Varsity Admissions: SERAP sues JAMB, UNILAG, others over ‘Outrageous cut-off Marks’

Varsity Admissions: SERAP sues JAMB,

UNILAG, others over ‘Outrageous cut-off

Marks’

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability

Project (SERAP) has dragged the Joint

Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) and

the University of Lagos (UNILAG) to court over

“outrageous cut-off marks decisions”.

The organization is seeking an order stopping

JAMB, UNILAG and others from implementing

the decision.

In the suit number FHC/L/CS/1139/2015 filed

today at the Federal High Court by Adetokunbo

Mumuni on behalf of SERAP and three

applicants affected by the cut-off marks

decision, the “Applicants contend that “the

provisions of Section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the JAMB

Act are very clear and unambiguous.

The letter and spirit of the provisions is to

ensure that the preferences of candidates in

terms of the university they choose to attend are

sacrosanct. Even a contrary or adverse decision

by individual university cannot override decision

made pursuant to the provisions of Section

(5)1)(c)(iii).”

The three other applicants are: Adeola Hammed

Ayobami; Abass Ololade; and Abass Ajibola. The

Respondents in the suit apart from JAMB and

UNILAG are: the Permanent Secretary, Federal

Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Secretary,

Ministry of Education.

The suit reads in part:

“Given that the 2nd-4th Applicants and several

other candidates across the country are children

striving to pursue their education, it is argued

that the interpretation of Section 5(1)(c)(iii)

warrants an assessment of the principle of the

best interests of the candidates affected and

this principle should be taken as a primary

consideration when different interests are being

considered in order to reach a decision whether

to change the preferences of the candidates.

There should be a guarantee that the

preferences of the candidates will be respected.”

“If a legal provision such as Section 5(1)(c)(iii)

is open to more than one interpretation, the

interpretation which most effectively serves the

child’s best interests should be chosen and that

in this case will be to fully respect their

preferences of universities. The failure of the

Respondents to consider the possible negative

impact of the decision on the 2nd-4th

Applicants and several other candidates across

the country amounts to a breach of Section 5(1)

(c)(iii) of the JAMB Act.”

“In Meyer v Nebraska, the court held that

human dignity denotes the right of the individual

to acquire knowledge, engage in the common

occupations of life, marry, establish a home and

generally enjoy those privileges long recognized

as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness.

This means that several candidates across the

country are entitled to choose appropriate

academic environment they consider conductive,

to, in the words of the court in the Meyer case

just cited, “acquire knowledge”. Denying them

this fundamental right amounts to a blatant

violation of Section 34 of the 1999 Constitution

and Section 5 of the African Charter on Human

and Peoples’ Rights.”

“The Applicants urged the court “to that the

decision by the Respondents individually and/or

collectively violates the provisions of the

Constitution in that it has caused several

candidates across the country unnecessary

mental suffering, severe enough to be

considered inhumane treatment.”

“As the court correctly said in R. v Devon CC ex

p. George “… a decision that elicits the

exclamation ‘my goodness, that is certainly

wrong!’” Therefore, the decision by JAMB,

UNILAG and others should receive the ‘most

anxious scrutiny’ of the courts because the

decision is so outrageous and in its defiance of

logic or of accepted moral standards that no

sensible person who had applied his mind to the

issue at stake could have arrived at it.”

“Recognising a right to dignity is an

acknowledgement of the intrinsic worth of

human beings: human beings are entitled to be

treated as worthy of respect and concern. The

Applicants further submits that where treatment

humiliates or debases an individual showing a

lack of respect for, or diminishing, his or her

human dignity or arouses feelings of fear,

anguish, as it is the case here, the Honorable

Court should hold that a violation of

constitutional rights have occurred.”

“The Applicants submits that the decision by the

Respondent to increase the cut-off point as

narrated above is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair

and unjust having being made without any

consultation whatsoever and after the 2nd-4th

Applicants and several other candidates have

been made to believe that the cut-off point

would be 180. We further submit that the

increase of the cut-off point imposes excessive

burdens on the candidates concerned.”

“The Respondents in reaching their decision to

increase the cut-off point have not struck a

proper balance between competing interests,

and the decision is therefore unreasonable as it

has brought considerable damage and suffering

to the candidates across the country, and we

urge the Honorable Court to so rule.”

The organization is seeking the following reliefs:

A declaration that the decision by the

Respondents individually and/or collectively to

increase the cut-off point to 250 after stating

publicly that it would be 180 interferes with the

choices and preferences of the 2nd-4th

Applicants and several other candidates across

the country and therefore directly violates

Section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the JAMB Act Cap 193 of

the Laws of the Federation

A Declaration that the cut-off point of 180 set

by the 1st Respondent cannot be varied by any

university in the country including the 4th

Respondent herein as to do so would offend the

provisions of Section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the JAMB

Act Cap 193 of the Laws of the Federation

A Declaration that the decision by the

Respondents individually and/or collectively to

increase the cut-off point to 250 after stating

publicly that it would be 180 interferes with the

choices and preferences of the 2nd-4th

Applicants and several other candidates across

the country and therefore directly violates

Sections 34 and 39 of the 1999 Constitution (as

amended) which respectively guarantee to

everyone the right to the dignity of human

person and the right to receive and impact ideas

A Declaration that the decision by the

Respondents individually and/or collectively to

increase the cut-off point to 250 after stating

publicly that it would be 180 interferes with the

choices and preferences of the 2nd-4th

Applicants and several other candidates across

the country and therefore directly violates

Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9 of the African

Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as

contained in the Laws of the Federation.

A Declaration that the decision by the

Respondents individually and/or collectively to

increase the cut-off point to 250 after stating

publicly that it would be 180 interferes with the

choices and preferences of the 2nd-4th

Applicants and several other candidates across

the country and therefore unreasonable, unfair

and unjust as it failed to take into account the

best interest of the Applicants and several other

candidates, as children

It sought an order directing the Respondents

individually and/or collectively to reverse the

decision to increase the cut-off point to 250

after stating publicly that it would be 180 and to

fully and effectively implement the publicly

announced 180 cut-off point

The group further sought an order restraining

the Respondents individually and/or collectively

from going ahead to implement the decision to

increase the cut-off point to 250 instead of the

publicly announced 180 cut-off point

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the

suit.