THE HIDDEN ROOM OF NAPS: IS THE NPHR NOW A JOKE?

By Oluwadarasimi Otunla

Following the conclusion of the last legislative session, it is essential to reflect on the legacy of the past legislative house. They deserve accolades for their discipline, commitment to the Constitution, and orderliness. While one might hope to avoid drawing comparisons with the previous legislative house to allow room for the new order, it is undeniable that such comparisons are necessary.

I wrote an article last session titled "A Better NAPS," where I emphasized the importance of student participation in the association's affairs and proceedings. However, the new session has commenced, and students are still in the dark about the procedures, decision-makers, and their level of dedication to the NAPSites' interests.

Regrettably, the first official sitting of the NPHR was a disappointment compared to previous ones since I joined this esteemed association. The session began with its habitual tardiness, leaving congressmen, aspirants, and the press waiting for almost an hour. It became evident that those required to start the sitting were absent. Despite not meeting the quorum requirements outlined in the NAPS constitution, the sitting went ahead.

An observer from the FHR and some congressmen expressed their dissatisfaction and received unsatisfactory responses. Things only got messier when the INEC chairman of the association behaved casually and giggled while addressing the Speaker of the House. This raises questions about whether the House upholds the moral standards for addressing the assembly and its speaker.

Furthermore, during the session, similar to the FHR sitting preceding it, motions were either not seconded or members of the house forgot to move them. This raises concerns about the understanding of important procedures for decision-making within the house. When making critical decisions, especially those affecting funds collected by the association, the house appeared lackadaisical and laid-back.

Turning to the bye-election conducted in the house, it is worth noting that the association chose to ignore voices calling for executive members not to vote due to their potential bias. This proposition proved to be well-founded. The newly appointed social director, who had faced accusations of misconduct and rude behaviour during her previous tenure in the social committee, displayed aggressiveness and rude behaviour while addressing the house. Furthermore, her manifesto lacked concrete plans, offering only a vague outline of her duties, supported by flimsy excuses.

During the voting, Miss Obadan initially had a total number of 8 votes against and 4 votes in favour, but due to the Clerk, the acting DSP, and the Speaker of the House not voting the first time, a second round of voting occurred. This changed the outcome of the election resulting in 8 votes in favour of and 6 votes against. It's worth noting that the four individuals who changed their votes to support Miss Obadan were executive members, supporting the claims of their bias.

If the association is desperate to fill vacant positions despite accusations and the candidate’s lack of substantial plans, what else will they be willing to compromise during the session? These actions raise serious concerns about the direction of NAPS as an association.

We must contemplate the fate of our once serious, orderly, and respected association if these issues persist. Can we truly trust the leaders we've chosen to make decisions in our favour? This article serves as more than just an opinion; it's a message to NAPSites to remain vigilant about the association's activities and conduct within the house. We, the press, are committed to speaking the truth, upholding justice, and being your voice.