It has come to the notice of the University Council that a considerable number of students are not aware of the developments that led to the student unrest last March, and the Council has decided to keep students fully informed of the events. This statement has accordingly been prepared to fulfil that purpose. 

2. On the morning of Thursday, 11th March, 1971, signs of student unrest got to the notice of the Vice-Chancellor, who then invited the Students Representative Council to meet him in his office at 4.30 p.m. to find out what was really happening. The leaders responded to the Vice- Chancellor’s invitation, but they also had with them a group of two to three hundred students who invaded the approaches to the Registry while their leaders were holding discussions with the Vice-Chancellor. At the meeting the main issue raised by the leaders was the scale of charges for vacation residence. According to them the rate of Né1.25 which was being charged had been fixed arbitrarily, and that a charge of Né1.00 would be acceptable to the student body. In the course of the discussions certain other issues were raised, but some of these discussed below had not been brought to the notice of the University before then. 
3. The Vice-Chancellor delayed a scheduled meeting of the University Council to hold discussions with the leaders, to whom it was pointed out that the allegation of arbitrariness in the determination of the charge of N/1.25 was not supported by the facts; that the rate had been fixed after consultations at various levels, including a meeting of the S.R.C. with Hall Masters in December 1969; discussions, on 29th January, 1970 at the Residence Board, on which there had been four student representatives, including the then President and Secretary of the S.R.C., and finally at the Finance Committee, when the fee of N1.25, proposed by the S.R.C. had been ratified on 2nd March, 1970. The only reason for not implementing this agreed rate during the Easter vacation of 1970 was that, once again, a further concession was made to the student body, which had petitioned for implementation of the agreed rate after the 1970 Easter vacation, on the ground that as the date of ratification by the Finance Committee had been so close to that vacation, several students would not be able to raise funds to meet the increase. Since then students in residence during vacations had paid the agreed fee of N1.25. There could be no question, therefore, of arbitrariness in the determination of the rate. 
4. However, in view of the mounting anxiety, the Vice-Chancellor there and then gave the student leaders, at their request, a written assurance that he would suspend collection of the charge of N1.25, then being demanded by the Halls, until he had had an opportunity to consult the Hall Authorities. In view of the Council meeting he would not be able to see the Hall authorities that day (Thursday). He would, however, let the S.R.C. have a firm decision by the following Monday afternoon. 
5. In spite of this assurance some of the students proceeded to the Central Cafeteria where they caused damage to equipment. 
6. On Friday, 12th March, a group of students again invaded the Registry while their leaders sought to present a letter to the Vice- Chancellor, who was then not available in his office. This letter, which was unsigned, was couched in the following terms:

“Your stop-gap measure has been communicated to the student body and subsequently been reject (sic) in toto. We regret that you do not seem to be aware of the seriousness of the situation. We would like to point out therefore that, among other things, this is a sensitive. issue that touches every student on the campus, and the students are for that matter  getting more and more impatient. We therefore reiterate the students’ demand for a much substantive (sic) reply from you by 2.00 p.m. today.” 

Throughout the day lectures were boycotted. Certain students were positively intimidated from attending lectures.

7. By noon of that day the Vice-Chancellor had been able to meet the Hall Authorities, after which he immediately sent a letter to the President of the S.R.C. informing him that after consultations with the Hall Authorities it had been agreed that for the coming Easter vacation the rates of charge proposed by the students i.e. N₵61.00 a day for board and lodging and 40Np a day for residence without meals would be adopted. The Vice- Chancellor also assured the President in this communication that as some of the other issues raised by the S.R.C. for the first time at their meeting the previous day required consultations with the Authorities of the other University institutions, he would discuss those matters with the other Authorities and let them know the results in due course. 
8. On Saturday morning, 13th March, 1971, student demonstrations continued. Around mid-day the Vice-Chancellor invited the student leaders to a meeting in his office, and enquired whether certain reports that had reached him were true. These reports included student plans to:- 

(i) occupy guest seats arranged for the Congregation and thus embarrass the University. (To facilitate this plan it had been arranged to hold a rally at 2.00 p.m. and then move en masse to the Congregation before guests were due to arrive); 

(ii) make it impossible for the Vice-Chancellor to deliver his address to Congregation by catcalls and other forms of protest. 

9. The student leaders confirmed that they had indeed organised a meeting for 2.00 p.m., but this had been done in order to ensure that as many students as possible attended the Congregation in order to make it grand. They had been concerned by the apathy of students towards University functions and it was their hope to correct the situation. As regards the other reports, there was no truth whatsoever in them. The incidents that occurred at the Congregation are too well known to need repetition here. 
10. By Friday, 12th March, 1971, the issue of gravest concern to the students that of vacation residence charges had been settled, and the Vice-Chancellor had promised to consult the other Heads of University institutions on those other matters which had been casually raised at the meeting on 11th March, 1971. But at the Congregation, students distributed a list of grievances to the general public, covering the publication of the Report of the Commission of Enquiry into the Financial Administration of the University, Examination Fees, Bookshop Prices, the Campus Security System, Transport for Students, Student representation on University Bodies, and the removal of the Executive Engineer and the Vice-Chancellor. Student concern had suddenly assumed a new dimension. Except for the security system and examination fees both of which had already been discussed at the Residence Board meeting on 2nd March, 1971, at which the S.R.C. was represented by its President and three others, none of these new grievances had been properly brought to the attention of the University authorities. 
11. Over the week-end, student unrest continued and on Monday, 15th March, 1971 lectures were again boycotted. A crowd of students again invaded the Registry. In the afternoon the Chairman of the University Council met the student leaders at the request of the leaders. The Chairman made it clear that he would not be able to hold discussions with the leaders until calm had been restored on the campus and the general student body had resumed attendance at lectures. He also pointed out to them the seriousness of their breach of faith with the Vice-Chancellor at the meeting on Saturday noon (vide paragraphs 8 and 9 above), as well as of the misconduct and discourtesy shown by students to the general public at the Congregation ceremony. He urged the students to make amends by apologising to the University Council and the Vice-Chancellor.
12. On Tuesday, 16th March students returned to lectures and there was calm. On Wednesday, 17th March, the Chairman of the University Council again met the student leaders. He reminded them that they had so far failed to render the apology to the University Council and the Vice-Chancellor and again exhorted them to do so by the end of that day. The meeting then proceeded to review the student grievances, which had now been presented to the University through its Chairman of Council.