By Anietie Akpan
After five years of legal tussle, the Federal High Court sitting in Calabar has declared that the action of the University of Calabar (Unical) giving admissions to students into the Faculty of Engineering without due accreditation by relevant government agencies was fraudulent, reckless and deceitful.
The court presided over by Justice R. O. Dugbo-Oghoghorie on Wednesday, March 4, delivered judgement on the five year old legal tussle instituted by eight students of the University of Calabar (popularly known as the Unical 8) comprising Idiong Ekpedeme Godwin, Abasi Ekong Stephen Peter, Agbontaem Victor Osaretin and five others as plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of the affected students of the faculty of engineering, University of Calabar, against the University of Calabar, the then Vice Chancellor, Florence Obi and four others as defendants in suit number: FHC/CA/CS/117/21.
The eight students had after all entreaties had failed, dragged Unical (the sixth defendant) and others to court in 2021 for giving them admission to read Engineering courses in the Faculty of Engineering that had not been accredited by the National University Commission (NUC) and others.
Council to the eight students, Barr. Ozinko Ozinko had in his final written address after the tortuous trial processes, said the plaintiffs (the eight students) “are affected/frustrated students of the faculty of engineering of the University of Calabar, Cross River State, whose policy and decision as a federal government agency to establish a Faculty of engineering without compliance with due process and the law namely: National University Commission Act and Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria Act (COREN), consequently leading to the non-accreditation of the school to run such programmes as at the material time of the cause of action, and total scraping off of some of the departments till date has affected the plaintiffs negatively.
He said the defendants made a false representation publicly that its newly established faculty of engineering, comprising several departments as contained in their faculty handbook some of which till date have been scrapped off is duly accredited by the NUC and COREN, knowing very well that such fact is false and they intended that same be relied upon by the plaintiff who relied on same (by paying school fees, writing exams etc.) and suffer damages/injury hence this action seeking for a remedy through their reliefs sought.
Some of the plaintiffs who were almost at final year and have paid school fees, given matriculation numbers, identity cards, been duly admitted wrote exams, fulfilled all necessary academics requirements expecting to graduate were asked to return back to 200 level with no accreditation still in sight and further asked to pay new school tees and repeat the courses and same process they had earlier passed, causing them psychological trauma and academic stagnation, some had no electrical department to step down to as some of those departments were totally rejected by the NUC and COREN which are the statutory regulatory bodies, citing no-accreditation before commencing the program, non-employment of qualified staffs, lack of equipment, etc. as reason for their actions.
He said, the plaintiffs would not have left their chosen courses or sought to be admitted nor pay school fees or travel down from their various states all over the country to run the programme in the 6th defendant’s (Unical) institution if they were aware that the institution is not accredited, a very important legal requirement in running professional courses like Law, Accounting, Engineering, Medicine and Surgery, Pharmacy etc.
The policy/decision of the defendants as a federal government agency as captured above has led to the tortious wrong of deceit and the non-sober and bold disposition of the defendants who feels nothing can be done by the plaintiffs, considering the fiduciary relationship between the parties (as contained in the video evidence wherein the plaintiffs were appealing for a solution to no avail has led to this suit).
They issued the faculty of engineering handbook containing statements which were false intended to act upon which was acted upon by the plaintiffs and as a result suffered damages. The school authority knew that it has not been accredited by NUC to run engineering programme and that COREN which is the professional body in this regard was never notified and has not approved the programme. These facts were hidden from the plaintiffs with no intention to disclose.
That at their 300 level first semester the NUC came for resource verification in university only to order the plaintiffs some of whom went to 400 level to step down to 200 level because the university of Calabar management did not notify the NUC and was not authorised before commencing the programme
On the other hand, Counsel to Unical, Barr. Jonas Abuo in his final written address denied any wrong doing by the university saying, “the defendants did not misrepresent the plaintiffs that it possesses accreditation from the NUC rather it is the plaintiffs who were ignorant of the fact that accreditation of academic programmes of universities involves different steps before the process is completed”.
He argued that accreditation was not a simple and straight single event which can be completed dramatically that within the time the programme commenced the process of accreditation is initiated or activated through resource verification and continues until it cumulates into accreditation.
