As controversies rage over the conduct of post joint admission matriculation examination methods adopted by federal Universities in Nigeria, a civil society group, Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project, SERAP, has sued the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board, JAMB and the University of Lagos to check its alleged outrageous cut-off marks decisions.
SERAP is praying the court to stop JAMB, UNILAG and others from implementing the admission process decision in the motion it instituted before a Federal High Court siting in Lagos.
SERAP and three students affected by the admission cut-off marks decision are contending that “the provisions of Section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the JAMB Act” provides that the preferences of candidates in terms of the university they choose to attend are sacrosanct.
Other applicants in the suit 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.
They said: “The letter and spirit of the provisions is to ensure that a contrary or adverse decision by individual university cannot override decision made pursuant to the provisions of Section (5)1)(c)(iii).”
The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare that the decision by the Respondents 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, therefore directly violates Section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the JAMB Act Cap 193 of the Laws of the Federation.
They also prayed the court to declare that the cut-off point of 180 set by the 1st Respondent (JAMB) cannot be varied by any university in the country including the 4th Respondent (UNILAG) 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.
Beside they sought for a declaration that the decision by the Respondents 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.”
Source: vanguard
No comments:
Post a Comment