YESUFU AMUDA GARBA & ORS V. THE UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986)

Case Name: YESUFU AMUDA GARBA & ORS V. THE UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) Official

Citation: (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550

Court Division: SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

Before: OBASEKI, J.S.C. (Presided and Read the Lead Judgment), ESO, J.S.C., NNAMANI, J.S.C., UWAIS, J.S.C., COKER, J.S.C., KAWU, J.S.C., OPUTA, J.S.C

Date of Judgment: FRIDAY, 14TH FEBRUARY, 1986.

PARTIES INVOLVED

The appellants were students of the University of Maiduguri (the respondent), they were expelled from the institution following a student demonstration which resulted in several acts of arson, assault, looting and property destruction within the university premises. Their expulsion was based on the findings of an Investigation Panel set up by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor to inquire into the alleged student rampage.

The respondent is the University of Maiduguri; a federal tertiary institution in Nigeria. In response to acts of extreme destruction and assault of its staff carried out by students, it set up an Investigation Panel by a directive from the Deputy Vice Chancellor, whose property had been affected during the incident, and was a member of the Investigation Panel which made decisions that led to the expulsion of the appellants.

CASE FACT

After a student-led demonstration which resulted in damage to property, assault, theft and arson, the appellants, who were students at the University of Maiduguri, were expelled. The Senate made the decision to expel them following its examination of the findings from the Investigation Panel established by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, whose property was also damaged during the protest, to look into the incident.

Following their expulsion, the students took legal action against UNIMAID at the High Court of Justice of Borno State of Nigeria, Maiduguri Judicial Division for an enforcement of their
fundamental right safeguarded in the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules1. This application was granted on the key argument that the applicants were not afforded fair hearing before the respondent expelled them from the institution and that the respondent’s decision of expulsion was biased. Subsequently, the Court having heard both counsels’ submissions, gave judgment stating:“…the fundamental rights of the applicants entrenched under section 33(1) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 has been contravened by not affording them their right to cross-examine the witnesses who gave evidence against them before the investigation panel… Secondly, the defence of alibi put up by the applicants in the affidavit were not properly investigated…”2.

The court held that the University readmit the applicants and ask them to pay the N160 compensation imposed on all other students as recompense for the damaged properties resulting from the student rampage3.

UNIMAID, dissatisfied with this decision, sought a reversal of the ruling through an application to the Court of Appeal. The Court unanimously allowed the appeal and held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by holding that UNIMAID readmit the students4. It further held that the trial court appropriated the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor by ordering so and that the only lawful decision the Court could have made was to direct the Investigation Panel to reopen the matter and conform to the principles of natural justice5.
Still, the students did not appreciate this ruling and sought an appeal in the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The issues for determination as formulated by the court were as follows:

1. Whether the High Court was competent to entertain the action;

2. Whether in the exercise of the powers conferred by section 17(1) of the University of Maiduguri Act 1979 the Vice-Chancellor and his appointees ought to have applied the rules of natural justice;
3. Whether the appellants established a breach of section 33(1) of the 1979 Constitution; and

4. Whether the trial court was competent to grant the relief which it granted.

LEGAL ARGUMENTS

Arguments for The Appellants

The appellant’s counsel submitted on the issue of competence of the High Court that where a matter concerns the breach of fundamental rights, the Court is seised of the jurisdiction to entertain it6, he cited the case of Peenok v. Hotel Presidential7. Counsel also argued that because the appellants were expelled for committing these alleged offences: wilful destruction of property, arson, looting and assaults, he asserted they were evidently criminal actions enshrined in the Penal Code8and Criminal Code9. He conceded that since the misconduct amounted to an offence, it exceeded the jurisdiction of the Visitor, and can only be adjudicated by the Courts. Counsel referred to The King and Queen v. St. Johns College Cambridge10 and Denloye v. Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Committee11.

On the second issue, counsel asserted that there was a violation of section 33(1) and (4) of the Nigerian Constitution12, he opined that since the Investigation Panel had called the appellants for questioning about the incidents, so as to allocate liability, they were bound to conform to the principles of natural justice, whether or not they were acting judicially, quasi-judicially or administratively13.

The appellants further contended on the third issue that by the inaction of the Disciplinary Board failing to order the appellants appear before it prior to its consideration of the findings of the Investigation Panel, and that regarding the damage done to the DVC’s (Deputy Vice-Chancellor) property during the protest, who was a member of the Disciplinary Board, there existed a probability of bias against the appellants14 and referred to the case of Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee v. Gani Fawehinmi15.

On the fourth issue, counsel stated that the High Court was square in ordering readmittance of the appellants into the University, he submitted that the appellants need not specifically ask for some orders before the court grants them as the High Court possesses the power to grant consequential orders16. He referred to Okupe v. Federal Board of Inland Revenue17 and Order 34 Rule 1 of the Borno State High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules18 in support.

