MMTU Chancellor’s Actions Undermine Rule of Law
Recent developments at Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU), allegations of unlawful conduct by the university’s top leadership have sparked intense debate over governance procedures, adherence to statutory provisions, and respect for institutional authority. The controversy centers around the actions of the university’s Chancellor, Ing Mohamed A Jalloh, who has allegedly overstepped his constitutional and statutory bounds in attempting to unilaterally dismiss the university’s substantive Vice-Chancellor and Principal, Professor Philip John Kanu.
On August 12, 2026, the Chancellor issued a notification letter informing Professor Kanu that his tenure had expired, ostensibly without following the proper procedures mandated by the University Act 2021. This letter, which appears to be invalid under the established governance framework, was sent without a formal review process or approval from the University Court the highest administrative authority of the institution.
This action is troubling because, under the University Act 2021, the process for reviewing and potentially terminating or suspending a Vice-Chancellor or Principal involves a series of well defined steps, including a mid-term review, investigation, and a decision making process overseen by the University Court. It is explicitly stated that any decision of this nature must be based on clear evidence and due process, not unilateral decisions by the Chancellor or any other individual outside the Court’s authority.
Prior to the issuance of the notification, Professor Kanu was reportedly suspended from his position. However, this suspension was carried out without the proper procedures being followed. The University Act 2021, particularly Section 8(4), mandates that a Vice-Chancellor or Principal shall hold office for a four-year term, subject to a mid-term review to assess their capacity to continue in the role. The Act emphasizes that any suspension or termination must be preceded by a thorough review process conducted by the University Court, not by the Chancellor alone.
Adding to the controversy, the Parliament’s Committee on Higher Education intervened and directed the university to reinstate Professor Kanu. The parliamentary decision underscores the recognition that the suspension and proposed removal were unlawful and lacked proper procedural backing. Yet, both the Minister of Higher Education and the Chancellor have refused to honor this directive, further complicating the governance crisis at MMTU.
The University Act 2021 clearly stipulates the roles and responsibilities of various governing bodies within the university. Section 11(2) states that the University Court is the highest administrative authority, responsible for overseeing the university’s functions and reporting annually to the Chancellor. The Court’s powers include exercising authority over appointments, suspensions, and other administrative decisions, except on purely academic matters, which are managed by the Senate.
Section 15(1) of the Act further clarifies that any suspension of a senior member, including the Vice-Chancellor, can only be undertaken after “due investigation and for good cause” as defined under the Act’s interpretation section. These causes include criminal conviction, conduct unbecoming of an officer, or physical or mental incapacity none of which have been demonstrated in Professor Kanu’s case. The Act’s provisions emphasize that such decisions must be made by the Court following a proper process, not unilaterally by the Chancellor.
The crux of the issue lies in the fact that the Chancellor acted outside the law. The University Act explicitly states that the Court should constitute an appropriate Search Committee to review the tenure and conduct of the Vice-Chancellor. This committee would be responsible for undertaking an objective assessment, gathering evidence, and making recommendations. Only after this process can the Court make a formal decision, which should be communicated through the Office of the Registrar, the university’s designated officer for official correspondence.
In this case, the Chancellor’s decision to send a termination notice and suspend Professor Kanu was made unilaterally, without the formation of a Search Committee or approval from the University Court. Such actions undermine the rule of law and the principles of good governance that the university is mandated to uphold.
The University Court, as the highest administrative authority, must exercise its powers responsibly and in accordance with the law. Its decisions should be based on evidence, proper procedures, and collective deliberation. The Court’s authority includes the power to suspend a senior officer, but only after a proper investigation, which must be initiated by the Court .
