MMTU Chancellor Displays Disrespect For University Act 2021
Developments at Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU) have ignited a heated debate over governance, legality, and respect for institutional authority within Sierra Leone’s higher education sector. At the center of this controversy is the conduct of the university’s Chancellor, Ing Mohamed A Jalloh, whose actions appear to have overstepped constitutional and statutory boundaries, threatening the integrity of the university’s governance framework and undermining the rule of law.
The crisis began on August 12, 2026, when the Chancellor issued a notification letter informing Professor Philip John Kanu, the substantive Vice-Chancellor and Principal of MMTU, that his tenure had purportedly expired. This notification, which was allegedly sent without adherence to the proper legal procedures, sparked immediate questions about its validity and the legality of the Chancellor’s actions.
Under the University Act 2021, the process governing the appointment, suspension, and termination of key university officers such as the Vice-Chancellor is clearly outlined. The Act establishes a structured procedure that involves a series of steps—mid-term reviews, investigations, and decisions made collectively by the University Court, the highest governing body of the institution. These provisions are designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and adherence to the rule of law, preventing unilateral decisions by any individual, including the Chancellor.
Prior to the issuance of the termination letter, Professor Kanu was reportedly suspended from his position. However, the manner in which this suspension was carried out raises serious concerns. The suspension was reportedly executed without the formation of a formal review process, investigation, or approval from the University Court, as mandated by the University Act 2021—particularly Section 8(4), which stipulates that a Vice-Chancellor’s office term is four years, subject to a mid-term review conducted by the Court.
The Act emphasizes that any suspension or termination must be based on a thorough review process, conducted transparently and with clear evidence. The Court’s role is central to this process, and any deviation from it constitutes a breach of the law. The unilateral actions of the Chancellor, therefore, are not only procedurally flawed, but also legally invalid.
Adding fuel to the fire, the Parliament’s Committee on Higher Education intervened, issuing a directive for the immediate reinstatement of Professor Kanu. This parliamentary intervention underscores the recognition that the suspension and proposed dismissal were unlawful and lacked proper procedural backing. Yet, both the Minister of Higher Education and the Chancellor have refused to honor this directive, escalating the governance crisis at MMTU.
The University Act 2021 clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of the university’s governing bodies. Section 11(2) states that the University Court is the highest administrative authority responsible for overseeing the university’s functions, including appointments, suspensions, and other significant administrative decisions. The Court reports annually to the Chancellor and exercises its authority collectively, ensuring decisions are made based on evidence, proper procedures, and consensus.
Section 15(1) further clarifies that suspensions of senior officers, including the Vice-Chancellor, can only occur after “due investigation and for good cause,” such as criminal conviction, conduct unbecoming of an officer, or physical or mental incapacity, none of which have been demonstrated in Professor Kanu’s case. Importantly, the Act mandates that such decisions must be initiated and approved by the Court, not unilaterally by the Chancellor.
The Act also stipulates the formation of a Search Committee tasked with reviewing the tenure and conduct of the Vice-Chancellor. This committee is responsible for gathering evidence, conducting objective assessments, and making recommendations to the Court. Once the Court completes its review, it is empowered to take formal action, which should be communicated through the university’s official channels, such as the Office of the Registrar.
In the case of Professor Kanu, the Chancellor’s decision to send a termination notice and suspend him was made outside the bounds of legal procedure. There was no evidence of a Search Committee being appointed, no investigation undertaken by the Court, and no approval from the Court to justify such drastic measures. This unilateral action undermines the fundamental principles of due process, fairness, and institutional integrity.
Such actions not only violate the University Act, but also threaten to erode trust in the university’s governance structures. The rule of law mandates that decisions affecting employment and leadership must be based on transparent procedures, collective deliberation, and sound evidence. Deviating from these principles compromises the legitimacy of university governance and sets a dangerous precedent for future conduct.
The University Court, as the highest administrative authority within MMTU, must exercise its powers responsibly, independently, and in accordance with the law. Its core functions include overseeing appointments, disciplinary measures, and administrative decisions, but only after a proper process involving investigation and evidence collection.
The Court’s authority to suspend or dismiss a Vice-Chancellor is not absolute or unilateral. It is contingent upon adherence to the procedures laid out in the University Act, including the formation of a Search Committee, conducting investigations, and making decisions through collective deliberation. Any attempt to bypass this process not only contravenes the law, but also diminishes the Court’s credibility and the university’s governance standards.
The refusal of the Minister of Higher Education and the Chancellor to abide by the parliamentary directive to reinstate Professor Kanu deepens the governance crisis at MMTU. It raises questions about adherence to constitutional mandates and the independence of university governance from political interference. Such actions risk undermining the autonomy of academic institutions and eroding public confidence in university leadership.
Moreover, the ongoing conflict threatens to destabilize the university’s operations, damage its reputation, and undermine the integrity of Sierra Leone’s higher education system. It underscores the urgent need for all parties to respect the legal framework, uphold due process, and prioritize the stability and credibility of the institution.
The controversy at MMTU underscores a fundamental principle: governance decisions in academic institutions must be rooted in law, transparency, and collective responsibility. Any deviation from statutory procedures jeopardizes the integrity of the institution and threatens the rule of law.
It is imperative that the University Court exercise its authority responsibly, reviewing the case of Professor Kanu in accordance with the University Act, and making decisions based on evidence and due process. The Chancellor and the Ministry of Higher Education must respect the Court’s role, honor the parliamentary directive, and refrain from unilateral actions that undermine institutional authority.
Conclusion
The ongoing dispute at Milton Margai Technical University is a stark reminder of the importance of respecting institutional governance structures and adhering to the rule of law. The actions of the Chancellor, which appear to bypass the legal processes established under the University Act 2021, threaten to undermine the integrity and credibility of the university’s leadership.
For Sierra Leone’s higher education sector to thrive, it is crucial that all stakeholders uphold the principles of transparency, legality, and accountability. Only through respecting the authority of the University Court and following due process can MMTU and by extension, Sierra Leone’s universities, ensure good governance, academic excellence, and institutional stability.
The future of Sierra Leone’s higher education depends on reinforcing these principles, safeguarding academic independence, and ensuring that leadership decisions are made within the bounds of the law. Anything less risks further destabilization and diminishes public trust in the very institutions charged with shaping the nation’s intellectual and professional future.