Arguments for The Respondent

On the issue of the jurisdiction of the High Court, counsel opined that the relationship between the respondent and the appellants was contractual, and regulated by the University of Maiduguri Act19. He argued that by the terms of the contract, matters of an internal nature must be adjudged by the University’s appointed Visitor and not the courts20, he referred to the case of Thomas v. University of Bradford21.

The respondent’s counsel replied to issues two, stating that the courts should not strictly apply the provisions of Section 33 CFRN22 to the Investigation Panel, as it was specified to restrict the powers of the executive, legislature and judiciary. He further opined that the Investigation Panel was only bound to comply with the principles of natural justice, which he stated that the Panel complied23. Counsel submitted that since the appellants were members of the university through “matriculation by contract”, they were bound by the decisions of the Visitor, which counsel argued was a recognised statutory authority in matters concerning disciplinary measures24.
On the third and fourth issue, counsel argued that the complaint of bias is irrelevant because as he opined, the provisions of Section 33(2) CFRN25 cannot apply to the Vice-Chancellor because his actions are regulated by the University of Maiduguri Act26 not the Constitution. He argued that the provisions of Section 33 CFRN is being used to frustrate administrative process. In support of his argument, he cited Falomo v. Lagos State Public Service Commission27.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal28. It held that neither the Disciplinary Board nor the Investigation Panel had the jurisdiction to try the appellants as to the criminal offence allegations and that the High Court possessed the competence to entertain the matter29. Thus, the court set aside the decision of the Court of Appeal and reinstated the orders previously granted by the High Court including that the expulsion of the appellants by the Investigation Panel and Disciplinary Board was void30. It further held that the appellants were entitled to their fundamental right of fair hearing and that the respondent could not violate this right. The court also decided that the inclusion of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor as the Chairman of the Investigation panel constituted a real likelihood of bias31.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The legal reasoning for the Supreme Court’s invalidation of the respondent’s disciplinary proceedings is that Section 13(1) of the University of Maiduguri Act32 does not permit the

Visitor to determine misconduct that amount to offences against the state, as in this case arson, assault, looting and property destruction. The court held that trying students for actions provided in the Criminal or Penal Code is not within the Visitor’s jurisdiction, and doing so would be acting ultra vires. Relying on Dr. Sofekun v. Akinyemi and Ors33, the court emphasised that “It is in the interest of the Government and every individual in this country that the guilt of crime should not be tagged on to any individual without a proper trial in the courts of law known as such under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”34

Another ratio decidendi established by the court is the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain matters concerning fundamental rights violations and enforcement because Section 42 of the 1979 Constitution35 has bestowed on citizens the constitutional basis to seek redress in claims of fundamental rights violations in the High Court. The court further stated that the administrative duty of the Visitor or the respondent’s disciplinary obligations cannot override the constitutional function of the High Court on questions concerning fundamental rights of individuals. The court per Obaseki J.S.C.: “Without subjecting any criminal allegation against any student to the machinery provided by the state for ascertaining the truth of the allegation is a very painful denial of fundamental right… An innocent student might in such circumstances suffer undeserved punishment…the pronouncement of guilt from the current of unsifted, untested and undistilled mass of evidence which did not pass through well informed professional minds will do more harm than good to the integrity of the student.”36

Furthermore, the court invalidated the respondent’s disciplinary proceedings on the ground that they failed to uphold the principles of natural justice enshrined in Section 33 (1) CFRN37 which embodies the audi alteram partem, and nemo judex in causa sua rules. The section provides for “the right to (a) fair hearing (b) within a reasonable time (c) by a court of other tribunal established by law; and (d) constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”38 The court addressed the failure of the respondent to safeguard this right as the composition of the Investigation Panel and Disciplinary Board was wholly biased because of the inclusion of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor who was a victim of the property destruction perpetrated during the incident: the court opined that a person cannot be a witness and a judge in his own case. It held that the trying of the students by the respondent made it function as a quasi-judicial tribunal and thus bound by S. 33 CFRN39 and the principles of natural justice, and cited the case of Glynn v. Keele University and Another40 and Legal Practitioners Board v. Gani Fawehinmi41.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court’s decision in Garba v UNIMAID has become a fundamental judicial precedent in Nigerian administrative law. The Court’s stance on the matter enforced the safeguarding of constitutional rights over administrative functions. It set a precedent for the protection of students’ right to fair hearing over swift disciplinary measures carried out by their institutions especially pertaining to criminal offences. It may be argued that requiring the courts to adjudicate on such issues before the institution can apportion liability and punishment may hamper administrative processes. However, the Constitutional right of citizens prima facie supersedes the institution’s need for swift action and punishment which is commendable.