That the plaintiffs in view of their desire and interest in engineering decided out of their own volition to change programme or course from the original programme or course for which they were admitted to enable them to pursue a degree in engineering that the plaintiffs being excited of the establishment of engineering decided to change their course to the faculty of engineering in view of the incentive that engineering is a more professional course.
That mobilisation for NYSC of any student is subject to upon approval of all requirements for award of degree of the sixth defendant and that this was not primarily in the programme of studies of the sixth defendant.
That the plaintiffs were duly taught or lectured by the defendants throughout the duration of the studentship and that the knowledge was so imparted to domicile all the plaintiffs including the first defendants (the then Vice Chancellor) that the accreditation of the programmes in Nigeria universities take a whole process that it is never completed in a giffy as envisaged by the plaintiffs.
That the sixth defendant notified the NUC of the approval of senate for the commencement of the programme and requested the NUC resource verification approval.
That the commissioning of projects of the sixth defendant by Senator Godswill Akpabio, former governor of Akwa Ibom state was not meant to deceive the general public or the plaintiffs whatsoever.
The sixth defendant admitted the students into the engineering programme when it had received approval from the senate and had commenced the process of NUC resource verification and approval.
That the sixth defendant also in 2019 wrote a letter of reminder to the executive secretary of NUC for resource assessment visit for the new academic programme and that COREN and the Nigeria Society of Engineers (NSE) are not a body saddled with the accreditation of engineering studies in Nigerian universities that they are regulators of the practise of engineering in Nigeria.
That the NUC will give approval and get the programme running before COREN and NSE will do its part thereafter and that their position was in line with the realities for which the six defendants and the NUC have taken in cognizance, that the intervening variables of strike action and Covid-19 pandemic and closure of the university, there was no other option than for the students to step down to 200.
That the students out of their own free will, decided to change their programme from the original programme they were admitted because their preference for engineering when the opportunity arose. That the choice of transfer of students to another institution is always and strictly that of the students and not the sixth defendants.
That there are conditions to be fulfilled before any transfer of the students is called. That the student can only transfer to another institution if the course he or she is studying has been fully accredited by the NUC and not at the stage of resource verification.
It is in view of this that after a due perusal of the both parties, Justice Dugbo-Oghoghorie declared that, “the central point to be noted or to be deduced in resolving this suit is that no institution will operate a programme without acquiring the approval of the senate of that institution on one hand, followed by an approval by the NUC and any other body as the case may be on the other hand.
“If this is so, the grievance of the plaintiffs ask that the sixth defendants drives a programme without obtaining the approval and accreditation from NUC”.
Consequently, she said when it was discovered that the programme was not accredited by the NUC at the initial, they were advised to step down to 200. The plaintiff based their grievances on all the activities of the defendants and which this court took cognisance of.
Be that as it may, the Judge said placing all the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs side by side with that of the defendants, the pertinent questions that need clarification from the defendants are, at the material time the programme of engineering was running, did the sixth defendant get an accreditation from NUC to carry on the programme?
Two, did the sixth defendant legally allow the students apply to faculty of engineering while awaiting approval from NUC?
And three, how long is the sixth defendant allowed by law? The law is trite that he who asserts must prove as stating the obvious.
Evidence of the defendants that the students can only be transferred to another institution if the course he or she studied has been fully accredited by NUC and not at the stage of the course of verification. If this is so, this court will ask whether the faculty of engineering was fully accredited as at the time the student showed their desire to change the course? If the answer is yes, then why would the NUC ask the student to step down to 200 level? And if no, why would the sixth defendant allow the students to apply for a change of course knowing fully well that the department were merely at the resource verification stage?
By these facts, she said would it not be just to say the university owed the students, the duty of care to disclose to them which faculty or department is fully accredited instead of pushing blame on them that the choice of transfer of students from one faculty to the other is strictly in the children’s desires.
This court according to her, holds that in view of the exhibit presented by the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have proved that they were students of the sixth defendant and the sixth defendant has not denied this.
Equally, the claim of the plaintiffs were not satisfactorily divorced by the defendants. Reason being that the department of engineering received its full accreditation from NUC In 2024-2025, according to exhibits tendered.
