An explosive legal opinion obtained by this newspaper has thrown the leadership of the Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU) into turmoil, concluding that the Chancellor has “absolutely no legal authority” to demand the Vice-Chancellor and Principal step aside from his position.
An opinion from R.B. Kowa & Associates, the university’s retained solicitors, directly challenges the Chancellor’s recent attempt to summon Vice-Chancellor and Principal to a meeting where he intended to read a letter requesting the senior academic leader’s temporary withdrawal from office.
The legal firm’s analysis, dated March 16, 2026, delivers a stinging rebuke to the Chancellor’s maneuver, stating plainly that “the Chancellor, acting alone, has absolutely no legal authority, right and obligation and/or mandate under the Universities Act 2021, to request or compel the Vice Chancellor and Principal to step aside from his office.”
The controversy stems from a March 13 letter in which the Vice-Chancellor declined an invitation from the Chancellor to attend a meeting on March 12, where the Chancellor allegedly intended to read a letter demanding he “step aside.”
The Vice-Chancellor’s refusal was based on his understanding that such a weighty decision falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the University Court,
established under Section 11(2) of the Universities Act 2021 as “the highest administrative authority of the University.”
According to the legal opinion, an investigation was conducted into the university’s recruitment process, with a report presented to the University Court on February 23, 2026. The investigating subcommittee explicitly stated that their recommendations were “not binding on the Court until the Court takes a decision on them.”
Crucially, the law firm notes that “the Office of the Vice Chancellor and Principal was never under any investigation,” raising what they term “the one-million-dollar question” of how the VC became the target of a recommendation to step aside.
The Universities Act 2021 grants the University Court, chaired by the Chancellor himself, the power to suspend or remove senior officers only “after due investigation and for good cause shown,” as defined in Section 15.
“Good cause” under the Act includes criminal conviction, conduct demonstrating failure to perform duties, or physical or mental incapacity, none of which have been established in this case, the opinion notes.
The law firm emphasizes that Section 15(3) of the Act explicitly requires that “a person shall not be suspended or removed by the Court, during the period of the contract, unless he has been given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself.”
This includes the right to legal representation, to call witnesses, to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and to adduce evidence protections that have not yet been afforded to the Vice-Chancellor.
While the Chancellor serves as Chairman of the University Court and head of the university on ceremonial occasions, the legal opinion is unequivocal that “unless a resolution of the said Court requesting the Vice-Chancellor and Principal to step aside” exists, the Chancellor has “NO Power whatsoever” to act alone.
The Vice-Chancellor serves a four-year term and is eligible for reappointment for another four years under Section 8(4) of the Act, making the position one with significant tenure protections.
The law firm has warned that any action taken to compel the Vice-Chancellor to step aside without following the prescribed procedures including a formal Court resolution, due investigation, and an opportunity to defend himself would be considered “null and void and of no effect.”
As the university community watches closely, all eyes now turn to the University Court, where any legitimate decision on the Vice-Chancellor’s status must ultimately be made.
