By Aliyu Abdullahi PhD

When going through the judgement of the court, I became particularly curious on pronouncement (s) that may CHANGE the status quo on how the examination body punishes students for one form of exams malpractice or the other. I could not so to say figure out any.

I thought of coming across pronouncement(s)in favour of the Respondent and against the Appellant for damages, or reinstatement/award of certificate which the University hitherto denies. None of these consequential orders is seem to be made by the Court. The judgement is therefore a declaratory in nature on the powers of the examination body to try exams malpractice which is a crime under the Examination Malpractice Act. That power only belongs to the court of law.

This does not however affect the power of the examination body to discipline erring students on examination malpractice issues. This power is given to the examination body by the provision of section 16 of the Act. The provision of the section is not dependent on any part of the Act.

Specifically, section 16 provides:

1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, an examination body shall have the power to-

(a) withhold, suspend or cancel the results of a candidate or ban or blacklist a  candidate from taking its examinations if it is satisfied that the candidate has engaged in any form of examination malpractice.

Ph (a) of section 16 reveals the following:
1. If the examination body is satisfied that the candidate has engaged  in any form of  examination malpractice; then
2. The examination body can take any of the following actions
a. withhold;
b. suspend;
c. cancel the results of a candidate; or
d. ban or blacklist a  candidate from  taking its examinations.
3. Any of those actions can be taken by the examination body once it is SATISFIED that the candidate concerned is involved in any form of examination malpractice.

NOTE: Subsequent finding of not guilty by the court on the candidate relating to the alleged form of examination malpractice CAN NOT affect the finding of the examination body which of course means the finding still stands. This is because, the wordings of Section 16 (1) are “NOTWITHSTANDING the provisions of this Act, an examination body SHALL have the power to-…”

In my humble opinion, this judgement did not in any way change the status quo on the powers of examination body to punish candidates involved in examination malpractice. All the examination body needs to do are, to as much as possible:

a. Avoid using criminal trial dictions like accused, offence, charge, guilty;
b. Observe the principles of natural justice;
c. Select the appropriate punishment that can still serve the purpose. For example, banning or blacklisting a  candidate from taking examinations in cases of universities has the same effect with withdrawing the student since he cannot forever take the university examination.

For emphasis, this is solely on the university’s conviction that the candidate did engaged in examination malpractice notwithstanding any acquittal by the court of such candidate as a result of the criminal trial.

Perhaps, it can still be argued that the finding of the examination body can be challenged in court by virtue of section 36 of the Constitution because it can’t be final and conclusive. If this argument stands, then what the court will be doing is to check the grounds that SATISFIED the body. We all know this can’t make any sense because it is subjective and not tied to any identified grounds. It is like asking the court to question grounds upon which the power of the Attorney General decides to enter nole.

All hands must therefore be on desk to as much as possible reduce the rates of examination malpractices. It is only then, that the collapsing standard of Nigerian education can be revived.

It is therefore, not yet uhuru for the respondent in this case. The only consequential order the Respondent could get in this instances could have been for damages

Written By Aliyu Abdullahi PhD, Department of Private Law ,A.B.U. Zaria