By: Ayoolajesu Victoria Ojo
The recent impeachment and suspension developments within the Faculty of The Social Sciences (FATSSSA) have continued to generate mixed reactions among students, with opinions divided over whether the actions of the FATSSSA House Representatives (FHR), were justified or excessively harsh. While some students believe the House acted within constitutional provisions, others argue that due process and proportionality were overlooked in the course of the proceedings.
Support for the Impeachment
Some FATSSSAITES expressed support for the decision of the House, citing alleged misconduct and disregard for constitutional order by the impeached President.
According to, a 100-level student of Political Science, the President allegedly addressed the House “in a nonchalant way” despite the presence of congressmen and other dignitaries. He stated that the congress members instructed the President to stand upright or face a fine, but the instruction was ignored.
He further alleged that access to the secretariat had been restricted to executives and friends of executives, preventing other FATSSSAITES from entering. According to him, the Speaker maintained that everything in the secretariat was purchased with students’ funds and therefore could not be restricted from members of the association.
According to him, when questions regarding fines were raised, the Treasurer allegedly revealed that executives had been instructed not to pay any fines because the President believed he had no reason to comply.
For him, the refusal to comply with directives from Congress members justified the impeachment. “Even President Bola Ahmed Tinubu stands upright while addressing the House. The refusal to comply was enough reason for the impeachment,” he said.
Another respondent, a 300-level Psychology student who preferred anonymity, also supported the impeachment, arguing that the issue extended beyond the delay in payment of fines. According to the student, while the initial refusal to pay fines may not have justified impeachment on its own, instructing other executives not to comply with the fines, allegedly overriding the authority of the Speaker, and walking out of the sitting amounted to disrespect toward the House.
The respondent further argued that the President appeared to place himself above the legislative arm of the association, describing the conduct as an abuse of power.
“The House could have been lenient by correcting him with words or imposing fines, but uttering statements like, ‘When you’re ready to respect me, you guys will come back,’ is absurd,” the student stated.
Similarly, Akinola Abeebullahi Alabi, a 200-level Sociology student, argued that although he was still observing developments, the inability of the impeached President to publicly refute the allegations raised concerns.
According to him, the situation reflects the supremacy of the law over individual personalities. “It’s the rule of law, not the rule of man. When law and personality clash, the law should prevail,” he stated.
Calls for Due Process and Fairness
On the other hand, several students questioned whether impeachment was the most appropriate disciplinary measure.
Oluwayemisi Victoria Olomu, a 300-level Psychology student, described the impeachment as surprising but maintained that disciplinary action becomes necessary when rules are violated.
According to her, while addressing defiant behaviour is important, impeachment should not be the first measure adopted. She argued that alternative disciplinary actions ought to have been considered before resorting to impeachment, which she believes should only be applied when other corrective measures fail.
“While the impeachment of the Faculty President came as a shock, I believe that addressing non-compliance with the rules is necessary. That said, I also think impeachment should not be the first resort,” she stated.
Ayandokun Edward, a 100-level student, maintained that although the President may have acted wrongly, due process should have been strictly followed.
“The allegations against the President were not formal enough to warrant impeachment,” he said. He also defended the executives who walked out alongside the President, describing their actions as an expression of solidarity.
For him, suspension would have been a more proportionate disciplinary response, adding that the situation appeared influenced by personal sentiments and bias.
Another student, who chose to remain anonymous, argued that while walking out on the House was unethical, the punishment seemed excessive. The student questioned why only one individual was impeached despite claims that multiple executives participated in the walkout.
The anonymous respondent also criticised the restriction of access to the secretariat, describing it as abnormal and inconsistent with practices from previous administrations where students could still access the space unless official assignments were ongoing.
Another anonymous student similarly acknowledged that the President’s conduct violated constitutional expectations but appealed for leniency.“
Justice should be tempered with mercy,” the respondent said, suggesting suspension as a preferable alternative if constitutional provisions permit it.
Concerns Over Leadership Conduct and House Procedures
Some respondents adopted a more balanced position, condemning the President’s conduct while simultaneously criticising the severity of the punishment.
One anonymous student noted that the President had, over time, developed a reputation for reacting strongly to minor issues and displaying difficulty managing emotions and ego.
According to the respondent, the President’s behaviour toward the House was “rude and unbecoming” of a leader. However, the student maintained that suspension would have been a fairer and more proportionate sanction than impeachment.
The respondent also called for a Congress meeting to address the issue comprehensively.
Another anonymous respondent criticised the handling of the situation by the press and the House. The student accused the FATSSSA Press of merely reproducing the House’s statement instead of providing balanced coverage and real-time updates during proceedings.
The respondent further argued that the constitutional provisions allegedly violated by the President do not necessarily warrant impeachment. According to the student, the President had also complained about infringement on executive freedom of speech and alleged disrespect toward the executive arm, issues which the respondent believed were not sufficiently examined.
The respondent also referenced constitutional provisions requiring impeachment matters to undergo rigorous debate, investigation, and support from a two-thirds majority, arguing that these procedures were not visibly demonstrated.
“The offence of the President is unacceptable, but not weighty enough to justify impeachment,” the respondent stated.
The student concluded by emphasising that Congress remains superior to the House according to the constitution and argued that a wider Congress should determine whether impeachment was appropriate.
Neutral Reactions
Some students chose to remain neutral pending further clarification from the executive council.
One anonymous respondent stated: “We’ve only heard from the House and not the Executive Council, so I can’t say much about it yet.”
A Divided Student Body
The reactions gathered reveal a deeply divided student body. While some FATSSSAITES view the impeachment as a necessary defence of constitutional order and legislative authority, others believe the punishment was excessive and possibly influenced by emotions, bias, or procedural shortcomings.
As conversations continue across the faculty, many students appear to agree on one point: the need for transparency, constitutional clarity, and broader engagement in resolving the crisis within the association.
