Follow Us on Google
The management of the Nigerian Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) has accused the National Secretary of the Academic Staff Union of Research Institutions (ASURI), Prof. Theophilus Ndubuaku, of spreading false information about the Federal Government’s eight-year tenure policy for directors, insisting that claims of an intervention by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment to stop the removal of three retired directors were untrue.
The Institute also dismissed allegations that its Director-General, Prof. Oladapo Obafunwa, had acted arbitrarily in implementing the policy, maintaining that the retirement of the affected directors followed specific directives from the Federal Government and was not motivated by personal considerations or any dispute between management and staff.
Reacting to a report published by The Sun on November 3, NIMR’s media consultant, Sam Eferaro, challenged Ndubuaku’s claim that the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Labour had advised Obafunwa against evicting the three retired directors because they were professors like him and the matter was already before a court.
Eferaro said the Director-General had categorically denied receiving such advice or engaging in the alleged conversation, describing the claim as an attempt to misrepresent events and portray the Institute’s leadership in a negative light.
“The Director-General has categorically stated that no such conversation took place. The claim that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour advised him against evicting the retired directors is simply untrue.”
The Institute expressed concern that allegations concerning official government communications were being presented as established facts without verification, warning that such claims could mislead the public and damage the reputation of its leadership.
It also faulted Ndubuaku’s comparison of the situation at NIMR with developments at the National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research and Development (NIPRD), where the union official had claimed that litigation over the same tenure policy resulted in the suspension of further action.
According to management, the comparison was misleading because NIPRD had implemented the eight-year tenure policy since 2024, affecting five directors, and was therefore not in the same position as NIMR regarding the current government directives.
The Institute maintained that the circumstances surrounding the implementation of the policy in both institutions were fundamentally different and could not reasonably be presented as evidence that NIMR had acted improperly.
It explained that NIMR received two separate directives from the Federal Government concerning the tenure policy and made copies of the relevant instructions available to the three affected directors.
Management insisted that, as a Federal Government research institution, NIMR was obligated to comply with applicable government policies and administrative directives, stressing that the Director-General could not unilaterally disregard instructions issued by the appropriate authorities.
It maintained that the retirement of the three directors was an administrative consequence of the tenure policy rather than a personal decision by Obafunwa, rejecting suggestions that the affected officers were being targeted because of their positions or disagreements with management.
The Institute further accused Ndubuaku of conducting what it described as a sustained, one-man media campaign against the Director-General, alleging that the union official was attempting to turn the implementation of a government policy into an institutional crisis.
Management insisted that there was no general dispute between Obafunwa and NIMR staff, describing claims of a breakdown in relations within the Institute as misleading.
It also condemned what it called personal attacks and insulting remarks directed at the Director-General over the notice requiring the retired directors to surrender official properties in their custody.
According to management, the notice was a routine administrative procedure arising from the retirement of the affected officers and should not be portrayed as an attempt to victimise or intimidate them.
The Institute accused Ndubuaku of seeking to personalise the controversy by attributing responsibility for the Federal Government’s tenure policy to Obafunwa, rather than addressing the directives issued by the relevant authorities.
It described what it considered a campaign of misinformation, character assassination and blackmail as unbecoming of a union official occupying the position of National Secretary.
NIMR also challenged The Sun and other media organisations to verify allegations concerning the dispute before publication, arguing that inquiries to the appropriate government offices would clarify the origin and scope of the tenure directives.
Management said the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare and the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Health could provide clarification on the policy and the instructions issued to affected institutions.
It maintained that media reports and public disagreements could not alter the obligation of Federal Government institutions to implement lawful administrative directives.
The Institute reiterated its commitment to medical research and the discharge of its statutory responsibilities, stressing that it would not allow the controversy surrounding the retirement of the three directors to distract management from its mandate.
“NIMR is not ASURI’s battleground and the Director-General is not a punching bag for its political theatrics. The Federal Government policies are not matters to be rewritten through media blackmail,” management declared.
It insisted that the circumstances surrounding the retirement of the three directors were clear and that the Institute would continue to discharge its administrative responsibilities in accordance with applicable government directives.
