The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) on Monday dragged the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board and authorities of the University of Lagos to court over their implementation of largely ‘unacceptable’ cut-off marks regime.
Recall that JAMB had fixed cut-off marks for university admission at 180, yet Unilag authorities said students must score nothing lower than 250.
SERAP has therefore taken the two bodies to the a Federal High Court.
The suit number FHC/L/CS/1139/2015 filed Monday 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 organization is seeking 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
It also seeks a declaration that the cut-off point of 180 set by JAMB cannot be varied by any university in the country including Unilag as doing so would offend the provisions of section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the jamb act cap 193 of the laws of the federation
Other reliefs are: “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
“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
“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.
“Further or other reliefs as the honorable court deems fit in the circumstance.”
Date for hearing the suit is yet to be fixed.
Recall that JAMB had fixed cut-off marks for university admission at 180, yet Unilag authorities said students must score nothing lower than 250.
SERAP has therefore taken the two bodies to the a Federal High Court.
The suit number FHC/L/CS/1139/2015 filed Monday 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 organization is seeking 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
It also seeks a declaration that the cut-off point of 180 set by JAMB cannot be varied by any university in the country including Unilag as doing so would offend the provisions of section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the jamb act cap 193 of the laws of the federation
Other reliefs are: “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
“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
“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.
“Further or other reliefs as the honorable court deems fit in the circumstance.”
Date for hearing the suit is yet to be fixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment