When public pressure becomes the guardian of justice: Lessons from Coal City University
By Okechukwu Nwanguma
Following sustained public concern over the reported assault of a female student and the disciplinary measures that followed, Coal City University has finally acknowledged the need to review its handling of the matter. In its official statement, the university admitted that the sanctions initially imposed on the victim and two other students were based on the information available at the time and that additional evidence subsequently emerged requiring a reassessment of the case.
While the decision to review the matter is welcome, it raises a fundamental question: why were severe disciplinary measures imposed before a thorough investigation and fair hearing had taken place?
The university has stated that it is committed to fairness, due process, and institutional accountability. Those are laudable principles. However, the true test of commitment to these values is not in their invocation after public outrage has erupted, but in their application before decisions are made.
If fairness and due process had guided the university’s actions from the outset, there would have been a careful investigation of the circumstances surrounding the incident before disciplinary sanctions were imposed. There would have been an opportunity for all parties to be heard. There would have been a deliberate effort to establish the facts rather than relying solely on initial reports. Most importantly, the victim of an alleged assault would not have found herself facing disciplinary punishment before the institution had fully examined what transpired.
The university’s own admission that additional evidence emerged after the disciplinary action raises concerns about the adequacy of the process that led to those decisions. It suggests that crucial facts may not have been considered before sanctions were imposed. This is precisely why due process exists: to prevent hasty decisions, protect the rights of all parties, and ensure that justice is based on evidence rather than assumptions.
The subsequent decision to suspend the staff member involved pending the outcome of the review process is an important step. Yet it inevitably invites questions about why such action was not considered earlier, especially given the disturbing nature of the allegations and the video evidence that has since entered the public domain.
The broader concern extends beyond this particular incident. It speaks to the culture of accountability within educational institutions and the standards expected of those entrusted with the care and development of young people.
Universities are not merely centres for the transmission of knowledge. They are moral and intellectual communities. They are expected to model the values they seek to instill in their students: respect for human dignity, adherence to the rule of law, fairness, critical inquiry, and responsible exercise of authority.
When allegations of abuse arise within such institutions, the response must reflect these values. There can be no justification for violence against students. There can be no place for intimidation, arbitrary punishment, or actions that create the impression that institutional reputation is being prioritised over justice.
Equally troubling are reports of attempts to discourage scrutiny and criticism of the university’s handling of the incident. Rather than engaging constructively with legitimate concerns raised by students, parents, civil society actors, and members of the public, there appear to have been efforts to frame criticism as part of a campaign against the institution itself.
This is a misplaced response. Those who have called attention to the incident are not enemies of the university. They are responding to what they have seen in the public domain and demanding accountability for conduct that appears inconsistent with the values expected of an institution of higher learning.
The issue is not whether the university has critics. Every institution does. The issue is whether a student was subjected to unjustifiable violence and whether the institution responded appropriately. Attempts to divert attention from these questions by attributing ulterior motives to critics do not address the underlying concerns and only serve to erode public confidence further.
If the management believes that there are individuals or groups seeking to undermine the institution, that is a separate matter requiring evidence. It should not be conflated with legitimate demands for accountability. Citizens have a right to question the conduct of institutions, especially when allegations of abuse and injustice arise. Journalists, civil society organisations, lawyers, parents, and concerned members of the public perform an essential democratic function when they draw attention to possible wrongdoing and demand corrective action.
Indeed, the present review appears to have been prompted by public scrutiny. That fact should not be viewed as an embarrassment. Rather, it demonstrates the importance of transparency, civic engagement, and public accountability in ensuring that institutions remain faithful to their responsibilities.
The university now has an opportunity to demonstrate genuine leadership. The review process must be transparent, impartial, and credible. It must seek not merely to manage a public relations challenge but to establish the truth and deliver justice.
Any disciplinary measures found to have been unjustly imposed should be reversed. Any staff member found responsible for misconduct should be held accountable in accordance with established procedures. The affected student should receive appropriate redress. Equally important, the university should take steps to ensure that future complaints are handled through processes that are fair, transparent, and respectful of the rights and dignity of all concerned.
The National Universities Commission and other relevant regulatory bodies also have a responsibility to ensure that institutions under their oversight uphold acceptable standards of governance, discipline, and respect for human rights.
Educational institutions occupy a privileged position in society. They shape minds, nurture character, and prepare future leaders. With that privilege comes a profound responsibility to uphold the highest standards of justice and accountability.
The lesson from this episode is clear. Public pressure should not have to become the guardian of justice. Institutions themselves should be the first defenders of fairness, due process, and human dignity. When they fail in that responsibility, public scrutiny becomes necessary.
Coal City University now has an opportunity to restore confidence by demonstrating that it is prepared to learn from this incident, correct its mistakes, and place justice above institutional self-protection.
That is what true accountability requires. That is what students deserve. And that is what society should expect from every institution of higher learning.
Nwanguma is the executive director of Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC). He writes from Lagos