This is in the results of accreditation dated 6th of June, 2024 and accreditation of COREN dated 5th of April, 2025. After the course of action against them had closed and those not being fully accredited at the material time, these students started their 100 and 200 respectively.
“It is the findings of this court that the only proof of accreditation were applications tendered as exhibited by the defendants to the NUC calling for their approval, which did not happen until 2024-2025 when the students had started in 2016, ought to have graduated.
“This court frawns that what the defendants did, knowing very well that for a programme to run in a university, such programme must have received full accreditation from the appropriate bodies. Failure of which that programme or whichever awards of certificate therefore will not be recognized.
“Six defendant recklessly and without regard allowed the innocent students who are not aware of the running of programmes in universities to fall victim to their acts. It is the findings of this court, after looking and examining the exhibits stated by both the plaintiffs and the defendants, the court cannot decide in favour of the defendants, that what transpired between the plaintiffs and the defendants was done in bad faith.
“The defendants particularly the sixth defendant owes the students the duty of care to disclose every material facts relating to its programmes in its institution”, said stated.
Justice of this case, she said “shows that the plaintiffs have proved their case against the defendants on the balance of the probability as required by law .
“Consequently the court ruled that the defendants running of the engineering faculty courses up to 400 level without notifying the relevant statutory agencies like the NUC, COREN , without informing the plaintiff of its dificiency, consequently leading to the plaintiffs suffering injury and psychological trauma, amounts to negligence and further concealing of deceit .
“In addition to special damages granted, “the court ordered N50 million damages claimed, N5.247 million special damages as claimed by the plaintiffs”.
However on the issue of an order of court ordering the defendants at no cost to absorb some of the plaintiff’s in the same department, the Judge said “this has been overtaken by event”.
On the declaration of court pleaded by the plaintiffs that the operating of the engineering faculty by the six defendant and its agents without relevant accreditation from the NUC be stopped forthwith, she said, “this cannot be granted as the faculty of engineering by exhibits have been accredited. This is the judgment of this court”.
Council to the university, Barr. Abuo thanked the court for the judgment and did not make further comments.
Counsel to the plaintiffs, Barr. Ozinko also thanked the court for the judgement and in an interview with journalists after the judgement, Ozinko said, “we thank God for today. It is not always easy to subject your rights to civil litigation. Some people believe in self-help, but these young students, I thank them for their courage and patience.
“It’s not easy to fight the status quo, particularly when you are the lesser person on the other side, fighting a university, the lecturers, deans and the VC that you once saw as people up there. So it is high time in our little places in this country, people should subject their rights to be addressed in a civilised manner. Now you can imagine, the people believe that going to court is a waste of time”.
He said, “justice may be slow, but it will finally get to its destination. So you can see today, my clients, they have been given justice. That particular judgement, though it did not address the issue of the departments that accreditation did not come fully.The departments that have totally been scraped off.
“Those hundreds of students that have paid school fees, paid house rents from various parts of the country, some of them self-sponsored in this harsh economy. Then with their assignments, everything, they have totally scraped off those departments.
“Like the one of Ekbedeme, even if he was to go back there, that department that he was in has been scraped off. Electrical, engineering and the others, they don’t have accreditation. So they should inform the public.
“They should disclose that defect, that inherent defect that is only known by them. Not to present a certain state of facts to the public and when the public now, based on that fact that you presented, now start dealing with you, then they now suffer injury”.
One of the plaintiffs, Ekpedeme said after about five years justice has come and “I thank God for the enablement and the endurance that He has given unto us to take this matter to the end of today. Though it wasn’t easy, because I want to clearly state here that in the course of this matter, we suffered a lot of challenges.
“Even to let the public know was not all that possible, because sometimes you go to some radio stations to make their announcements, they will decline your plea with them to make it known to the public. But, we did not relent effort. We endured to this day.
“We have suffered a lot, like me, I am a self-sponsored student. When initially the problem came up, we met with the authorities. The authorities did not want to do anything, to the point of telling us that they have every power to shut down the faculty and everybody go home.
“That statement was made by even the VC of that time, Professor Florence Obi. I was not satisfied with that kind of statement. That was the reason I said, okay, let me carry the matter judiciously, so that I can get what should be done and do it right”.
