In a development that threatens to deepen the ongoing leadership crisis at Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU), the Chancellor, Ing. Mohammed A. Jalloh, has once again defied established governance procedures and parliamentary recommendations by issuing a unilateral directive aimed at ousting Vice-Chancellor and Principal Professor Philip John Kanu. This move comes less than two months after Parliament intervened in the dispute and called for Professor Kanu’s reinstatement, highlighting the complex interplay between university governance, statutory law, and political oversight in Sierra Leone’s higher education landscape.
The leadership crisis at MMTU has been ongoing since late 2025, marked by disagreements over the appointment and tenure of the Vice-Chancellor. The controversy escalated when the Chancellor, in a move deemed irregular by many stakeholders, suspended Professor Kanu without apparent institutional support or adherence to established procedures. This suspension sparked widespread concern among university staff, students, and government officials, prompting parliamentary intervention.
The Parliamentary Committee on Technical and Higher Education took a firm stance, emphasizing the importance of following statutory protocols and upholding the university’s governance framework. During a crucial meeting held on June 19, 2026, the committee gathered key stakeholders—including university officials, government representatives, and members of the Academic Staff Association—to deliberate on the crisis. The committee’s findings were clear: the unilateral suspension lacked proper institutional backing, and the majority of the University Court members present opposed the Chancellor’s action.
Parliamentary Intervention and Calls for Reinstatement
The committee’s report underscored that 20 out of 21 University Court members present opposed the suspension of Professor Kanu, pointing out that the decision was taken outside the proper channels. The committee’s chairman, Hon. Joseph Williams-Lamin, recounted that the dispute initially surfaced during a December 2025 recruitment exercise but quickly expanded into broader governance issues. The committee’s recommendation was unequivocal: Professor Kanu should be reinstated, and the university’s stability restored.
Following the hearing, the parliamentary committee called for restraint and urged dialogue among stakeholders, emphasizing adherence to the Universities Act, 2021. The Minister of Technical and Higher Education was also asked to intervene and facilitate a mediated resolution. Several meetings of the University Court were convened during this period, and a committee was established to examine concerns raised by the Minister. Despite these efforts, the dispute persisted, leading to an agreement on holding a final “family meeting” involving the Minister, the Chancellor, and other key stakeholders to resolve the impasse.
Contradicting parliamentary advice and the spirit of the mediated process, Chancellor Jalloh issued a letter dated August 12, 2026, declaring that Professor Kanu’s four-year tenure had expired in March 2026 under Section 8(4) of the Universities Act, 2021, and instructing him to cease holding office. This action raises profound legal and procedural questions, especially given that the letter does not cite any resolution from the University Court authorizing such a termination.
The letter’s unilateral nature is particularly concerning because it bypasses the established governance hierarchy. Under the Universities Act, the University Court is the highest administrative authority responsible for decisions relating to appointment, tenure, suspension, and other employment matters of senior officials such as the Vice-Chancellor. Section 11(2) and 11(3) explicitly state that the Court exercises the powers of the university, except in purely academic matters, and decisions affecting the employment of the Vice-Chancellor must be made collectively, following due process.
The legal foundation of the Chancellor’s action appears shaky on multiple fronts:
Lack of Court Resolution: The letter does not indicate that the University Court considered or approved the termination. Section 11 of the Universities Act mandates that such decisions be made by the Court, not unilaterally by the Chancellor.
Failure to Conduct Mid-Term Review: The Chancellor relied on Section 8(4) of the Act, which states that the Vice-Chancellor shall serve a four-year term, subject to a mid-term review. However, reports suggest no such review was conducted in Professor Kanu’s case. The absence of this review undermines the legitimacy of the tenure expiration claim.
Procedural Due Process Not Followed: Section 15(1) of the Act emphasizes that suspension or termination of a senior official must follow a proper investigation and be based on “good cause,” such as misconduct or incapacity. The Chancellor’s letter makes no mention of any investigation or findings of misconduct, further calling into question its legality.
Improper Communication Channels: The letter was issued directly from the Chancellor’s office rather than through the Office of the University Registrar, which is responsible for communicating Court decisions. This procedural irregularity suggests an overreach of authority and disregards established governance protocols.
The core issue revolves around the authority to determine the tenure and employment status of the Vice-Chancellor. Section 11 of the Universities Act clearly designates the University Court as the decision-making body for such matters. Any attempt to bypass or bypass this process undermines the rule of law and the independence of university governance.
In this context, the Chancellor’s unilateral declaration is not only procedurally flawed but also legally questionable. The Act explicitly states that the Court must exercise its authority through resolutions, which should be communicated via the Registrar’s Office. The absence of such a resolution, combined with the failure to adhere to due process, renders the Chancellor’s move potentially null and void.
Furthermore, the Act’s provisions on tenure and review procedures must be strictly followed. The lack of a mid-term review, which is a statutory requirement, indicates that the tenure expiration cannot be automatically assumed after four years without proper assessment.
Implications for University Governance and Democratic Processes
This incident at MMTU is emblematic of broader issues concerning university governance in Sierra Leone. It highlights the tension between administrative authority and statutory oversight, especially when senior officials such as the Chancellor seek to unilaterally override established procedures.
The parliamentary intervention demonstrates a commitment to upholding legal and procedural standards, emphasizing that decisions affecting university leadership must be made transparently, collectively, and within the bounds of the law. The repeated unilateral actions by the Chancellor threaten to undermine the autonomy of the university, weaken the governance framework established by the Universities Act, and set a dangerous precedent for future disputes.
The Way Forward
The ongoing crisis requires urgent and careful resolution. It is imperative that the University Court exercises its statutory authority by thoroughly considering the allegations, conducting any necessary reviews, and making decisions based on evidence and proper procedures. Parliament’s role as a guardian of the law and governance standards must be respected, and any attempt to bypass or undermine the Court’s authority risks escalating the conflict further.
In addition, stakeholders must prioritize dialogue over unilateral actions. The university’s stability, reputation, and the quality of education depend on adherence to due process, transparency, and respect for institutional governance structures.
Conclusion
The recent actions of the Chancellor of Milton Margai Technical University represent a significant challenge to the rule of law, governance, and the legitimacy of leadership at the institution. By issuing a directive to remove Professor Kanu without proper institutional support or adherence to legal procedures, the Chancellor has risked undermining the principles of collective decision-making enshrined in the Universities Act, 2021.
As the dispute continues, it underscores the vital importance of respecting statutory governance frameworks and the role of Parliament in upholding accountability and transparency in higher education. Only through adherence to due process, collective decision-making, and respect for institutional authority can MMTU hope to resolve its leadership crisis and restore stability for the benefit of its students, staff, and the broader Sierra Leonean society.
