Editorial : LEGACY WITHOUT SUSTAINANCE IS NOT LEGACY: THE MISSING LINK BETWEEN ACHIEVEMENTS AND CONTINUITY

By Faith Ajewole

Every administration dreams of leaving a legacy, an imprint so lasting that it continues to shape the association long after the curtains are drawn. The recently concluded NAPS UI administration, fondly known as The Legacy Team and led by Mr. Samuel Akinwande, was a solid one. With a manifesto built on three strong pillars - Growth, Impact, and Excellence. Expectations were high, hopes were bright, and promises were ambitious.

But as the tenure draws to a close, one question lingers:

Was it truly a legacy? Or simply a season of achievements without sustenance?

To be fair, the Legacy team did not sit idle. From mental health advocacy through the Psych Walk, to a secondary school outreach aimed at demystifying psychology as a career, the administration made visible efforts to extend NAPS’ influence beyond the classroom walls.

Picture Credit: Indy Press

Over 400 mental health pamphlets were distributed across halls of residence and faculties, sparking conversations on mental wellness across the University of Ibadan.

An outreach was also conducted at Orogun Grammar School, where students were educated on the scope and possibilities within psychology, a commendable step toward community impact, even though it received minimal publicity.

Internally, growth-focused initiatives such as the Digital Skills Bootcamp, CV building sessions, academic writing training, and the NAPS Student-preneurs program were implemented. Psychology Beyond the Walls of School was an immense one, which helped bring clarity and direction to the career paths of Psychology Students. An online programme, where experts were invited to train students in mobile photography, graphic design, copywriting, and entrepreneurship. Communication channels were created to coordinate participants, and dozens signed up to benefit.

On the administrative front, efforts toward inclusivity were visible through the creation of a stakeholders’ committee comprising representatives from each academic level. Feedback systems were also attempted through Google Forms, although engagement eventually dwindled.

In essence, the Legacy Team showed up, they worked, they executed plans. For this, they deserve commendation.

However, leadership is not measured only by what is started, but by what is sustained. And herein lies the pressing concern.

While initiatives were introduced and programs executed, there appears to be little structure for continuity. No clear systems were formalized to ensure these projects would outlive the administration that birthed them. As revealed during the press interview, the hope of continuation largely rests in the discretion of the incoming executives.

But can an achievement be called a legacy if it ends with one tenure?

The word legacy itself implies inheritance, something handed down, built upon, and preserved. Without continuity, impact slowly fades into memory. Programs become past events, not enduring institutions. Today, history is filled with promising initiatives that crumbled simply because no one was prepared to sustain them. The Legacy Team crushed goals, they delivered projects, they made impact in moments, but they seemingly forgot to pass the baton. Perhaps it was carried along.

This concern became even clearer during the press interview when Mr. Samuel Akinwande encouraged the incoming administration to “take steps in certain directions,” noting that even if they do not build directly on existing initiatives, they would still advance the association with their own plans.

At first glance, this statement appears optimistic. But upon deeper reflection, it reveals a troubling leadership fallacy.

If new executives are not expected to build upon already established programs,then what becomes of the structures painstakingly created by the outgoing administration? Do they simply remain as memories of past efforts? It is akin to building a house only for the next occupant to abandon it and begin another foundation elsewhere, leaving behind half-finished structures scattered across time.

If the Digital Skills Bootcamp is not continued, what happens to the skill development pipeline? If the outreach programs are not sustained, what becomes of the community impact vision?

If awareness campaigns end with one tenure, how does mental health advocacy grow stronger? Without continuity, yesterday’s achievements quietly decay. And if there are no structured replacements designed to improve or expand existing initiatives, then all that was built risks becoming wasted effort.

More troubling, however, is the reality that the incoming administration appears to have few concrete initiatives of its own, and no clear intention of sustaining the already established programs. If innovative plans were being introduced to surpass existing ones, the absence of continuity might be understandable. But replacing functioning structures with little or nothing substantial only worsens and widens the developmental gap.

Abandoning working initiatives without presenting stronger alternatives does not signal advancement, it signals stagnation.

The cancelled department’s dinner further brought to light execution challenges- low ticket sales, changes in academic calendars, and logistical hurdles. While understandable explanations were given, it highlighted the need for stronger students engagement strategies.

It is not enough to organize programs.

There must be people groomed to continue them, structures built to sustain them, policies that preserve them.

Because impact that dies with a tenure is not legacy, it is merely history. The Legacy Team leaves behind commendable efforts, visible progress, and moments of growth. But whether it leaves behind a true legacy remains debatable.

The incoming administration now stands at a crossroads, either to revive, build upon, and sustain these initiatives, or to let them fade into another chapter of “what once was.”