebrows, as it appears to be a reactionary measure rather than a proactive initiative. From the details available, it seems that the University Court only took action after the Ministry had already initiated the appointment process. The Court’s delayed reaction suggests an institutional inertia or a lack of resolve in fulfilling its responsibilities, prompting the Ministry to step in and take charge.
The timing of the University Court’s response, following the Ministry’s lead, contributes to the perception that the Court may not have been proactive in addressing the vacancy of the Pro-Vice Chancellor position. This dynamic has fueled a narrative of inefficiency and raised questions about the Court’s commitment to its role in the university’s governance.
Despite constant calls from the Minister in the Ministry and the Parliamentary Oversight Committee to resolve the issues, the University Court’s lack of responsiveness has exacerbated the administrative turmoil. The Ministry’s appointment of an Acting Vice Chancellor and Principal, designed to expedite the appointment process, faced resistance from the Court. Instead of collaborating, the Court proceeded to appoint a pro-vice chancellor and by extension a parallel Vice Chancellor, further deepening the administrative divide.
The University’s failure to hold the convocation in December, opting to deviate from established norms, is a clear manifestation of their unwillingness to seek the interest of the students and the country. This deviation has not only disrupted the academic calendar but also reflects the extent of discord within the university’s administrative ranks.
Furthermore, the delay in the convocation process for the year 2023 is a departure from the established norm. Traditionally held in December, the convocation was postponed to April this year, signaling a departure from the customary schedule.
Adding to the complexities are new academic policies that seemingly emerged without clear communication or consultation. The introduction of extra student fee charges with due consultation with the supervisory ministry has raised concerns about the hidden agendas of the university administration. Moreover, the announcement that any first-year student failing a single module would be required to repeat the entire academic year has met with widespread confusion and apprehension. It raises questions about the efficiency of the governance ecosystem of the university administration.
Copyright –Published in Expo Times News on Wednesday, February 7th, 2024 (ExpoTimes News – Expo Media Group (expomediasl.com)
