Student Leadership in Decline: The Real Cost of Exclusion at UI

If we tell,gently,gently
All that we shall one day have to tell
Who then will hear our voices without laughter?
Sad complaining voices of beggars
Who indeed will hear them without laughter? ( Birago Diop, Vanity)

At the University of Ibadan today, a quiet but crucial concern is overlooked. The breakdown of student leadership and the spread of political apathy strikes at the heart of the student community. Yet, it is an issue that links to the other. One knows what leadership is about. But the decline is more than sickening. The aluta spirit, the voice of the voiceless and all those words are found missing. This was not always the case in the context of University of Ibadan. The university was once a beacon of student activism in Nigeria. From the historic ‘Ali Must Go’ protests of the 1970s to the bold resistance against military regimes, student leaders led from the front. If the pleasantries are placed to those who deserve them, it is the student leaders who made it happen. They organised, mobilised, and defended the interests of students with courage and clarity.

Today, leaders in departments, faculties, and halls are reminded when they are expected to act when students are under pressure. And right now, nothing affects students more directly than the recent hike in school fees. Instead of rising to the challenge, the Students’ Union leadership has stepped back. The SU President, Covenant Odedele, and his executive council recently cancelled a critical Congress meeting, one that was meant to bring students together to debate the fee issue and agree on a collective response. The cancellation, due to lack of quorum, came just as the school fees deadline was approaching on June 6. With anticipation growing and many waiting on the Students’ Union, the executive council released a memo on Wednesday stating that the deadline had been extended to June 20. It seems like the only reasonable option; at least that is why students place their hopes on it. However, it still raises serious questions. Is two weeks enough to accommodate those who have not paid their school fees? What consultation did the Students’ Union make to arrive at that conclusion? Was the opinion of students taken before proposing the extension to management?

Two weeks might look generous on paper but the consequences cannot be ignored. Some people still cannot afford it in two weeks. Let logic guide this issue: if students cannot pay, what assurance exists that they can do so within two weeks? The silence of students should not be an excuse for such decision. Some students cannot pay within that time frame. For many students, the new deadline changes nothing. For them, it only adds pressure, not relief.

This is where leadership is supposed to mean something. During campaigns, candidates often promise “inclusivity.” But this was the moment to prove it. The President and the executive council ought to have consulted the students before making any decision. The Congress, the rightful place for such conversations, was cancelled and never reconvened. Yet, there was precedent. On May 1, 2025, the Students’ Union called a meeting involving leaders from halls, faculties, and departments to develop a common strategy around the fee hike. That meeting acknowledged the seriousness of the issue, but the situation has since brought forward the significance of the meeting.

And “If we tell, gently, gently
All that we shall one day have to tell”
who then will hear our voices without laughter? This is how leadership fails and becomes a mockery of its true value. The SU had a responsibility: to speak with students, not just speak for them. Leadership is not only to be communicated in memos. Minds should be rubbed together so there will be a way forward. Now that the decision has been made, the SU is expected to have a plan for all the students. Their welfarism agenda should include all the students: both those that will pay and those that won’t before the extended deadline. In doing that, it is fair to look from both angles: what if, and what if not.

Let it be clear: this is not what inclusion looks like. This is not what leadership sounds like. And if student voices keep getting ignored, flipped over in the hurriness of time, then truly who will hear our plights without laughter?