GreatIfe Students'Union Congress: A Theater of Two Acts, Four Scenes

           Oluwafemi Adetunji 

Few years back, in OAU, the Students’ Union congress serves as a forum where leadership meets accountability, but the OAU of now has become the shadow of itself in this regard. 

What unfolded at the congress held on Thursday, 9 April, at Faj Cafe, is nothing, but a carefully improvised theatrical performance, where questions took center stage, but answers remained backstage.

As usual, students gathered with expectations, leaders seated with authority, and an agenda anchored on pressing welfare concerns, particularly the new transport system. Surprisingly, as proceedings commenced, it became increasingly evident that the congress would not follow the script of governance, but rather that of theatre.

As such, in case you missed it, the first Students'Union Congress for the Rain Semester of the current academic session, is indeed a theatrical play, summarized into two acts with four scenes.

   

Act 1, Scene 1

The President opened the session with the composure expected of a lead actor, however, his composure appeared to rely heavily on off-stage direction. 

Instead of swift responses to questions on the new transport system, which he says; “the students should embark an “observation mode” on,” he paused repeatedly, not for emphasis, but for consultation from the SRC Deputy Speaker, suggesting that the supposed lead actor, does not have an iota of knowledge of the script (way forward).

In this regard, one may be safe to say that; the students present at the Congress, experienced what could best be described as “bluetooth leadership” responses buffering, clarity pending, and confidence outsourced.

Act 1, Scene 2

As questions intensified, so did the performance. When asked for clarity on negotiations with the management, the President executed what may go down as one of the most efficient transfers of responsibility in recent memory. Rather than responding directly, he redirected the question to the Assistant Secretary General. Well, many would argue that he is delegating “power-to-address issues,” to his colleagues in office.

GreatIfe students, unwilling to participate in what had become an “administrative-relay-race,” rejected the substitution and insisted on hearing from the principal actor himself. How can a leader be summoned, especially on such a sacrosanct discussion, and then delegate his responsibilities?

Act 2, Scene 1 

At the congress, statements like  “I understand your grievances,” were constantly uttered with solemn assurance by the President. This statement was met with immediate scrutiny from the already aggravated students, who questioned whether the grievances were truly understood, or merely acknowledged for performance’s sake. 

Further questions were asked, responses were given, yet, somewhere between inquiry and reply, meaning was lost. Some answers hovered around the questions without landing, while others addressed entirely different concerns, as though the conversation had taken a detour unknowingly.

Act 2, Scene 2 

The mysterious adjournment of the Congress is not something to write home about. The GreatIfe Students' Union, through the memo signed by the Secretary General and President, stated that; a motion for adjournment was properly raised, seconded, and adopted. However, in reality, no such structured adjournment occurred. Instead, what transpired resembled a strategic exit, through an unscripted recess followed by disappearance. 

In theatrical terms, the lead actor (President) exited the stage before the final act concluded, leaving the audience uncertain whether the play had ended or simply lost direction. 

What's Next?

By the time the congress concluded, officially or "what-it-was,"  students were left with an unexpected takeaway, i.e. not solutions, not clarity, but a deeper appreciation for the elasticity of leadership communication.

The Great Ife Students'Union constitution, clearly defines the President as the head and representative of the union, entrusted with protecting its image and advancing its interests. What was presented yesterday, however, was leadership in rehearsal, uncertain, consultative, and consistently evasive.

Amidst all, it can be said that the congress achieved something remarkable, it transformed a platform for accountability into a live demonstration of deflection. Yet, one question lingered longer than all others: “if leadership is indeed a performance, at what point does the audience stop watching?”