By Albangus:Op-Ed/Commentary
Contrary to claims in sections of the media, the administration of Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU) has denied allegations that its Principal, Dr. Philip J. Kanu, manipulated the recruitment and re-categorization of staff following the institution’s transition to university status. University sources emphasize that the 2021 upgrade and transformation of MMTU from a technical college into a fully-fledged university was not a ceremonial name change. It was a legally and academically complex process governed by national education laws, the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC), and evolving university standards, necessitating comprehensive restructuring and making the automatic absorption of former college staff impossible. While public discourse rightly thrives on scrutiny, it falters when emotion replaces facts and insinuation substitutes for evidence, as recent exaggerated commentary has portrayed this due-process-driven transition as chaotic and autocratic rather than the rigorous institutional reform it was meant to be. That reality alone challenges the notion that staff who served under the former college structure could be automatically absorbed into a university system without fresh scrutiny. It is imperatively glaring that Universities are not built on sentiment; they are built on standards.
Much has been made of interviews conducted under a former University Court that was subsequently dissolved. What is conveniently omitted from the conversation is that decisions made by a dissolved governance body cannot bind a succeeding administration. Any attempt to implement such decisions would have exposed MMTU to legal challenges and accreditation risks, a price no responsible academic leader would pay.
Critics argue that a fresh recruitment process amounted to victimization. Others see it differently: a necessary reset to ensure compliance, transparency, and quality assurance. When an institution’s status changes, so too must its staffing framework. Qualifications that were sufficient for a college are not always adequate for a university. This is not punishment; it is policy.
Allegations of secret interviews and favouritism make for sensational headlines, but they collapse under scrutiny. Recruitment in public universities does not occur in isolation. It involves documentation checks, TEC validation, and government oversight. Not every applicant who reapplies will qualify, and disappointment, however understandable should not be confused with injustice.
The attempt to personalize a structural process by turning it into a morality tale of heroes and villains is deeply troubling. Even more troubling is the casual invocation of high offices and personalities to imply political cover where none has been established. Such claims, if unproven, do more harm than good, not only to individuals but to public trust.
There is also a dangerous tendency to attribute every delay in salary payments or allowances to university leadership, ignoring the fiscal realities of the public sector. University principals do not control national payroll systems, nor do they authorize payments at will. Conflating administrative limitations with malice is intellectually dishonest.
Transitions are painful. People get hurt. Emotions run high. But leadership sometimes requires making unpopular decisions in the interest of institutional survival. If MMTU had compromised standards to appease pressure, the same voices now crying foul would have been the first to question the credibility of its degrees tomorrow.
The real conversation Sierra Leone should be having is not about scapegoats, but about how we manage institutional reforms without weaponizing public sympathy or undermining governance. Universities must be protected from populism just as much as they must be protected from abuse of power.
MMTU’s journey is not perfect but it is not the caricature some have chosen to sell. Due process is rarely dramatic, rarely satisfying, and never instant. Yet it remains the only sustainable path forward.
History will not judge this transition by how loud the accusations were, but by whether the institution emerged stronger, credible, and worthy of the title “university.”
