NIMR fires back at ASURI over tenure policy controversy, denies victimisation claims

By Chioma Obinna

The Nigerian Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) has hit back at the Academic Staff Union of Research Institutions (ASURI) over the controversy surrounding the implementation of the Federal Government’s eight-year tenure policy for directors, dismissing allegations of victimisation and personal vendetta against affected former research directors.

The Institute maintained that the policy was neither initiated by its management nor introduced by its Director-General, Prof. John Oladapo Obafunwa, insisting that it merely implemented a directive issued by the Federal Government.

In a press statement issued by its management in Yaba, Lagos and signed by its Media Consultant, Mr. Sam Eferaro, the Institute accused ASURI National Secretary, Prof. Theophilus Ndubuaku, of fuelling what it described as a needless media controversy through allegations it said were misleading and unfair to its leadership.

NIMR said it had deliberately refrained from engaging in prolonged media exchanges but was compelled to set the records straight in the face of persistent public enquiries and what it described as attempts to portray an administrative decision as a personal conflict.

The Institute also dismissed suggestions of an internal crisis, declaring that there was no dispute between its management, the Director-General and members of staff.

“All members of staff, including researchers, are at work performing their official duties, while the Institute continues to discharge its mandate as Nigeria’s premier medical research institution,” the statement said.

On the contentious tenure policy, NIMR disclosed that the retirement of three research directors followed the implementation of the Federal Government’s eight-year tenure policy for directors.

It said the Institute received two separate government directives on the matter through the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation on February 10, 2026, and the Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Health, on February 16, 2026.

According to the management, the affected officers were also provided with copies of the relevant instructions.

The Institute insisted that it had no discretion to disregard the directives, stressing that as a Federal Government research institution, it was obligated to comply with government policies and administrative instructions.

“It is misleading to continue personalising the implementation of a Federal Government policy or attributing its origin to the Director-General,” the statement declared.

NIMR also defended the vacation notices issued to the former research directors, arguing that their continued occupation of official residential accommodation after disengagement was a separate administrative matter.

The management explained that the Institute’s Housing Policy Guidelines, amended in 2023, allow retiring staff occupying institutional accommodation to remain for a maximum of three months with pay, after which the properties are expected to be recovered by the Works and Maintenance Department.

In a significant disclosure, the Institute said the housing guidelines were introduced and amended before the appointment of the current Director-General.

It further revealed that the Housing Committee responsible for the 2023 amendment was headed by one of the directors subsequently affected by the eight-year tenure policy.

According to NIMR, the former directors had remained in the accommodation beyond the period permitted under the existing guidelines.

The management consequently rejected allegations that the vacation notices were designed to punish, humiliate or victimise the affected officers.

While acknowledging the right of workers and their unions to pursue legitimate grievances, the Institute maintained that enforcing approved housing regulations and recovering government property could not reasonably be characterised as a personal vendetta.

However, the management reserved some of its strongest words for ASURI National Secretary, Prof. Ndubuaku, accusing him of conducting a media campaign allegedly characterised by falsehoods, character assassination, intimidation and blackmail.

It described the conduct as unbecoming of a responsible union leader, insisting that union leadership should promote constructive engagement rather than personal attacks.

The Institute particularly faulted the repeated portrayal of Obafunwa as the architect of a policy it said originated from the Federal Government.

“It maintains that union leadership is a responsibility, not a licence to peddle falsehoods, malign individuals or manufacture institutional crises,” the statement said.

NIMR also challenged media organisations to independently verify the claims surrounding the controversy, urging journalists to seek clarification from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare or the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Health.

It argued that such enquiries would establish the origin of the tenure directives and provide a clearer understanding of the circumstances surrounding their implementation.

Reaffirming its commitment to medical research and public health development, the Institute said it would not allow the controversy to distract it from its statutory responsibilities.

In a final warning, the management declared that the Institute would not become a battleground for personal grievances or media campaigns.

“NIMR is not Prof. Ndubuaku’s personal battleground, the Director-General is not a punching bag for political theatrics, and Federal Government policies are not matters to be rewritten through media blackmail,” it stated.

The Institute added that it would not be drawn into further media exchanges over the dispute, promising to provide factual clarification through appropriate channels should fresh developments arise.