FUHSO’s Accreditation Controversy and the Battle Over Institutional Legacy

By Archibong Esuene

Public institutions thrive not merely on achievements but on accountability, transparency and the willingness to accommodate alternative perspectives.

This is why the recent exchange surrounding the accreditation process of the Medicine and Surgery (MBBS) programme at the Federal University of Health Sciences, Otukpo (FUHSO) deserves careful examination beyond official narratives and public relations statements.

The controversy began when the University management, through a statement signed by Mr. Sunday A. Igah on May 19, 2026, sought to explain the circumstances surrounding student protests over delays in the accreditation of the MBBS programme.

The statement painted a picture of an Institution burdened by years of neglect and inherited deficiencies, while presenting the current administration under Vice-Chancellor Prof. Francis Aba Uba as the team that rescued a troubled programme and successfully positioned it for accreditation.

However, scarcely had the statement entered public discourse than a detailed right of reply emerged from the founder Coalition for Good Governance and Social Justice, Comrade Johnson U Ada in his findings challenging several of the claims contained in the management’s narrative.

At the heart of the disagreement is not whether the current administration has undertaken projects or made efforts toward accreditation. Few would dispute that accreditation requires substantial institutional commitment and that any administration that advances the process deserves recognition. Rather, the central issue is whether the University’s official statement accurately represented the circumstances it inherited and whether credit was fairly allocated.

The right of reply argues that the management’s account oversimplifies a far more complex history. According to Ada, FUHSO’s foundations were laid under the pioneer administration of Prof. Innocent Ujah, who served as Vice-Chancellor from the University’s inception until November 2024.

The response recalls the enormous challenges confronting the pioneer management when the University was established in 2019. At the time, the institution reportedly had little more than a parcel of land designated as its permanent site and a dilapidated youth centre at Otada, Otukpo, which eventually became the take-off campus.

Building a University from scratch is no small task. The group notes that while academic activities commenced at the temporary site, simultaneous efforts were initiated to develop the permanent campus at Akwete-Akpa. Major projects reportedly undertaken during that period included the Senate and Administrative Building, the College of Medicine complex, student hostels, principal officers’ residences, access roads, perimeter fencing and the University gate.

These projects, according to the rejoinder, were part of a deliberate strategy to ensure that FUHSO did not become one of the many Nigerian Universities that remain trapped in temporary sites decades after establishment.

Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official narrative concerns accreditation-related preparations. The University management’s statement suggested that no meaningful engagement had occurred with regulatory authorities before the current administration assumed office, an assumption that is vehemently disputed.

According to Ada, the University successfully underwent resource verification exercises involving both the National Universities Commission (NUC) and the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) before academic activities commenced.

The National Universities Commission (NUC) programmes approved at the time reportedly included Medicine and Surgery, Biochemistry, Medical Microbiology, Computer Science, Chemistry, Physics, Biology ,Human Anatomy, Human Physiology, Biostatistics and Mathematics.

To further buttress their point, the Organization stated that before the expiration of the pioneer VC tenure, the NUC Resource Verification team again approved the following courses before the adent of the current leadership, namely: Pharmacy, Nursing, and Medical Laboratory Sciences.

They further maintains that accreditation fees for the MBBS programme had already been approved and paid during the tenure of the pioneer administration, contradicting suggestions that no statutory payments were made before May 2025.

This is a critical point because if verified, it would fundamentally alter public understanding of the accreditation timeline and the extent of preparatory work undertaken before the current administration assumed office.

Equally significant is the claim that FUHSO secured a TETFund intervention of about N700 million for laboratory upgrades before the change of leadership. According to the rejoinder, these funds were specifically intended for procuring laboratory equipment necessary for academic and accreditation requirements.

The response also highlights extensive advocacy efforts undertaken by the pioneer administration, including the acquisition of additional facilities through community engagement and stakeholder partnerships.

