THE PURPORTED EXPULSION OF UNIPORT STUDENTS. AN ADMINISTRATIVE RASCALITY AND AN AFFRONT TO THE LAW - Comrade Thomas David O. (aka Equity) Law student RSUST.

THE PURPORTED EXPULSION OF UNIPORT STUDENTS- AN ADMINISTRATIVE RASCALITY AND AN AFFRONT TO THE LAW 

The management of Uniport by expelling 28 students of the university unduely and unwarrantedly has negated and contravened the provisions of section 36 of the 1999 CFRN as amended with great impunity. I will term this an administrative rascality and impunity. See the case of Garba & ors v. University of maidugiri where the court averred with an authoritative finality thus:
" it is the view of this Court that where a person is accused of committing a criminal offence, he must be taken before a court of law for trial and not merely be dealt with by an administrative tribunal"
The case of the Uniport students purportedly expelled is even worse as no administrative tribunal or Panel was constituted to investigate the alleged crime and afford them the opportunity to defend themselves within reasonable time.
I must say unequivocally, categorically and without mincing words that the management of Uniport has committed an affront to the law by usurping the powers of the court which is a constitutionally constituted organ to handle and discharge off matters of crime and crime related issues. Hence, the following principles of the twin pillars of natural justice encapsulated in the aforementioned section of the constitution has been breached viz:
-Nemo judex in causal sua- do not be a judge in your own cause and
- Audi alterem PATEM- hear the other party too.
Natural justice is the rule which in the conduct of human affairs demand fairness and morality among people. Clearly, natural justice entails that any person accused of an offence or any allegation of any kind should be made to:
1.state his own side of the story
2.know the nature of the allegation against him
3.be tried by an unbiased tribunal where one is set up.
In the case of KANDA v.GOVERNMENT OF MALAYA, LORD DENNING THE LAW LORD STATED THUS:
"if the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry in it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him,he must know what evidence has been given and a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them"
Thus, in R v. CHANCELLOR OF CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY, THE COURT NOTED THUS: " Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence".
Similarly, in OLATUBOSUN V. NISSAN COUNCIL, the court noted that the principle of natural justice is an age long principle encompassing the following:
Vocat- explanation from the accused person
Interogat- investigation by an unbiased and legally constituted body and
Judicat- judgement by the court after relevant and necessary hearing. It is evident from the foregoing that it is the court and the court alone that has jurisdiction to pass judgment in matters of crime. See also the following cases:
University of Abuja v. Olage
University of calabar v. Esiaga and
University of Ilorin v. Oyalana

Furthermore, a person who is accused of crime cannot be lawfully dismissed by an administrative body. To put it another way,where the conduct complained of amounts to a crime, in the criminal or penal code ( as the case of alleged cultism under discussion provided for in section 62 of the criminal code Act), the hearing body must be a judicial body vested with criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, domestic tribunal or investigation panels are entitled to look into the conduct of the students, but once crime is involved, as a matter of law, such tribunals and panel lack jurisdiction. Thus, in the case of BABA v. NCATA, the supreme court held that only only a court vested with criminal jurisdiction is competent to hear and determine the allegation of crime.
From the foregoing, I hereby make the following submissions and conclusion:
That;
1.The management of Uniport lacked the jurisdiction to punished student for alleged crime.
2. The said management usurped the powers of the court which is an abuse of the rule of law
3. They contravened the provisions of Section 36 of the CFRN 1999
4. They committed an act of administrative rascality and impunity without due regard to the law of the land.
5. They had blatantly committed an affront to law by doing that which they had no powers to do. For even if the law establishing the institution had empowered them to expel students for cultism, such powers must be exercised with due regard to the provisions of the constitution.
6.they had acted ultra vires
I therefore call on all students' body and associations in Nigeria to swiftly swing into action as injury to one is injury to all. I implore them to use all diplomatic and legal ways to achieve this and to shun violence. I as well urge the management of Uniport to reconsider there decision and reinstate the purportedly expelled students back as students of the university to avoid rancour, fracas and turbulence in the university community.

COMRADE THOMAS DAVID O.(a.k.a Equity), (speaking from the point of law ).