THE CRISIS OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OYE-EKITI, AND THE ENTRENCHMENT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN NIGERIA'S IVORY TOWERS

THE CRISIS OF ACCOUNTABILITY IN FEDERAL UNIVERSITY, OYE-EKITI, AND THE ENTRENCHMENT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN NIGERIA'S IVORY TOWERS

By: Omowumi Ogunrotimi Esq.

Over the last three months, Nigeria has found itself in the throes of a reckoning marked by the courageous disclosures of sexual harassment by survivors confronting abusers who wield considerable institutional power. But alongside these voices of resistance, we continue to witness the powerful recoil of institutional complicity. Few cases have exemplified this more starkly than the handling of the sexual harassment allegations brought by Engr. Folasade Adebayo against the Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University Oye-Ekiti (FUOYE), Professor Abayomi Fasina. Despite the presence of documentary and audio evidence, the University’s Governing Council has chosen to absolve the accused and reframe the survivor’s pursuit of justice as an institutional betrayal. As a human rights lawyer and an advocate for systemic change in the response to sexual harassment, I find this development both alarming and emblematic of deeper structural rot.

This case is not merely an isolated instance of institutional failure. It is a jurisprudential and ethical crisis. From the outset, the terms of reference issued to the investigative committee were framed to undermine the credibility of the complainant. The committee was tasked with investigating the allegation itself with probing irrelevant and prejudicial questions: Who recorded the audio? What was the motive behind the recording? How did it gain circulation on social media? These framing devices serve only one purpose, which is to delegitimize the process of exposure rather than interrogate the abuse of power. That a survivor’s courage to document her abuse is now being treated as misconduct reflects a perverse institutional logic.

The investigative process was marred by procedural delays and substantive irregularities. The committee exceeded its three-week timeline, concluding its report after nearly three months. Even more troubling was the failure to conduct forensic analysis on the audio recordings arguably the most critical piece of evidence as submitted in the committee report. Instead of subjecting the evidence to rigorous scrutiny, the committee opted to criminalize its existence. The final report cleared the Vice-Chancellor of wrongdoing and directed the victim to apologize for allegedly bringing the institution into disrepute. This inversion of accountability signals to all survivors and potential whistleblowers that disclosure is not merely discouraged but punishable.

Sexual harassment is rarely about sexual desire; it is about asserting control and perpetuating dominance within unequal power structures. Engr. Adebayo, as a senior member of the university’s staff, represented a threat to patriarchal authority when she refused to acquiesce. Her victimization has been compounded by targeted institutional retaliation: intimidation, reputational smearing, and a forced exit from a leadership role. Rather than address the abuse of power, the university has opted to protect its hierarchical sanctity.

This is an administrative misstep and a deliberate act of institutional resistance. What we are witnessing is what feminist legal theorists have long described as the systemic reinforcement of gendered power. The concept of “institutional betrayal” is pertinent here: the failure of an institution to respond appropriately to sexual violence committed within its ranks causes secondary trauma to victims and enables the impunity of perpetrators. FUOYE’s response is a textbook case of such betrayal, and it mirrors broader trends in Nigerian institutions where reputation management consistently takes precedence over justice.

Legally, the most promising avenue for justice lies in Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which grants the National Industrial Court (NICN) jurisdiction over labor-related disputes, including sexual harassment. Critically, the NICN is the only court statutorily empowered to interpret and apply international conventions ratified by Nigeria, even if undomesticated. This means that survivors can seek civil redress using global standards such as the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention No. 190 on Violence and Harassment in the World of Work. However, this judicial pathway remains underutilized due to a lack of legal awareness, low institutional will, and victims’ fears of retaliation.

FUOYE’s action is a moral failing, a legal and institutional regression. The decision to dismiss credible evidence, exonerate a high-ranking official, and censure the complainant will have a corrosive effect on the justice-seeking capabilities of persons in academic spaces. Worse still, it sends a message that universities are willing to sacrifice truth to preserve the illusion of stability. The decision undermines the foundational principles of administrative justice: fairness, impartiality, and procedural propriety.

It is also critical to underscore that the rejection of audio evidence on the grounds of privacy is legally unsound. Under Nigerian law and common law principles, audio recordings, even those made without the consent of one party, are admissible if the probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. By disregarding the evidentiary value of the recording, the Council has substituted moral posturing for legal reasoning.

This case must not be allowed to set a precedent. If this outcome is normalized, it will discourage future disclosures, embolden perpetrators, and erode whatever trust remains in institutional grievance mechanisms. Academic institutions are meant to be citadels of learning, not centers for impunity.

Omowumi Ogunrotimi Esq. is a legal practitioner and Executive Lead  at Gender Mobile Initiative