One of such successful advocacy mission was the high level delegation to then governor of Benue State, Chief Samuel Ortom as part of the preparation for the MBBS accreditation by MDCN, which resulted to the governor handing over the Government General Hospital, Otukpo to the University as the Medical University cannot be a clinical accreditation without a Teaching Hospital where medical students will have their clinical training.

Other classical example according to them is the donation of Double KK Hotel to the University by its proprietor after negotiations with the institution’s leadership. The facility reportedly provided much-needed space for lecture halls and departmental offices at a critical stage in the University’s development.

The Group again argues that many of the facilities and infrastructure currently supporting teaching, learning and administration are products of decisions, planning and execution that began during the University’s formative years.

Yet the controversy extends beyond infrastructure and accreditation timelines.

At its core lies a broader question about institutional memory, continuity and fairness in public administration.
Universities, like governments, are not built in a single administration. Projects often span multiple tenures. Accreditation processes frequently involve years of planning, infrastructure development, staff recruitment and regulatory engagement.

Successes achieved at a particular moment are often the cumulative result of efforts made by different leadership teams over time.

It is perhaps for this reason that the rejoinder strongly objects to attempts to diminish previous contributions in order to magnify present achievements.

The response accuses the current administration of taking undue credit for projects and processes that began before its tenure. While such assertions may themselves be debated, they underscore the importance of balanced historical accounts whenever institutions communicate with the public.

More importantly, some stakeholders argue that FUHSO, as a relatively young institution, should be allowed the space to grow and consolidate its gains rather than becoming entangled in narratives that seek to discredit previous administrations despite visible achievements that remain evident across the university landscape.

They contend that many of the critical infrastructure projects and foundational structures that currently support academic activities are matters of public record and can be objectively assessed by members of the public. This perspective has also generated a fresh line of inquiry within public discourse.

While acknowledging the efforts of the current administration in pursuing accreditation and sustaining University operations, some observers have called for greater clarity regarding projects and initiatives that can be specifically attributed to the present leadership, noting that many of the major physical developments currently visible on campus were initiated under the pioneer administration.

Such questions, they argue, are not intended to diminish ongoing efforts but rather to provide a complete and balanced account of the institution’s development trajectory.

Interestingly, the right of reply does not deny that progress has been made under the current administration. Neither does it argue against the importance of the scheduled MDCN accreditation visit.
Instead, its principal concern appears to be the portrayal of the past as a period of inactivity or failure.

Public communication, especially from official institutions, carries significant responsibility. Statements issued in moments of crisis must not only reassure stakeholders but must also withstand scrutiny from those who possess institutional knowledge and historical records.

When competing narratives emerge, as in the FUHSO case, the truth is often found not at either extreme but somewhere in between. It is entirely possible that deficiencies existed and required urgent intervention. It is equally possible that substantial groundwork had already been laid before the current administration took office.

That is why the right of reply deserves attention. Not because it settles the debate, but because it reminds the public that institutional histories are rarely as simple as official statements sometimes suggest.

In a University still writing its early chapters, preserving an accurate record of who did what, when and how is not merely a matter of pride. It is a matter of history.

Stakeholders further caution that excessive propaganda, particularly when unsupported by verifiable evidence, risks distracting attention from the Institution’s core mission of growth and development. Tangible achievements, they note, are often visible to the public and capable of speaking for themselves.

For that reason, many believe that the focus should remain on strengthening the University, sustaining its progress and building upon foundations already laid rather than fostering divisions over competing claims of ownership.

As FUHSO continues its quest to secure full accreditation for its medical programme, stakeholders will undoubtedly celebrate any success achieved. Yet beyond the accreditation exercise itself, the current debate highlights another important value in academic institutions: the willingness to accommodate dissenting voices and ensure that every side of a contested story is heard.

After all, accountability is strengthened not when only one narrative is told, but when every credible narrative is allowed its place in the public record.

Archibong Esuene is an Abuja based Journalist and public affairs analyst.