Rebuttal: When Loyalty Masquerades As Integrity

Solomon Dalung

Dr. John B. Mahwel’s so-called “insider account” is less a defence of truth and more an elaborate attempt to sanitise a deeply troubling narrative. Rather than clear the air, his intervention raises even more serious questions about credibility, accountability, and institutional integrity.

In a statement made available to this medium by Solomon Dalung, LLM, LLB, BL ,Garkuwan Arewa, Dike Egwureogwu & Igbarman Otarok.

Voice of the Silent Majority in Jos .

First, let us be honest, a man who openly admits that his career breakthrough came through the personal recommendation of Joash Amupitan cannot, by any objective standard, present himself as an impartial witness. Gratitude is said to be noble,but when it enters public discourse disguised as neutrality, it becomes a liability to truth.

Second, the claim of “merit” collapses under scrutiny. If his appointment was truly based on excellence, the question crying for answer is, Was he the best graduating student? If not, on what transparent criteria was he singled out for appointment as graduate assistant? Pre-written recommendation letters and backdoor endorsements are not symbols of merit, they are the very shadows that destroy public confidence in institutions.

More troubling, however, is his own admission that result racketeering existed within the Faculty of Law, University of Jos. This is not a minor administrative lapse, it is academic fraud. Yet, in a stunning display of selective reasoning, he asks the public to applaud Amupitan’s leadership for merely correcting the outcome of a compromised process.

Let us ask the real questions, who manipulated the results?, who was punished?, what sanctions were applied? Or was the matter quietly swept under the carpet? Integrity is not proven by pretending to correct fraud, it is proven by confronting and punishing it. Anything less is institutional complicity.

Dr. Mahwel attempts to absolve Professor Amupitan by shifting blame to non-academic staff. However leadership is not ceremonial. As Dean, the responsibility for oversight failures rests squarely at his table. You cannot preside over a broken system and then claim sainthood for noticing the cracks.

His argument also collapses under contradiction, on one hand, he admits the system was porous and exploited, on the other, he paints its leadership as beyond reproach. Both cannot be true at the same time.

As for the attacks on my person, dismissing these weighty allegations as “political” is a convenient escape. Public accountability is not politics, it is a duty. When serious allegations are raised, the burden is not to silence critics but to answer questions with evidence, not emotion.

This is the crux of the matter, Dr. Mahwel has not defended integrity but he has defended a relationship. He has not disproved the allegations, he has merely narrated proximity. And in doing so, he has unintentionally reinforced the very concerns he set out to dismiss.

Nigeria deserves better than recycled loyalty packaged as truth. Institutions must be defended with facts, transparency, and accountability and not sentiment. The question remains unanswered, if there was fraud, who paid the price?