This study investigated the relationship between reward system and job involvement of academic staff in Ogun State tertiary educational institutions. The study was guided by a research question and two null hypotheses. The descriptive survey design was adopted for the study. The population comprised all the 3055 academic staff in all the eight Ogun state government owned tertiary educational institutions. The sample comprised 305 academic staff (10% of the population) selected from four tertiary educational institutions using multi-stage sampling technique. Two instruments were used for data collection, these were: a researcher designed, validated and reliable instrument (r=.86) entitled “Reward System Questionnaire” (RSQ) and a standardised Job Involvement Scale (JIS) adapted from Kanungo (1982). Data obtained was analysed using Mean and Standard Deviation to answer the research question, while, Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used to test the hypotheses at 0.05 level of significance. Findings showed that the reward system for academic staff in the institutions was inadequate (weighted mean = 1.44); that a significant relationship existed between financial rewards and job involvement of academic staff (r=.503;P<.05; df=303) and that there was a significant relationship between non-financial rewards and job involvement of academic staff (r=.712;P<.05;df= 303). It was recommended among others that the state government should increase financial allocations to its higher educational institutions and ensure that subventions are released on time to the institutions.

The study examined administrators' leadership skills and employees ' job engagement

No abstract

The attitude of courts to previous inconsistent statements of witnesses is primarily informed by the premium placed on the most credible evidence. A vintage rationale for this attitude states that:“The character of a witness for habitual veracity is an essential ingredient in his credibility: for a man who is capable of uttering a deliberate falsehood is in most cases capable of doing so under the solemn sanction of an oath. If therefore it appears that he has formerly said or written the contrary of that which he has now sworn (unless the reason of his having done so is satisfactorily accounted for), his evidence should not have much weight….”

The aspects of child evidence addressed by this article relate first to the age of competence, that is, in what circumstances a court should apply the provisions of sections 154(1) and 182(1) of the Evidence Act to a witness; and secondly, what consequences attach to a wrongful application, or non-application, of these provisions in any proceedings before a court.