The incident involving Prof. Ifeanyi Sunny Odinye, Head of the Department of Chinese Studies at Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, has generated serious public concern after a video circulated showing the professor being physically assaulted and humiliated by a group of persons within the university environment.
According to various accounts, the incident arose from an allegation involving a female student and the professor. The precise circumstances that led to the confrontation, however, remain matters that should be established through a proper investigation rather than through social-media narratives and assumptions. But, just as humanity has witnessed since Potiphar’s wife, the professor’s ordeal began when he was accused of trying to access the secret places of his female student who ostensibly is a sweetheart to some strong men.
The matter is particularly sensitive because it contains two separate issues that must not be confused. The first is the substantive allegation against the professor. If a lecturer sexually harassed, molested or otherwise acted improperly towards a student, that allegation is serious and must be investigated fully. The second is the viral physical assault on the professor. Even if the underlying allegation eventually proves true, it does not give anybody the right to beat him, humiliate him or administer punishment outside the law. An alleged wrong cannot lawfully become a licence for another wrong. We are not in a pre-political state! That distinction is at the heart of this matter.
A university is not a jungle. It is not a place where allegations are settled with fists. It is not a place where a crowd becomes a court. It is not a place where the person making an allegation becomes the prosecutor, judge and executioner.
If the allegations against Prof. Odinye are true, they must be properly investigated. If they are false, that must also be established. In either case, the process must be lawful, impartial and evidence-based.
The first questions surrounding this episode therefore deserve serious answers. How did the professor’s clothes reportedly come into the possession of the female student? Where exactly did this happen? Was it inside an office? Was the student alone with him? Were other people nearby? Were there witnesses? Were there messages, recordings or other evidence? Most importantly, what actually happened immediately before the clothes came into the student’s possession?
These questions are not intended to trivialise an allegation of sexual misconduct. Far from it. They are precisely the questions that a proper investigation must answer. Nobody should be presumed guilty because an allegation is shocking. Nobody should also be presumed innocent because he is a professor. The facts must speak.
A student who believes she has been sexually harassed is not without options. She can report. She can seek protection. She can preserve evidence. She can approach appropriate university authorities. She can involve law-enforcement authorities where a criminal offence is alleged. She can seek legal assistance.
The National Universities Commission (NUC) has itself acknowledged the seriousness of sexual harassment in Nigerian tertiary institutions and has urged universities to create effective channels through which students can report such matters without fear of victimisation. The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has also developed a Model Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy for tertiary institutions. That model emphasises reporting mechanisms, investigation, confidentiality and due process.
So there is no justification for transforming a university grievance into a street trial. The student therefore had a right to complain. The professor has a right to defend himself. The university has a duty to investigate. The police have a duty to investigate any alleged criminal offence. The courts have the final authority to determine criminal guilt. Nobody has the right to replace these institutions with a mob.
This is why the alleged assault on Prof. Odinye must itself be investigated with the same seriousness expected in the underlying allegation. If individuals were recruited, mobilised or brought into the university environment to attack him, their identities should be established. If the evidence shows that they assaulted him, they should be arrested and prosecuted under the applicable criminal law. The fact that an allegation had been made against the professor cannot provide immunity for people who took the law into their own hands. Two wrongs do not produce justice.
Indeed, there is a dangerous precedent in allowing mob action to become an accepted response to allegations of sexual misconduct. Today, the target may be a professor accused of misconduct. Tomorrow, it could be a student falsely accused of another offence. The next day, it could be a lecturer involved in an ordinary disagreement with a student. Once the principle that an accusation authorises physical punishment is accepted, nobody in the university community is safe.
There is also a difficult question about professional boundaries. If the facts ultimately establish that a lecturer behaved improperly in an interaction with a student, the university must deal with him according to its rules. Academic rank must not become a shield against accountability. A professor is not above university regulations. Neither is a student.
But lecturers also have a responsibility to protect themselves and their students from situations that can create ambiguity or allegations of impropriety. Private encounters should be approached with caution. Professional communications should be maintained. Where sensitive meetings are necessary, appropriate institutional safeguards should be considered. Documentation matters. Transparency matters.
This is not about treating every student as a potential enemy. It is about recognising the enormous power imbalance that can exist between lecturers and students and ensuring that academic relationships remain professional.
The university system must also learn from this incident. Orientation should no longer be treated as a ceremonial exercise where new students are merely told how to register courses, pay fees and attend lectures. Students should be taught how the university works. They should know where to report harassment. They should know how to report intimidation. They should know how to seek counselling. They should know how to preserve evidence. They should know when to contact security agencies. They should know the difference between reporting an allegation and punishing an accused person.
This is particularly important in an age where young people increasingly receive advice from social-media platforms. TikTok is not a university disciplinary committee. WhatsApp is not a court. Facebook is not an investigative agency.
Universities must therefore build stronger institutional trust. A student will only use the proper reporting system if she believes that the system will listen to her, protect her and act on her complaint.
