Professor Jeyifo’s legacy is too important to be reduced to a one-sided narrative. He stood for truth, fairness, and the courage to name power imbalances, even when inconvenient. We honour that legacy, as he is buried, by continuing to build responsibly and transparently, and by refusing to stay silent when the record needs correction.
Any tribute in honour of our dear departed Professor Biodun Jeyifo (BJ) is a welcome addition to the series of well-deserved acknowledgements of his impactful life. This, ordinarily, should be the category into which to place the tribute of the President of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Professor Christopher Piwuna titled “Biodun Jeyifo: The legend lives on” published in PREMIUM TIMES on Sunday 1 March. However, the ASUU president’s tribute is bedevilled with inaccuracies with respect to Mr Jeyifo’s tireless efforts to resolve the crisis that engulfed the Obafemi Awolowo University branch of ASUU (ASUU-OAU) between 2016 and 2017.
The Congress of University Academics (CONUA) is therefore issuing this rejoinder for two reasons. First, as the famous African-American civil rights advocate, Malcolm X, alerts, “A people who don’t control their own story will always live in someone else’s lie.” Following this principle, our union produced “The CONUA Story,” which is a detailed account of the founding and progression of the union and can be found on the CONUA website.
|
|
Second, this rejoinder is motivated by the desire to sanctify Mr Jeyifo’s memory with the truth. All through his public life, Jeyifo was never known to bow before or acquiesce to oppression. “He would turn for joy in his grave” to see a sturdy CONUA standing up to honour his memory.
For the sake of historical accuracy, completeness, and respect for Mr Jeyifo’s legacy, certain aspects of the ASUU president’s intervention require clarification. Professor Jeyifo did not limit himself to expressing regret in his 2018 convocation lecture at OAU, where he described the branch as being in a state of profound and crippling crisis, despite being the birthplace of ASUU. He went much further. Between late 2018 and 2019, he personally relocated to Ile-Ife and engaged multiple stakeholders over several weeks, including holding three separate meetings with the group within ASUU that later formed CONUA.
|
|
|
|---|
The suggestion that the matter could have been laid to permanent rest if the arrow-head of the separation move had seen reason with BJ therefore omits a critical part of the record. Mr Jeyifo himself placed the heavier burden of responsibility on the ASUU national leadership’s disagreeable handling of the process.
Those of us who sat with him during those meetings – and that was indeed a rare privilege – recall clearly his final assessment. He stated with characteristic candour that the ASUU national leadership bore greater responsibility for the breakdown of his reconciliation efforts. He expressed deep concern that some of the information presented to him earlier did not reflect the full realities of the situation. He also believed the most viable path forward was through fair assimilation without punishment. In his view, such an approach could have served as a genuine rebirth for the union, rather than a permanent fracture. He presented these recommendations to ASUU-NEC on 2nd March 2019, describing the OAU crisis as the most critical in the union’s history precisely because it had reached the point of a breakaway seeking formal registration.
A tribute in honour of Mr Biodun Jeyifo is fitting here. He was more than a scholar or union pioneer. He was a moral compass who refused to sit on the fence when principle demanded clarity. One of the most memorable moments of his intellectual courage came decades earlier at the Oduduwa Hall of the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), as it was known then, when, in response to Professor Wole Soyinka’s lecture, he thundered: “Rightocracy or Leftocracy: take a position!” That single sentence encapsulated his lifelong refusal to tolerate ambiguity in the face of power, injustice, or contradiction. He demanded that intellectuals and institutions declare their stand, not hide behind nuance or expediency.
It is in that same spirit that we remember his 2019 intervention – not as a failed mediation, but as a courageous attempt to call both sides to fairness and renewal. His withdrawal from the process, when he realised deception had undermined trust, was itself an act of integrity, a refusal to lend his name to half-measures. Among the many moments that illustrated his commitment to dialogue was this: he stated at one of our meetings, conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect and open exchange, that ASUU was not formed as a union that expelled members – a direct reminder of the union’s founding ethos. This atmosphere of mutual respect and open conversation does not point to any fundamental disagreement between Mr Jeyifo and those of us who formed CONUA. He also explicitly asked for our minimum requirement to return to ASUU. We told him plainly: the withdrawal of the letters of expulsion of our members. That requirement was presented to ASUU leadership. Regrettably, this was not acted upon. It is important to state that the idea of CONUA did not precede the expulsion; it followed it.
The suggestion that the matter could have been laid to permanent rest if the arrow-head of the separation move had seen reason with BJ therefore omits a critical part of the record. Mr Jeyifo himself placed the heavier burden of responsibility on the ASUU national leadership’s disagreeable handling of the process.
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this aspect of the ASUU president’s intervention and extend our condolences once more to his family, friends, and the many he inspired.
The registration of CONUA followed due process under the Trade Unions Act and was ultimately upheld by the National Industrial Court in July 2023. CONUA was born out of that moment of principled dissent. We did not reject reconciliation for the sake of division; we sought equity, fairness, and accountability in academic unionism. That is why we have consistently chosen the path of dialogue, discipline, and responsibility over confrontation in the pursuit of the interests of Nigeria’s academia. We believe this approach honours the spirit of Professor Jeyifo’s call for renewal, not through absorption or erasure, but through building a model that serves academics, students, and the university system, without unnecessary disruption.
Today, the reality of pluralism in the academic space is no longer a matter for debate: it is a fact. CONUA remains committed to healthy competition and mutual cooperation with all unions on issues of common interest: funding, pension reform, academic freedom, and institutional integrity. We do not seek to supplant or divide; we seek to complement and strengthen.
Professor Jeyifo’s legacy is too important to be reduced to a one-sided narrative. He stood for truth, fairness, and the courage to name power imbalances, even when inconvenient. We honour that legacy, as he is buried, by continuing to build responsibly and transparently, and by refusing to stay silent when the record needs correction.
We appreciate the opportunity to clarify this aspect of the ASUU president’s intervention and extend our condolences once more to his family, friends, and the many he inspired.
‘Niyi Sunmonu is national president, Congress of University Academics (CONUA).
