The investigation into allegations of maladministration, financial impropriety and the diversion of prospective students at the Osun State College of Health Technology, Ilesa, has become a fresh test of accountability in the state’s tertiary education sector, following questions over compliance with an October 7 deadline set by the Ministry of Education.
The allegations, levelled against the institution’s Provost, Dr Lateef Olanrewaju Raheem, include claims that candidates who applied to the state-owned college were redirected to a privately owned college of health technology in Ede, that students were compelled to use a laboratory allegedly linked to the Provost, and that ₦100,000 was charged for hostel accommodation despite the institution reportedly operating a non-residential system.
The claims were contained in a petition signed by Comrade Abiola Ganiyu, Coordinator of the Anti-corruption Initiative of Nigeria, which called for an investigation into the management of the college and the conduct of its leadership.
A memorandum dated September 30, 2026, and signed by the Permanent Secretary of the Osun State Ministry of Education, M.A.K. Jimoh, on behalf of the ministry, directed the institution’s Governing Council to establish an ad hoc investigative committee to examine the allegations and submit its findings by Wednesday, October 7, 2026.
The memo stated: “The Honourable Commissioner for Education, Hlon, Sunday Adedipo Eluwole has directed that the Governing Council of your institution set up an Ad-hoc Investigative Committee on the attached allegations against the Provost of the College by the Anti-corruption Initiative of Nigeria, and submit the report of their findings to the Ministry on or before Wednesday, 7th October, 2026.”
However, information provided about the investigation indicates that the October 7 deadline passed without a publicly confirmed outcome. The absence of a confirmed report has raised questions about the progress of the inquiry, although it does not, by itself, establish that the Governing Council failed to conduct an investigation or submit findings internally.
In an interview with Isaac Haastrup, Raheem reportedly said he had been summoned to the office of the Governor’s Chief of Staff, Alhaji Kolapo Akinleye, on October 6, 2026. He further stated that a meeting intended to address the matter had been rescheduled for Monday, October 12.
The reported meeting may provide an opportunity for the parties involved to address the allegations. However, its outcome and any subsequent decisions by the state government or the Governing Council were not established in the information available for this report.
At the centre of the petition is the allegation that prospective students who purchased admission forms and participated in the college’s admission interview subsequently received messages offering them admission into a privately owned college of health technology in Ede.
The petitioning organisation alleged that the candidates had applied to the state-owned institution in Ilesa but were redirected to the private institution, which it claimed was owned by the Provost.
“To our surprise, more than one hundred candidates that applied to Osun State College of Health Technology Ilesa during the admission exercise had allegedly been diverted to the said private institution at Ede against their choice and that of their parents/guardians,” the petition stated.
The organisation further alleged that the college’s admission resources were being used to channel prospective students to the private institution. If substantiated, such claims would raise questions about the administration of admissions, the protection of applicants’ choices and the separation of public institutional responsibilities from private commercial interests.
The allegations also raise practical questions about the admission process, including whether candidates were formally offered places at the Ilesa institution, how the messages from the Ede institution were generated, and whether the applicants had knowingly consented to any transfer or alternative offer.
These issues would require examination of application records, admission lists, correspondence with candidates, interview records and the procedures followed by both institutions. The petition’s claims have not, on the information available, been established as findings by an independent investigative panel.
Another allegation concerns a private medical laboratory reportedly established near the college campus and identified in the petition as Resources Laboratory. The organisation claimed that students were compelled to patronise the facility for medical tests required for registration.
The petition alleged that the arrangement placed students in a position where they had to obtain medical services from a particular facility as part of the registration process. It did not, in the information provided, include independently verified documentation establishing the ownership of the laboratory, the nature of its relationship with the Provost or the existence of a formal directive requiring students to use it.
If the claim is confirmed, the investigation would need to determine the basis for the requirement, whether students had access to alternative facilities, how the tests were priced and whether the arrangement complied with the college’s approved registration procedures.
