Follow Us on Google
• Accuses him of bias
• Says legal documents fault Niger government claims over the ownership of the campus
From John Adams, Minna
The ongoing dispute between the Niger State Government and the authority of the Federal University of Technology (FUT) Minna over the ownership of the Bosso campus of the university has taken a different dimension following the call by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), FUT Minna chapter, for the immediate removal of the pro-chancellor, Alhaji Mohammed Kudu Santuraki.
ASUU described the pro-chancellor and chairman of the Governing Council as unfit for the position he is occupying, following what it called his biased role during the attempted takeover of the mini campus by the state government.
The union, in a statement by its chairman, Prof. Luqman Oyekunle Oyewobi, a copy of which was made available to journalists in Minna, said that the recent dispute over the ownership of the Bosso campus has resulted in a matter of national concern, touching on issues of law, land ownership, federal authority, and the delicate balance of institutional autonomy in Nigeria, hence the need to call for the removal of the pro-chancellor who, rather than standing by the university, decided to pitch his tent with the government.
The union noted that at the centre of the controversy is a claim by the state government that the Bosso campus, hitherto used by the university as a take-off site, was merely leased to the university and therefore should be reverted to the state following the alleged expiration of a 40-year term.
ASUU, which condemned in totality the role played by the pro-chancellor, pointed out that the dispute began during a courtesy visit by the Governing Council of FUT Minna to the Governor of Niger State, Muhammad Umaru Bago, to congratulate him on his assumption of office.
“At the close of the meeting, the governor publicly declared his intention to repossess the Bosso campus, claiming that it had been leased to the university and that the lease expired in 2023”.
But ASUU insisted that, in law, a lease is not presumed; it must be explicit, documented, and enforceable, stressing that its absence is not a minor gap but a fatal defect in the state’s claim.
The union disclosed that the vice-chancellor, Professor Bala Kuta, in a measured response, indicated willingness to revisit the issue, but regrettably, on October 3, 2025, the Niger State Government formally notified the university of its intention to take over the campus.
“This was followed by another communication on November 27, 2025, from the Secretary to the State Government, urging the university to vacate the premises to avoid unpleasant developments”.
ASUU added that this stance was echoed by the Alumni Association, the Students’ Union, and the University Congregation, saying that at the administrative level, the vice-chancellor and management maintained a firm and consistent position that no authority exists to cede legally acquired federal property to any state or individual.
According to the union, ordinarily, such a unified presentation of facts might have moderated the situation. “Instead, tensions appeared to intensify, with allegations of intimidation emerging.
“The matter was subsequently escalated to Abuja, where a tripartite meeting was convened by the Minister of Education, Dr Maruf Tunji Alausa. However, ASUU said this intervention raised further concerns”.
Other News
Professor Oyewobi, in the statement, further explained that historical records show the Bosso campus, originally a state-owned teachers’ college, was formally acquired by the federal government in 1983 following the establishment of FUT Minna, claiming that the acquisition was neither symbolic nor temporary.
“A total compensation of N2.8 million was paid to the Niger State Government in two instalments: N500,000 on July 22, 1983, and N2.3 million on December 14, 1983. In property law, such a payment, coupled with the transfer of possession, extinguishes prior ownership claims unless otherwise specified,” the statement said.
It explained further that the University Council records from that period affirm that the transfer was outright and unconditional, stressing that “no contrary evidence has been presented by the state”.
The union also pointed out that the National Universities Commission (NUC), the statutory regulator of university education in Nigeria, communicated clearly to all federal universities on August 14, 2014, that take-off campuses do not revert to state governments. This directive reflects established policy.
ASUU supported its argument that several federal universities—including Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria; the Federal University of Technology, Akure; and the University of Ilorin—began operations on state-provided land, yet none has been asked to relinquish its take-off campus.
Attempts, therefore, to single out FUT Minna raise serious moral questions of consistency and equity.
The union reminded the state government that the disputed campus is not merely a parcel of land but a thriving academic ecosystem, maintaining that “over the past four decades, the federal government has invested heavily in infrastructure, including lecture theatres, laboratories, hostels, staff quarters, and research centres.
“The campus currently serves thousands of students and staff and has continued to expand through additional land acquisitions.”
ASUU also faulted the proposals by the state government for co-sharing or repossession, stating that such moves are not mere administrative adjustments but disruptions of academic continuity and potential misallocation of federally funded assets.
ASUU also highlighted the human dimension of the issue, noting that the Bosso campus is home to a vibrant academic community comprising students, lecturers, researchers, and support staff.
Consequently, displacing this community amid an unresolved legal dispute would be both disruptive and unjust.
More troubling, ASUU said, were alleged threats directed at the vice-chancellor, whose appointment and authority are governed by statutory provisions beyond ministerial discretion. Such developments, if accurate, risk eroding confidence in institutional safeguards.
