Distinguished members of the press, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being here. I wish to address you today because of the false narrative advanced by Very Rev. Fr. Dr. Edwin S.C. Obiorah in his press release concerning Tansian University, Umunya, Anambra State, and his challenge to the September 3, 2026 National Universities Commission (NUC) Forensic Report on the presence of 'intruders' and an illegal governing body within the university.
His statement was laced with falsehoods, combative in tone, and deeply misleading in its assertions in a bullish attempt to bury a simple question beneath a mountain of impressive titles, accusations against unnamed detractors and a fog of legal-sounding assertions. He seek to turn a straightforward matter of ownership and lawful authority into a maze of rhetoric, where legal sensationalism is used as smoke and mirrors to obscure the substance of the issue.
But no amount of grand language can rewrite official records, just as rhetorical thunder cannot move the foundation of documented fact. The fundamental question therefore remains as clear as daylight: Who owns Tansian University? That question cannot be answered by a press conference, a professional title, a personal declaration or repeated descriptions of one's position as "lawful", "valid" or "legally unassailable".
It must be established from the university's founding documents, approved Academic Brief, applicable Tansian University law, regulatory records and any subsequent lawful instrument that may have altered its proprietorship. The NUC correspondence dated August 18, 2026, referenced NUC/ES/15/Vol.2/449, identifies the Missionary Servants of the Church (MSC), also known as the Missionary Sons of Blessed Iwene Tansi (MST), as the proprietor of Tansian University as contained in the approved Academic Brief and under Sections 1(3) and 30 of the Tansian University Law 2007.
That documentary position cannot be displaced by assertion. If the proprietorship has subsequently changed, the instrument effecting that change should be produced. Who authorised it? Under what law was it made? When did it take effect? Was the required regulatory approval obtained? Where is the NUC approval or other competent instrument recognising the change? These are ordinary questions about the legal identity of a university, not personal attacks.
Until a contrary and valid official instrument is produced, repeating another ownership narrative does not change the proprietorship reflected in the NUC record. The Founder, His Will And The Original Structure Let us also be clear about the history of Tansian University. Very Rev. Msgr. Prof. John Bosco Akam is the founder of Tansian University. I use the word "is" deliberately.
Though he has departed this physical world, he remains alive in spirit, in memory, in the institutions he conceived and founded, and in those who continue to carry his vision. His physical absence does not extinguish his identity as the founder; his legacy continues to speak, and in that enduring sense, he lives on. Msgr. Akam conceived, developed and drove the establishment of Tansian University, not with Church funds, but through the benevolence and support of people who believed in him and his vision.
He began the process of establishing the university in 2002, laying the foundation for what would eventually become a fully licensed institution. Five years later, in 2007, Tansian University obtained its provisional licence from the National Universities Commission (NUC) and in 2015 it got its operational licence. The founder therefore matters. The circumstances in which the university was established matter.
The approved Academic Brief matters. The licensing arrangement matters. The 2007 Tansian University Law matters. And the founder's testamentary wishes matter. Msgr. Akam also left a Last Will and Testament. The Will identifies the executors as Late Barr. B.S. Nwankwo, SAN, Prof. Godwin Akam and Late Mr Chimezie Akam. What did the founder's Will provide concerning Tansian University and its succession?
What cannot happen is for a founder's testamentary document to be ignored while competing claims of succession and control are presented as settled facts. This is why the ownership question must be addressed from the beginning. If MSC was the proprietor recognised under the approved Academic Brief and the 2007 legal framework, then anybody claiming that another entity now owns or controls the university must show the lawful instrument that produced that change.
The NUC Directive Cannot Be Wished Away There is an even more disturbing dimension to Fr. Obiorah's statement: his attempt to dismiss as fake the NUC Forensic Report dated September 3, 2026, referenced NUC/ES/38/VOL.3/189 and titled "Management Decisions Emanating from the Recent Forensic Audit Visit to Tansian University." The report was addressed to the Vice-Chancellor of Tansian University and duly received in the Office of the Vice-Chancellor; and signed by the Executive Secretary of NUC, Prof. Abdullahi Yusufu Ribadu, FCVSN.
That is not merely an argument against a document; it is an attempt to pour darkness over the light. When a priest, whose calling is ordinarily associated with truth, conscience and moral clarity, stands before the public and treats an inconvenient truth as false without establishing its falsity, his words risk becoming a cloak over the very truth he ought to help illuminate. A cassock may command respect, but it cannot turn falsehood into truth, nor can ecclesiastical title baptise an unsubstantiated claim into fact.
NUC Forensic Report contains specific decisions concerning Tansian University. That the Board of Trustees, Board of Directors and Governing Council orchestrated by Fr Obiorah were declared illegal and not recognised by NUC; that Tansian University Umunya, Anambra State Ltd/Gte is not recognised by NUC and cannot validly direct the affairs of Tansian University; that the Tansian University Law 2022 is void and cannot be operationalised; directed JAMB to suspend allocation of students to the university for admission into all programmes; suspends the processing of applications for new undergraduate and postgraduate programmes; and gives directions concerning disciplinary and financial measures involving students connected with the Oba campus pending further investigation.
