Barely two months after Parliament intervened in the leadership crisis at Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU) and called for the reinstatement of Vice-Chancellor and Principal, Professor Philip John Kanu, Chancellor Ing. Mohammed A. Jalloh has issued another unilateral letter directing him to cease holding office.
The Chancellor’s letter, dated 12 August 2026, claims that Professor Kanu’s four-year tenure expired in March 2026 under Section 8(4) of the Universities Act, 2021.
However, the decision appears to disregard the findings and intervention of the Parliamentary Committee on Technical and Higher Education, which had earlier concluded that Professor Kanu was wrongfully suspended and specifically called for his reinstatement.
It also raises serious legal questions because the letter does not cite any resolution of the University Court authorising the Chancellor to terminate Professor Kanu’s continued service.
Parliament Opposed Unilateral Suspension
On 19 June 2026, the Parliamentary Committee on Technical and Higher Education convened a major stakeholders’ meeting to address the long-running dispute at MMTU.
The meeting brought together key University officials, government representatives, members of the Academic Staff Association and other stakeholders. Its principal objective was to resolve the leadership crisis and facilitate Professor Kanu’s return to office.
During the parliamentary hearing, it was disclosed that 20 of the 21 University Court members present did not support the unilateral suspension of Professor Kanu.
The Committee’s Chairman, Hon. Joseph Williams-Lamin, recalled that the dispute first came to Parliament’s attention in December 2025 during a recruitment exercise. What initially concerned recruitment subsequently expanded into several governance disputes at the University.
The Committee found that the Chancellor’s action against the Vice-Chancellor and Principal lacked the necessary institutional support and was not consistent with the University’s established decision-making procedures.
Parliament consequently focused its intervention on reinstating Professor Kanu and restoring stability to the University.
Parliamentary Mediation Disregarded
Following the hearing, the Parliamentary Committee called for restraint, dialogue and adherence to the Universities Act.
The Minister of Technical and Higher Education reportedly requested time to address the dispute. Several University Court meetings were subsequently held, and a committee was constituted to examine the Minister’s concerns. Despite these efforts, the dispute remained unresolved.
The Parliamentary Committee later proposed a final “family meeting” involving the Minister and the Chancellor to conclude the mediation process. Stakeholders were assured that the long-awaited restoration of unity at MMTU would soon be achieved.
Those assurances now appear to have been undermined by the Chancellor’s latest letter.
Instead of implementing the parliamentary recommendation and allowing the legally authorised University bodies to conclude the process, Chancellor Jalloh has again acted independently by declaring that Professor Kanu’s tenure expired and directing him to cease holding office.
Questions Over the Chancellor’s Authority
Section 11(2) of the Universities Act, 2021 establishes the University Court as the highest administrative authority of the University. Section 11(3) further provides that the Court shall exercise the powers and authority of the University, except in purely academic matters.
A decision affecting the appointment, tenure or continued service of the Vice-Chancellor and Principal is an administrative and governance matter. It should therefore be considered and determined by the University Court—not by the Chancellor acting alone.
The Chancellor’s 12 August letter does not identify any meeting at which the Court considered Professor Kanu’s tenure. It does not cite a Court resolution approving the decision, nor does it indicate that the Court authorised the directive for him to cease holding office.
Significantly, the Chancellor’s own letter states that the “appropriate statutory process” has not been completed and that a consequential decision by the competent authorities is still pending.
That admission raises a fundamental question: if the statutory process has not been completed and the competent authorities have not made a consequential decision, on what legal basis did the Chancellor direct the Vice-Chancellor and Principal to cease holding office?
The letter appears to impose the consequence before completion of the very process that is supposed to determine the outcome.
Mandatory Mid-Term Review Overlooked
The Chancellor relied on Section 8(4) of the Universities Act to declare that Professor Kanu’s tenure had expired.
However, Section 8(4) provides that the Vice-Chancellor and Principal shall, subject to a mid-term review of his ability to continue, hold office for four years and be eligible for reappointment for one further four-year term.
No mid-term review was reportedly conducted in Professor Kanu’s case.
The Chancellor cannot properly rely on the four-year tenure stated in Section 8(4) while disregarding the mid-term review contained in the same provision. The section must be read and applied as a whole.
The absence of the prescribed review raises further concerns about the fairness and legality of a decision purporting to bring the Vice-Chancellor’s service to an end.
There is also a dispute over the stated March 2026 expiration date. Any lawful calculation must be based on the effective date and terms of Professor Kanu’s substantive appointment, alongside the Universities Act and the University’s applicable conditions of service.
Due Process Cannot Be Bypassed
Section 15(1) of the Universities Act gives the University Court—not the Chancellor—the authority to suspend a senior University official after due investigation and upon good cause being shown.
“Good cause” may include a relevant criminal conviction, failure or inability to perform official duties, or physical or mental incapacity rendering an officeholder unfit to perform those duties.
The Chancellor’s letter cites no investigation, allegation of misconduct or finding of good cause made by the University Court.
Although the latest action is presented as a notification of tenure expiration rather than a suspension, its practical effect is the same: it seeks to prevent the Vice-Chancellor and Principal from continuing to perform the duties of his office.
A change in terminology cannot be used to bypass the statutory authority of the Court or avoid the requirements of due process.
Letter Issued Through the Wrong Authority
Section 23(2)(c) of the Universities Act provides that the University Registrar shall serve as secretary to the University Court and communicate its decisions to individuals affected by them.
If the University Court had properly considered and determined Professor Kanu’s tenure, the resulting resolution should ordinarily have been communicated through the Office of the University Registrar.
Instead, the letter came directly from the Office of the Chancellor and contained no evidence that it conveyed a decision of the University Court.
This procedural irregularity reinforces concerns that the Chancellor acted without the approval of the University’s highest administrative authority.
A Challenge to Parliament and University Governance
The latest development is no longer simply an internal disagreement between senior MMTU officials. It has become a test of whether parliamentary intervention, statutory procedures and collective University governance will be respected.
Parliament examined the dispute, established that an overwhelming majority of the Court members present did not support the unilateral suspension and pursued mediation aimed at reinstating Professor Kanu.
Despite that intervention, Chancellor Jalloh has issued another unilateral directive—this time, declaring the Vice-Chancellor and Principal’s tenure expired while simultaneously acknowledging that the statutory process remains incomplete.
The action appears inconsistent with the spirit of Parliament’s intervention and the governance structure created by the Universities Act, 2021.
The University Court must now be allowed to exercise its legal responsibilities. Until the Court reaches a properly constituted decision following the required procedures, any unilateral attempt to determine the Vice-Chancellor and Principal’s tenure risks being regarded as procedurally defective, beyond the Chancellor’s statutory authority and damaging to the rule of law at Milton Margai Technical University.