One of the candidate vying to become the next Vice Chancellor of the University of Calabar (UNICAL) in Cross River State, Prof. Joseph Duke, has threatened to drag the institution before court if the advertorial announcing the vacancy for the position is not withdrawn, saying the criteria indicated in the advert were at variance with the law.
Duke said that criteria were alleged to have contravened the extant laws guiding process laid down for the selection of a tertiary institution head in the school and other first generation universities across the country.
The candidate emphasized that the discovered violation in the advert undermines the integrity of Nigeria’s higher education governance and may set a dangerous precedent for other federal universities if left unchecked.
Faulting the criteria announced by the school management on Tuesday, the Don, in a statement released by his counsel, Ubong Akpan, raised concerns about the legality of the ongoing selection process.
The candidate’s stance against the advert was contained in a letter dated June 17, referenced Unical/VC/2025/001, and addressed to the University’s Pro-Chancellor as well as Chairman of the Governing Council, Vice-Chancellor and Registrar, as well as the Ministers of Education and Justice and the Attorney General of the Federation.
At the core of Duke’s complaint is the controversial requirement in the May 27 advertisement, which mandates a minimum of 10 years post-professorial experience. He argues that this deviates from the University’s tradition of requiring 5–9 years, and from the national standard of 5–8 years set by other first-generation universities.
According to him, this new criterion was adopted without proper statutory backing or consultation with the Senate, as required under Section 10 of the University Act and Paragraph 4(2)(a)(i) of the first schedule. The move, he said, exceeded the Council’s powers and was reportedly met with dissent by some members.
Duke also criticized the University’s reliance on unspecified “federal directives,” claiming it undermines institutional autonomy protected under Section 2(a) of the Universities (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Act, 2003.
He further alleged that the process appeared rigged to favour a preferred candidate, noting that the March 2025 Council meeting where the decision was taken lacked quorum, excluded Senate input, and ignored earlier objections, including some filed by Governing Council members.
These irregularities, Duke claimed, led to a brief suspension of the advertisement in April 2025. However, when the ad was eventually published, the disputed requirements remained.
Calling the advert “defective,” Duke is demanding its withdrawal and the reversal of the 10-year experience criterion to a range between 6 and 8 years. He also urged the University to reconvene the Council with a valid quorum, consult the Senate, and ensure due documentation in accordance with Section 7(1), Section 36(1), and Article 1(6) of the Third Schedule.
He warned that failure to comply with these demands would leave him with no choice but to seek legal redress in the Federal High Court.
“Criteria must be applied equitably,” he stated, citing constitutional protections under Sections 19, 42(1), and 14(3). He further insisted that any fresh advertisement must be reissued through a reputable national newspaper, in compliance with both the Constitution and NUC guidelines.
