By Destiny Obinna
The Nigerian Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) has broken its silence on the controversy surrounding the retirement of three research directors under the Federal Government’s eight-year tenure policy, insisting that it acted on government directives and not out of personal or administrative vendetta.
The Institute also dismissed allegations of victimisation against the affected former directors, maintaining that the decision to implement the policy was not initiated by its Director-General, Prof. John Oladapo Obafunwa.
In a press statement issued by its management in Yaba, Lagos and signed by its and signed by its Media Consultant, Mr. Sam Eferaro, NIMR took issue with the National Secretary of the Academic Staff Union of Research Institutions (ASURI), Prof. Theophilus Ndubuaku, accusing him of allegedly fuelling the controversy through misleading claims and a sustained media campaign against the Institute’s leadership.
The management said it was compelled to clarify its position following continuing public discussions and allegations surrounding the implementation of the tenure policy and vacation notices issued to the affected former directors.
It stressed that the controversy should not be mistaken for an industrial dispute or a breakdown of relations between management and staff.
“There is no dispute between its management, the Director-General, Prof. John Oladapo Obafunwa, and its staff,” the Institute declared, adding that researchers and other employees remained at their duty posts.
At the centre of the dispute is the retirement of three research directors following the implementation of the Federal Government’s eight-year tenure policy for directors.
NIMR said it received two separate directives on the policy: one from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation dated February 10, 2026, and another from the Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Health dated February 16, 2026.
According to the Institute, the affected officers were given copies of the relevant government instructions, while management was obligated to ensure compliance.
“It is misleading to continue personalising the implementation of a Federal Government policy or attributing its origin to the Director-General,” the statement said.
The Institute also sought to separate the tenure controversy from the dispute over official residential accommodation, insisting that the vacation notices issued to the former directors were based on existing housing regulations.
NIMR explained that its Housing Policy Guidelines, amended in 2023, allow retiring staff occupying institutional accommodation to remain for a maximum of three months with pay before the properties are recovered by the Works and Maintenance Department.
In a disclosure that could become significant to the controversy, management said the housing guidelines predated the current Director-General’s administration.
It further stated that the committee responsible for the 2023 amendment was headed by one of the directors subsequently affected by the eight-year tenure policy.
The Institute argued that the former directors had remained in the accommodation beyond the period stipulated by the guidelines, making the recovery of the properties an administrative responsibility rather than an act of victimisation.
However, NIMR’s response went beyond defending its administrative decisions, with management launching a strong criticism of ASURI’s national secretary.
It accused Prof. Ndubuaku of allegedly engaging in falsehoods, character assassination, intimidation and blackmail, arguing that his approach was inconsistent with the responsibilities of a union leader.
The management maintained that union officials should pursue legitimate grievances through constructive engagement and relevant government channels rather than personalise institutional policy decisions.
The Institute also urged journalists and media organisations to independently investigate the controversy, particularly by seeking clarification from the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation and the Federal Ministry of Health.
It said such enquiries would establish the origin of the tenure directives and help separate government policy from allegations directed at the Institute’s leadership.
Beyond the immediate dispute, NIMR warned that the controversy would not be allowed to distract it from its statutory responsibility of advancing medical research and contributing to improved public health in Nigeria.
The management insisted that it remained committed to its workforce, research activities and compliance with lawful government directives.
In a pointed message apparently directed at the union leadership, the Institute declared that it would not allow its management to be turned into a target of what it described as a campaign of misinformation.
“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 said it would not engage in further media exchanges over the matter, adding that any subsequent developments requiring clarification would be addressed through appropriate channels.