The petition also alleged that students were charged ₦100,000 for hostel accommodation even though the college had reportedly operated as a non-residential institution since its establishment.
The organisation did not provide, in the material available for this report, receipts, an approved fee schedule or other documentary evidence independently confirming the charge. The allegation nevertheless raises questions about the authorisation of student fees, the availability of accommodation and the information communicated to candidates during admission.
A credible investigation would need to establish whether the money was actually collected, the purpose for which it was charged, the authority under which it was imposed and whether accommodation was provided to students who paid.
Beyond admissions and student charges, the petition accused the Provost of running the institution as though it were a private family business. It cited the alleged prolonged absence of appointments to key principal positions, including the two Deputy Provost positions responsible for administration and academic affairs.
The organisation claimed that the positions had remained unfilled for more than two years and also alleged partiality in the posting and appointment of directors and heads of departments. It further claimed that some officers had remained in their positions beyond the expiration of their tenures.
These allegations raise governance questions about the appointment of principal officers, the distribution of administrative responsibilities, the tenure of departmental leadership and the extent to which established institutional procedures are followed.
However, determining whether appointments were unlawfully delayed or particular officers improperly retained would require a review of the college’s governing laws, approved organisational structure, appointment procedures, relevant tenure provisions and decisions of the Governing Council.
The petition also questioned the conduct of the Governing Council and the supervising Ministry of Education, alleging that neither had taken sufficient action to address what the organisation described as persistent irregularities in the college.
It claimed that the apparent lack of action suggested that some officials of the ministry and members of the Governing Council might have been compromised. That assertion remains an allegation by the petitioning organisation and should not be treated as proof of wrongdoing by any official or council member.
The ministry’s September 30 memorandum, however, confirms that the allegations were formally referred to the Governing Council for investigation and that a reporting deadline was specified. The next important question is whether the committee was constituted, what evidence it examined, whether the Provost was given an opportunity to respond, and whether a report was submitted to the ministry.
The distinction is important because the existence of a petition does not establish the truth of its allegations, just as the issuance of an investigative directive does not establish that the concerns have been resolved. A transparent process would require the relevant parties to present evidence and the investigating body to document its findings.
For students and prospective applicants, the admission-related claims are particularly significant because the integrity of an admissions process determines whether candidates are treated fairly and whether their applications are handled according to the institution’s approved procedures.
The alleged laboratory and accommodation charges also place student welfare and financial transparency at the centre of the controversy. Where payments are required as conditions for registration, students should be able to establish the basis for the charges, the services they cover and the authority approving them.
The case also highlights the oversight responsibilities of governing councils and supervising ministries in state-owned tertiary institutions. These bodies are expected to ensure that institutional resources are managed responsibly, administrative appointments follow established procedures, and complaints involving public institutions receive appropriate attention.
As of October 10, 2026, the information available for this report did not establish whether the Governing Council had submitted its report by the October 7 deadline or whether the ministry had taken any further action. Raheem’s reported statement that a meeting had been rescheduled for October 12 also indicates that discussions concerning the matter may still be ongoing.
The Nigeria Education News could not independently verify the individual allegations from the petition or establish the final status of the investigation from the information supplied for this report. The Provost’s reported response concerning the scheduled meeting does not, on its own, amount to a substantive response to each allegation.
The next steps should include confirmation of the investigative committee’s status, publication or formal communication of its findings where appropriate, and a clear response from the Provost and the other parties named in the petition. Any conclusions should be based on verifiable records and an opportunity for all parties to respond.
Ultimately, the issue extends beyond the individuals involved. It concerns public confidence in the management of state-owned educational institutions, the protection of students’ interests and the responsibility of oversight bodies to investigate serious allegations promptly and transparently.
Until the inquiry produces verifiable findings, the claims against Raheem remain allegations rather than established misconduct. The outstanding questions are whether the prescribed investigation has been completed, what evidence it has uncovered and what action, if any, the Osun State Government will take in response.
