© Echo Dei Media Consult.
There is a popular philosophical warning credited to the popular American historian and philosopher, Hannah Arendt that “the ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction no longer exists.” It is against this backdrop that the recent Facebook publication accusing the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), Professor Simon Ortuanya, of political adventurism must be examined.
What was presented to the public as a civic alarm is, in truth, a deliberate mixture of conjecture and/or misrepresentation, and mischief, which is dangerous not because it is persuasive, but because it is reckless.
The write-up, authored by a certain Mr Chimedu Asogwa (or whatever name he portrays), in question does not merely criticize; it blindly imputes motives, indiscretely assigns intentions, and carelessly manufactures political narratives without evidence. In doing so, it violates a basic principle of intellectual honesty articulated by Aristotle: “The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousandfold.”
The author’s initial deviation lies in the false premise that Professor Ortuanya is engaged in partisan politics or is positioning himself as a political leader within the Nsukka zone. From that flawed premise, an entire tower of speculation is erected.
First, it is important to state clearly and without ambiguity that Professor Ortuanya, as Vice-Chancellor of a federal university, is acutely aware of the ethical and institutional restraints attached to his office. Far from “forcing himself” into any political leadership space, he has, on several public fora, affirmed his non-partisan posture. This is not a matter of convenience; it is a matter of duty. As a potential Returning Officer in future elections, including the 2027 general elections, neutrality is not optional but mandatory. Any suggestion that he would jeopardize such a responsibility by indulging in partisan theatrics is not only illogical but insulting to his intellect and professional record.
At the same time, intellectual integrity demands that we do not confuse citizenship with partisanship. Professor Ortuanya, like every other Nigerian adult, is an eligible voter. His right to vote is inalienable and constitutionally guaranteed. As the 19th century English philosopher and political economist, John Stuart Mill once argued, “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
To suggest that exercising civic responsibility, casting a vote or expressing general approval of governance outcomes, amounts to political partisanship is to stretch logic beyond breaking point. Praising the visible developmental strides of a sitting governor, particularly in a State like ours, where such strides are evident to citizens, does not equate to alignment with a political party. It is an acknowledgment of observable facts, not a declaration of political allegiance. This is exactly what Ortuanya does to Peter Mbah's innovative governance in Enugu.
The allegation that the Vice-Chancellor made derogatory remarks about National Assembly members from Enugu North Senatorial District is perhaps the most inflammatory and unsubstantiated claim in the entire publication. No verifiable source, no recorded statement, no direct quotation has been provided; only hearsay amplified into outrage. In philosophy, this is known as argumentum ad populum (appealing to emotion rather than evidence).
As the great Scottish mind, David Hume cautioned, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” Unfortunately, the author of the Facebook post did the opposite.
Equally misleading is the attempt to politicize routine social and administrative interactions. The so-called “Ohodo meeting,” painted as a clandestine political stakeholders’ gathering, collapses under minimal scrutiny. Since assuming office, Professor Ortuanya has received a wide spectrum of visitors: academics, traditional rulers, alumni groups, community leaders, politicians, and non-politicians alike. Courtesy visits are not conspiracies; they are standard features of institutional leadership. To criminalize or politicize such engagements is to argue, absurdly, that a Vice-Chancellor must exist in isolation, sealed off from society. Martin Buber opinionated that: “All real living is meeting.”
The author’s attempt to link the Vice-Chancellor to the increase in UNN school fees further exposes either ignorance or deliberate distortion. It is a matter of public record that the adjustment in fees was approved by the previous Governing Council before Professor Ortuanya assumed office. This is not speculation; it is documented institutional history. Yet, detractors chose to weaponize a painful but necessary policy decision, projecting it onto a new administration for political convenience. Empirically, this mirrors earlier failed accusations against the Vice-Chancellor; from imagined plans of admission racketeering to unfounded fears of academic manipulation. Each allegation has collapsed under factual scrutiny, yet the pattern of misinformation persists.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the original publication is the insinuation that academic records could be weaponized against perceived political opponents. This claim is not only baseless but profoundly irresponsible. UNN’s academic processes are governed by layered institutional checks involving faculties, departments, Senates, Councils, and external regulators. No single individual, not even a Vice-Chancellor, can unilaterally manipulate academic records without triggering systemic alarms. To suggest otherwise is to either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent how universities function. Karl Popper once warned that “Conspiracy theories are the refuge of those who cannot accept the complexity of social institutions.”
Moreover, invoking past controversies unrelated to Professor Ortuanya’s tenure and attempting to link them to his administration is a classic case of guilt by association. It is intellectually lazy and ethically suspect. UNN’s credibility, built over decades and across administrations, cannot be reduced to the ambitions imagined by anonymous detractors on social media.
It is also worth interrogating motive... not of the Vice-Chancellor, but of his accusers. Why the urgency to preempt actions not yet taken? Why the persistent effort to frame every neutral act as political scheming? Preemption, as rightly noted, is antithetical to fairness. It replaces evidence with suspicion and dialogue with accusation. “Those who seek to find motives in everything" so observed Spinoza, "are often revealing more about themselves than about others.”
Institutions thrive on accountability, and leaders must always be open to constructive criticism. However, there is a clear line between criticism and calumny. What the so-called Mr. Asogwa's publication offered was not accountability but antagonism; not vigilance but vilification.
The claims that Ortuanya is plotting political dominance in Nsukka, undermining elected officials, or weaponizing his office are unsupported by facts and contradicted by observable reality. To continue propagating such narratives is to risk dragging UNN into unnecessary controversy and eroding public trust through falsehood. Those who value truth over traffic, and reason over rancor, should reject misinformation and insist on a discourse grounded in facts, fairness, and intellectual responsibility.
© Echo Dei Media Consult.
