LASUSU SOCIAL DIRECTOR, WHY SHOULD MR & MRS LASU AWARD NOMINATION BE PAID?

The 36th Lagos State University Students’ Union (LASUSU) administration has once again found itself at the centre of controversy. This time, the focus is on the forthcoming MR & MRS LASU and Awards 2026 programme, an event that has traditionally served as a platform for celebrating outstanding LASUites. What was once regarded as a prestigious recognition of excellence now appears to be losing its value, particularly within the awards category, which many students argue has been reduced to a pay-to-win contest.

Organised by the LASUSU Social Director, Comr. Aromire Muiz, popularly known as NOVA, the event attracted little attention until the list of award nominees was released. Since then, discussions surrounding the voting process for both the MR & MRS LASU competition and the various award categories have dominated conversations across campus.

On the surface, the initiative appears noble. It promises to celebrate leadership, creativity, influence, excellence, and impact within the university community. However, beneath the attractive graphics, campaign messages, and voting links lies a fundamental question: can recognition truly be earned when votes come with a price tag?

According to information released by the Social Director, students are required to pay before casting votes for their preferred nominees. In practical terms, once a nominee makes the shortlist, the next phase becomes a campaign to secure votes, each carrying a monetary value. Initially, students were informed that votes would cost ₦100 each. For many LASUites, this revelation was both surprising and disappointing.

A closer look at the nomination lists across several categories raises additional concerns. Many students have pointed out that the nominees largely consist of individuals who already enjoy considerable popularity and visibility on campus, while several students who have consistently contributed to the university community appear to have been overlooked.

This raises an important question: how should students determine who deserves recognition when the outcome depends largely on popularity, influence, and the ability to mobilise votes?

Concerns deepen when one considers reports suggesting that nominees are also expected to make certain payments to validate their participation in the competition. At that point, the contest gradually stops being about impact and begins to revolve around financial capacity.

Who can spend more?

Who has wealthier friends?

Who can mobilise more money?

Who can purchase more votes?

Certainly not who has contributed the most to the university community.

In response to criticism, the Social Director has repeatedly maintained that the process is transparent. According to him, votes are recorded instantly, and results will be displayed live for public viewing.

Yet transparency has never been the central issue. A flawed system does not become fair simply because it is transparent.

Interestingly, as criticisms intensified, the narrative surrounding the voting charges appeared to shift. While initial explanations suggested that every vote would cost ₦100, subsequent communications indicated that some categories would attract ₦50 per vote, while others would remain at ₦100.

However, whether a vote costs ₦50 or ₦100 is beside the point.

The real concern is that students are being asked to pay before their voices can count.

The debate was never about the amount attached to each vote. The debate is whether recognition within a public university should be determined through a monetised voting system at all.

Because once money becomes the deciding factor, merit inevitably takes the back seat.

The nomination process itself raises even more questions. Across campus, many students have expressed disappointment over the absence of individuals who have made meaningful contributions to student life. Some have led impactful initiatives, represented LASU beyond the university’s walls, built communities, championed causes, and contributed significantly to campus development.

Yet many of these individuals are nowhere to be found on the nomination lists.

This raises further questions.

What criteria were used in selecting nominees?

Who determines who is worthy of recognition?

How many deserving students were excluded before voting even began?

If deserving students can be omitted from the nomination stage while winners emerge through a paid voting process, then what exactly is being celebrated?

Impact?

Leadership?

Excellence?

Or popularity supported by purchasing power?

The timing makes the situation even more troubling. At a time when students are already burdened by rising school fees, accommodation costs, project expenses, clearance fees, transportation costs, and the realities of a challenging economy, LASUSU has introduced a system that requires students to spend money before participating in a process supposedly designed to reflect the voice of the student body.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

Students who are already financially stretched are now being asked to pay before their opinions can count.

Recognition should be earned. Awards should reflect merit. The Face of LASU should emerge because students genuinely believe that individual represents the values, aspirations, and excellence of the university community—not because one nominee was able to generate more payments than another.

The moment votes acquire a price tag, voting begins to lose its essence.

The moment recognition becomes dependent on spending power, merit begins to lose its value.

And the moment a university award becomes a contest of who can mobilise the most money, it ceases to be a celebration of excellence and starts to resemble an auction.

LASUites deserve better.

Because if the Face of LASU can be bought, then perhaps the real question is no longer who will win.

The real question is whether the award itself is still worth winning.

While the concerns surrounding the MR & MRS LASU 2026 and Awards process are valid and widely shared, there are practical steps that can help restore credibility and trust in the system.

First, the voting structure should be reviewed and reformed. Rather than a strictly pay-per-vote model, LASUSU could introduce a hybrid system where public voting is free but weighted alongside a verified merit-based scoring system determined by a panel of independent judges drawn from faculty, alumni, and student representatives.

Second, transparency should go beyond live vote tracking. Clear publication of nomination criteria, selection processes, and judging guidelines should be made available before nominees are shortlisted. This would ensure that students understand what qualifies an individual for recognition even before voting begins.

Third, financial barriers to participation should be eliminated or significantly reduced. If funding is required for logistics, sponsorships should be actively sought from external partners rather than transferring costs to students who are the very subjects of the awards.

Finally, student inclusion should be strengthened. Departments, faculties, and recognised student bodies should have a role in nominating individuals based on documented contributions, ensuring that recognition is not limited to popularity or visibility alone.

If properly implemented, these reforms would not only address current concerns but also restore confidence in MR & MRS LASU as a true celebration of excellence rather than a competition shaped by financial influence.