Musa Yayou
The Parliamentary Committee on Technical and Higher Education, chaired by Hon. Joseph Williams Lamin, on Friday, 19 June 2026, raised serious concerns over the legality of actions taken by the Chancellor of the Milton Margai Technical University (MMTU), Engineer Mohamed Alie Jalloh, particularly his unilateral suspension of the University’s Vice Chancellor and Principal (VC&P), Prof. Philip John Kanu, allegedly without the approval of the University Court, the institution’s highest governing body.
The concerns were raised as lawmakers continued their investigation into governance disputes affecting the university. During the hearing, members of the committee questioned whether the Chancellor possessed the legal authority to take such far-reaching decisions without first obtaining the endorsement of the University Court, as required under the institution’s governance framework. Lawmakers maintained that major decisions affecting the administration of the university must be subjected to the collective approval of the Court rather than being undertaken unilaterally by any individual office holder.
Chairman of the Committee, Hon. Alpha Ben Mansaray, stressed the need for stronger parliamentary oversight of the tertiary education sector, warning that persistent leadership conflicts could undermine years of government investment in higher education.
“We don’t speak politics when we are here. Our concern is the future of tertiary education. It would be unfortunate if, after years of investment, the sector continues to struggle because of the actions of a few individuals,” Hon. Mansaray stated.
Officials from the Ministry of Technical and Higher Education, including the Director of Higher Education, appeared before the committee and were questioned extensively on the powers of university governing bodies and the legal authority of chancellors.
Lawmakers from both sides of the House sought clarification on whether the Chancellor possessed the legal authority to make major institutional decisions or enter into agreements on behalf of the university without prior approval from the University Court.
Committee members maintained that collective governance structures must be respected, arguing that no individual office holder can lawfully exercise powers reserved for a governing body.
“There is no law in this country that allows a Chancellor to act on behalf of the University Court in matters that have not been considered and approved by the Court. The Chancellor is part of the Court, and his powers are derived from the Court,” one member remarked.
Parliamentarians also questioned why certain actions were reportedly taken shortly after the University Court had met and adopted resolutions on the same matters.
The committee further expressed concern over what it described as a growing trend of governance disputes across several tertiary institutions, resulting in administrative instability and public controversy.
Some members called for the Minister of Technical and Higher Education to personally appear before the Committee to clarify her ministry’s role in the dispute. Although the minister reportedly submitted an apology due to official engagements outside the country, lawmakers indicated that her appearance may still be necessary.
Throughout the hearing, members stressed that personal disagreements among university stakeholders should not be allowed to overshadow the interests of students, staff, and the nation.
“What I see is a personality conflict that has nothing to do with the university. We are forestalling the growth of the institution because of disagreements among individuals. We must put the interest of the nation above every other interest,” another committee member stated.
Concluding the session, Hon. Ben Mansaray reaffirmed Parliament’s commitment to ensuring that university governance structures operate within the law, uphold accountability, and serve the best interests of students and the country.
The committee’s inquiry into the MMTU governance dispute is expected to continue in the coming weeks, with additional witnesses likely to be summoned as lawmakers seek to determine whether established legal procedures were followed.