The existence of the report by NUC is therefore a documentary matter, not a matter of grammatical interpretation. But what Fr. Obiora cannot reasonably sustain is his assertion that "no such directive has been issued by the NUC." when the Forensic Report has been identified by its date, reference number, title and signature. The same contradiction applies to his assertion that the Governing Council and Board of Trustees remain intact, functional and legally unassailable.
The NUC Forensic Report expressly states that the irrelevant governing bodies are not recognised by the Commission. If there is a subsequent court order or regulatory instrument that restores or recognises them, that document should be produced. A declaration that a body is "legally unassailable" does not itself establish its legal status. The attempt to blame "external detractors" or "disgruntled elements" also does not answer the substance of the matter.
The NUC report refers to regulatory interventions extending over several years, including earlier investigations, a forensic audit, a 2023 NUC Ad-hoc Committee visit, an interactive meeting involving statutory bodies in July 2024 and an Executive Secretary's communication in November 2024. The chronology therefore indicates that the regulatory concerns did not originate with journalists or recent publications.
They form part of a longer regulatory history. NUC Regulation, Corporate Autonomy And The 2022 Law There is a need to separate ownership from regulation. Nobody is suggesting that NUC owns Tansian University or that the Commission is a shareholder or commercial proprietor. The issue is whether NUC has regulatory authority over universities operating within Nigeria's degree-awarding system.
It does. Its statutory functions cover matters including university development, approval of academic programmes, quality assurance, investigation and regulatory compliance. Private ownership does not create regulatory immunity. A privately owned hospital remains subject to health regulation; a private bank remains subject to banking regulation; a private airline remains subject to aviation regulation.
A private university likewise operates within the regulatory framework governing degree-awarding institutions. NUC's regulatory role therefore cannot be dismissed simply because the institution is privately owned. At the same time, the legal argument should remain precise. The NUC Act should not be misrepresented as containing a simple provision authorising the Commission to dissolve the Board of Trustees of every private university.
The proper legal question is whether the particular measures taken against Tansian University fall within the Commission's lawful regulatory powers and the applicable legal framework. The fact that NUC is not the proprietor does not, by itself, deprive the regulator of regulatory authority. The same distinction applies to the Companies and Allied Matters Act. Corporate registration may establish the existence of a company, but it does not automatically establish that the company has regulatory authority over a licensed university.
NUC's stated position is that Tansian University Umunya, Anambra State Ltd/Gte is not recognised by the Commission and cannot validly direct the affairs of Tansian University. If the contrary position is being advanced, the relevant NUC recognition or No Objection should be produced. The Tansian University Law 2022 is invalid. According to the NUC, the 2022 law was created unlawfully and cannot be used because it violates Section 31 of the 2007 law, which requires final NUC approval for any amendments.
This raises a straightforward question: where is the NUC's official approval for the 2022 Law? If it exists, it must be made public. If it does not, the public has every right to demand answers from Fr. Obiora as to why a forged Law 2022 being used to run the Tansian University's current governance structure. The same principle applies to Fr. Obiorah's claim that he remains the lawful Chancellor and Chairman of the Board of Trustees.
An office is not a crown that one can place upon one's own head, nor is a title a key that can unlock an authority one no longer holds. Fr. Obiorah was removed from the position of Chancellor by the recognised proprietor of Tansian University, MSC/MST. His continued claim to that office, without evidence of a subsequent lawful appointment or restoration, is therefore no more than a title without a legal foundation.
One cannot sit in the shadow of an office and claim to possess its authority; neither can repeated words breathe life into an appointment that has already been brought to an end. A declaration of authority is not authority itself, and a claim repeated a thousand times does not become lawful merely because it is loudly proclaimed. The Documents Should Speak, Not The Rhetoric Tansian University should not be reduced to maradonic surreptitiousness.
The real issues are its ownership, founding history, succession, governance and regulatory status. Students, parents, staff, alumni and the wider Nigerian public deserve a clear and factual answer as to who lawfully owns and controls the university, who has authority to govern it, and the legal framework under which that authority is exercised. The appropriate response to Fr. Obiora's claim straightforward.
If the NUC Forensic Report is false, establish why. If its reference number is fraudulent, demonstrate it. If the Executive Secretary did not sign it, establish that. If the decision has been withdrawn, produce the withdrawal. If another official instrument has superseded it, produce that instrument. Similarly, if MSC is no longer the proprietor, produce the lawful instrument that changed the status recorded in the approved Academic Brief and the 2007 legal framework.
The public is not asking for legal theatrics. It is asking for evidence. Show the approved Academic Brief. Show the ownership instrument. Show the NUC approval. Show the alleged No Objection. Show the instrument establishing the present governing bodies. Show the document recognising the present Chancellor. Show the approval of the 2022 Law. Show the instrument that lawfully superseded the 2007 framework.
Until those questions are answered with authentic and verifiable documents rather than rhetoric, Fr. Obiorah and his cohort should refrain from presenting personal assertions as settled facts or creating an impression of authority that the relevant records do not support. No amount of legal terminology, personal titles, press briefings or repeated assertions can replace the evidence required to establish lawful authority over Tansian University.
The question therefore remains: WHO OWNS TANSIAN UNIVERSITY? Chidipeters Okorie Former Public Relations Officer, Tansian University Personal Aide to Very Rev. Msgr. Prof. John Bosco Akam (Blessed Memory) Press State in Abuja on 12, September 2026
