Dragging a Lecturer for Being Strict Is Not Accountability
Social media has been buzzing over the nomination of a proposed Commissioner in Benue State. What has caught people’s attention is not an allegation of corruption or abuse of office, it is his past reputation as a lecturer. Several former students have come forward, calling him “wicked” and “uncompromising” in the classroom.
Now, that raises a simple but important question: is being a strict academic a valid reason to discredit someone from holding public office?
Honestly, I do not know the man personally. I was not his student and I have no reason to defend him beyond principle. But what I do know is this; there is a difference between holding someone accountable and dragging him based on old academic grievances. If there are serious allegations, abuse of power, harassment, financial misconduct, those should absolutely be brought forward and investigated. That is what accountability looks like.
But labeling someone “unfit” for public service simply because he is a strict lecturer? That is something else entirely.
Yes, I have read the stories. Some former students say he boasted about “failing” students, saying things like, “heaven will not fall”. Others recall trying to challenge their results and being discouraged from doing so. These are serious claims, and if they point to a consistent pattern of power abuse, they deserve attention.
Still, what is worrisome is how all those experiences are being reduced to one word: “wicked”. As if being demanding, firm, or principled is a flaw. As if refusing to water down academic standards makes someone morally unfit for leadership.
It does not.
University is not supposed to be easy. A lecturer is not there to make life “comfortable”, he is there to stretch minds, challenge assumptions, and prepare students for the real world. A lecturer who insists on discipline, independent thinking, and high standards might not be the most liked, but that does not make him wicked. And it certainly does not make him unqualified to lead.
Many students walk out of the examination hall confident they have aced it, only to fail. Why? Often, it is not that they did not understand the topic. It is simply that they did not answer the question the way it needed to be answered. They wrote a lot, yes, but missed the point. That is not wickedness. That is s just how assessment works.
Sometimes, students think more pages mean better grades. But marking does not reward volume. It rewards clarity, relevance, and method. And most students do not know that markers are often told “don’t mark beyond the first correct appearance”. So, if you hide the right answer halfway through a confusing explanation, it might be missed.
These are not acts of cruelty. They are part of a system designed to uphold fairness and rigour.
So when people turn to social media to attack someone’s reputation based on how “hard” his class was, we need to pause. If someone was genuinely unfair, if he “failed” students without cause, silenced complaints, or abused his position, that is a different conversation, and it should be investigated properly. But if what we are really upset about is that he held the line and did not make things easy, we need to admit that too.
Leadership is not a popularity contest. We need people who have backbone, people who are not afraid to say no and who do not compromise on standards. That kind of integrity often starts in the classroom.
Let us stop confusing discipline with wickedness. It is not the same thing. And if we cannot tell the difference, we risk losing out on the very kind of leadership we say we want.
