SERAP takes JAMB to court over cut-off marks

The Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) has instituted legal action against the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board and the University of Lagos over “their outrageous cut-off marks decisions”.

JAMB had originally announced that admission cut-off point for universities was 180 while that of polytechnics and colleges of education was 150, but the board and some federal universities, including UNILAG, subsequently announced figures as high as 250.

The organisation is seeking an order stopping JAMB, UNILAG and others from implementing the new marks.

Filed on Monday as suit number FHC/L/CS/1139/2015 at the federal high court by Adetokunbo Mumuni, executive director of the organisation, and three applicants affected by the cut-off marks decision, the plaintiffs 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, while the respondents in the suit, apart from JAMB and UNILAG, are the permanent secretary, federal ministry of justice and the permanent secretary, federal ministry of education.

“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,” the suit reads.

“If a legal provision such as Section 5(1)(c)(iii) is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation that 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.”

The suit observed that 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 conducive, 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,” it stated.

The applicants urged the court to hold “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.

“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 organisation sought 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

“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.”

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.