Rethinking Signout Ritual: The FULafia Example, By Yahaya Kana Ismaila
I have followed with keen interest the recent discussions online regarding the involvement, or as some critics would have it, the “indiscretion” of Professor Shehu Abdulrahman, the Vice Chancellor of the Federal University of Lafia, in the sign-out ceremony of the university’s graduating students.
A vocal group, including some clerics and individuals rigid in their worldview, has taken issue with his participation. At the core of their argument is the belief that by attending and joining in the sign-out exercise, Abdul Rahman has somehow lent his support to the promotion of immorality and unsafe practices within the university community.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, what the critics see as a moral lapse is, in reality, an act of pragmatic leadership. Unlike the many university heads across the country who lack the courage or creativity to rethink the sign-out tradition, Abdul Rahman chose a different path, one that reflects both innovation and genuine concern for the students’ well-being.
He reasoned, quite sensibly, that by engaging with the event rather than outrightly condemning or banning it (as many of his counterparts do only in newspaper pages), he could influence its tone and guide the students toward a more responsible celebration. This is not the action of a permissive leader; it is the hallmark of a reformer who recognises that culture, even in the microcosm of a university, does not change by fiat alone but by thoughtful engagement.
For the record, Abdul Rahman is the first Vice Chancellor to do more than pay lip service to “banning” the practice. Instead, he has institutionalised a forward-thinking policy that channels the energy of the sign-out ritual into a more acceptable and orderly form. Under this new policy, there will no longer be the chaotic and sometimes undecorous signing on shirts. Instead, signatures will be collected on a central canvas displaying the names of all graduating students.
Furthermore, the ceremony will now be organised at the departmental level, introducing a sense of order, structure, and decorum while still preserving the celebratory spirit that students have come to associate with graduation. No! This is not a compromise; it is a reform that balances the age-old demands of morality with the modern-day expectations of youthful expression.
The irony here is that, many of those castigating Abdul Rahman for “daring to think like a modern-day teacher” are themselves part of institutions where the sign-out ritual remains as primitive and disorderly as ever. Instead of applauding an initiative that seeks to sanitise the practice, they have chosen to throw pebbles from glass houses, driven more by dogma than by reason.
The problem, it seems, is that they cannot reconcile how a leader can be both firm and flexible. But therein lies Abdul Rahman’s strength. Unlike many of our leaders who adopt positions, whether good or bad, and stubbornly double down on them, he prefers the road less travelled: the road where decisions are weighed on the twin scales of moral acceptability and the exigencies of the moment.
This newly codified policy on sign-out embodies precisely that balance. While some may find it unsettling to see a Vice Chancellor actively participating in a ritual that offends their sensibilities, he has chosen not to be remembered as the grim figure who denied graduating students their moment of catharsis. Instead, he has taken a dynamic approach; an approach that neither glorifies excesses nor crushes youthful exuberance.
It is worth remembering that sign-out, as a post-graduation tradition, is a relatively recent cultural addition to Nigerian university life. A few years ago, it did not even exist in many institutions. Today, it is firmly lodged in the expectations of students, and like any new social phenomenon, it demands management, not denial.
Indeed, humanity’s journey has always been marked by dynamism. We have learned to adapt, to reform, and to find balance between heritage and change. This is precisely what Abdul Rahman has attempted at FULafia: a pragmatic, forward-looking adjustment to a reality that is unlikely to disappear simply because some wish it away.
Perhaps the real question we should be asking is not whether he was right to participate, but why more of our university leaders are not adopting similarly innovative approaches to bridge the widening gap between tradition, morality, and the lived realities of students. After all, education is supposed to be the total academic and extracurricular activities that shape the minds of students, isn’t it?