MMTU Chancellor May Face Perjury Charges
Serious questions have emerged following the recent appearance of the Chancellor of Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU), Ing. M.A. Jalloh, before the Parliamentary Committee on Technical and Higher Education.
The controversy centres on the Chancellor’s decision to suspend the Vice Chancellor and Principal (VC&P) and the Deputy Registrar of Human Resources, as well as the explanations he provided to Members of Parliament regarding the authority under which those actions were taken.
During the parliamentary hearing, the Chancellor reportedly stated that he acted on the mandate of the University Court. However, members of the University Court have allegedly disputed that claim, maintaining that they neither granted him such authority nor authorized him to issue correspondence on behalf of the Court.
The matter has attracted widespread public attention, because the Chancellor made his statements under oath before Parliament. Under Sierra Leonean law, knowingly making false statements under oath may constitute perjury, a serious offence that carries significant legal consequences if proven before a competent court.
The public have also questioned the consistency of the Chancellor’s explanations. Before now; he had allegedly cited different sources of authority at different times, including the President, the Minister of Technical and Higher Education, and the University Court, it has been noted that these varying explanations have raised concerns about the legitimacy of the decisions taken.
Further controversy surrounds the Chancellor’s claim that several University Court meetings were convened before the suspensions were effected. The court members present contended that the meetings in question did not achieve the required quorum, the minimum number of members necessary to conduct official business and make binding decisions.
Members of Parliament have reportedly requested documentary evidence, including agendas, notices, and records of the meetings the Chancellor claims were held. Many stakeholders are now awaiting the submission of these documents and the findings of the parliamentary inquiry.
The hearing also reportedly saw committee members question the Chancellor about his achievements and contributions since assuming office. The responses provided are expected to form part of the committee’s broader assessment of governance and leadership within the institution.
The proceedings have generated significant public interest, with many citizens calling for transparency, accountability, and strict adherence to university governance procedures. They believe that public officials entrusted with leadership responsibilities must be held to the highest standards of integrity and honesty.
As Parliament continues its examination of the matter, the public remains eager to see whether the evidence presented will substantiate the claims made before the committee under oath and whether any further action will be recommended by the relevant authorities.
Should it ultimately be established through due process that false statements were knowingly made under oath, appropriate legal and administrative consequences should follow in accordance with the laws of Sierra Leone.
