This response seeks to clarify the facts and provide an accurate account of the processes undertaken during the university’s transition and subsequent recruitment activities.
- Allegations of Recruitment Malpractice
The claim that Dr. Kanu manipulated the recruitment process is both baseless and misleading. The transition from a polytechnic to a university required strict adherence to national standards as mandated by the Universities Act 2021 approved by the UniversityCourt. At no point did Dr. Kanu act unilaterally. All recruitment steps followed established procedures and were subjected to institutional and national oversight. All the steps followed were approved the University Court the highest decision body of the University. In the Court, decisions are made by all members, no individual has overruling powers in the University Court. Decisions tabled by the Administration through the Vice Chancellor and Principal are discussed accordingly. - Staff Required to Reapply for Positions
It is accurate that staff were requested to reapply. However, this was a national directive applied uniformly across all institutions transitioning from polytechnic to university status. Polytechnic job requirements differ significantly from those of a university. Staff were therefore required to reapply so their qualifications could be realigned and appropriately placed within the new university structure. This policy was not initiated by Dr. Kanu but was a national requirement designed to ensure compliance with university standards.
- Interviews Conducted and Letters Issued
Contrary to claims that the previous court’s interview process was discarded, the new University Court reviewed and acknowledged that the earlier procedures complied with the Universities Act 2021. It therefore endorsed the continuation of the process. No provisional employment letters were issued to any staff. If individuals claim otherwise, they should present such letters to the appropriate authorities. Importantly, TEC is a regulatory body and does not serve as the employing authority for any university. - Actions Following Court Dissolution
After the dissolution of the University Court, the Ministry instructed the Administration to await the constitution of a new Court before continuing recruitment. Dr. Kanu merely implemented these directives; he did not discard or alter any process on his own initiative. - Allegations of Secret Interviews
These allegations are false.
Dr. Kanu was never a member of the interview panel.
The interview panel was duly constituted by the University Court through the Appointments and Promotions Committee, and included: i. Professors from sister universitiesii. Retired senior academics iii. Representatives from the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) iv. External academic observers and professionals</code></pre></li>
Interviews were conducted publicly at the Brookfields campus, with all candidates contacted via email and telephone. Suggesting secrecy disrespects the professionalism of the panel members and undermines the integrity of the process.
- Alleged Use of a “Rapid Response Group” to Harass Staff
This accusation is entirely fabricated.
No such group exists and no lecturer was intimidated. MMTU maintains a strict harassment policy. Claims of harassment without evidence are intended solely to tarnish Dr. Kanu’s reputation. Any genuine grievances should be reported through formal institutional channels. - Claims That Ministerial Instructions Were Ignored
The Minister did not interfere in recruitment and never provided a list of names for appointment. Her request was for the Administration to share the TEC recategorization report and to allow all staff, even those who fell short of advertisement requirements—to be interviewed.
Many former staff misunderstand the purpose of recategorization. It does not equate to employment. It simply guides what scale a staff member would be placed on should they be successfully recruited.
Legally, appointment requires:
i. Application for a suitable position
ii. Verification and shortlisting
iii. Valid academic and experience records
iv. Interview by an approved panel
v. Recommendation by the A&P
Committee
vi. Approval by the University CourtFurthermore, all former Polytechnic staff signed a separation agreement, having received over 80% of their severance packages. This legally ended their previous employment status.
- Comparison with ETU
Comparing MMTU with other transitioning institutions oversimplifies unique administrative realities. Each institution has distinct structures and staffing arrangements. MMTU followed all required processes, and the University Court supervised every step. - Claim That Dr. Kanu Apologized for Wrongdoing
During the referenced meeting, Dr. Kanu merely clarified procedural delays and assured staff that the University was awaiting the new Court’s installation. This was not an admission of guilt but an effort to maintain transparency and address concerns. - Allegations of Ignoring Instructions from the Chief Minister
These claims are false.
No letter or directive was ever issued from the Chief Minister’s office to MMTU. Any suggestion that such directives were ignored is misleading. If individuals claim otherwise, they should produce the said letter for verification. - “Two Salary Vouchers” (JMB and PJK)
Salary vouchers are not named or coded by the Administration. The “JMB Alert” nickname originated informally among staff after the President’s visit—symbolizing good fortune. All salaries were processed through official government systems under the Accountant-General’s oversight. - 52-Month Rent Allowance Backlog
This backlog predates the current administration. Dr. Kanu has vigorously advocated on behalf of staff, making formal representations to the Ministry of Finance. The issue is being handled centrally and affects several institutions nationwide, not MMTU alone. Under Dr. Kanu’s leadership, staff now receive university-level salaries for the first time in the institution’s history. - Appeal to President Bio
President Bio championed the transformation of polytechnics into universities. Dr. Kanu has been one of the strongest implementers of this national vision. Under his leadership, MMTU has achieved: i. New infrastructure improvements ii. A strong anti-sexual-harassment policy iii. A functional web officeiv. Strengthened academic systems v. Progress toward salary harmonizationIt is unjust to misrepresent a leader who has worked tirelessly to elevate the institution to national standards. - Claim That Four Lecturers Died Due to “Suspense”
These deaths are tragic, but attributing unrelated medical events to administrative procedures without evidence is irresponsible and insensitive. No directive from Dr. Kanu endangered any lecturer’s wellbeing.
CONCLUSION
The narrative against Associate Professor Philip John Kanu is built on misinformation, speculation, and personal grievances—not verified facts.
The truth remains:
i. All processes followed the Universities Act
2021.
ii. Independent panels conducted interviews.
with integrity.
iii. No unilateral decisions were made by Dr.
Kanu.
iv. MMTU’s transition has been one of the
most successful nationally.The University continues to operate transparently with full documentation available for review by the proper authorities.
Dr. Kanu remains committed to fairness, due process, and the continued growth of MMTU.
