Response to USP analysis

The smell of a coup is palpable in the regional university’s Laucala campus.

Fiji Sun’s analysis (June 30) signalled its governing body’s likely stand at the USP Council when it reconvenes today. And that is to derail the region’s supreme decision making body’s decision of June 18 to reinstate the Vice-Chancellor President.

The university council is owned by 12-member countries and thus dominated by politicians; a head of state and Government, a deputy prime minister and Government ministers. Aotearoa-NZ and Australia are represented by former Vice Chancellors.

At least five of the 34 councillors are lawyers, one a former judge and another former World Bank executive and current secretarygeneral of the Pacific Islands Forum. Last week’s discussion focused on the refusal of the Pro-Chancellor and Ordinance to Discipline the Vice-Chancellor. The Fiji Sun opines the council has exceeded its jurisdiction by overturning its Executive Committee’s decision to suspend the Vice-Chancellor.

Surprisingly, it says, that council has exceeded its powers. And in so doing, the council seems to have interfered with the process where it had no role to play!

It boldly states that Winston Thompson had indeed done everything by the books. Further, “The Executive Committee and the Pro-Chancellor should judicially review the decision of the council and seek a stay of the same.”

If Mr Thompson and the Executive Committee of the council do not seek a judicial review, it sets a very dangerous precedence for the future of the university.

Is the Fiji Sun’s governing body re-writing the university’s ordinance to discipline the Vice-Chancellor and reinstate the Pro-Chancellor? Or is this another ploy to sabotage the university’s decision-making body? Furthermore, is this another case of the tail wagging the dog’s head? The council is the sole governing body for USP, the ProChancellor, Deputy Pro-Chancellor, Audit and Risk Committee, Chair and every other ex-officio are mere tails.

As I recall the Pro-Chancellor’s suspension power is only exercisable in an “urgency”, and this has been conveniently overlooked. Where is the identification and enumeration of the circumstances that justifies the urgency to act?

If a valid justification can’t be found, a coup on the region’s university is in the air!