Of Examination Malpractice(S) And Provisions Of The Law By Olokooba Abdulwasiu

Abstract: In Nigeria, the past decades were characterised by an incessant increasement on incidents of examination misconducts, especially at the secondary school level. Maybe. Maybe not.

This societal vice has become so widespread that; there is virtually no examination anywhere, at all levels and even outside the formal school system, which won’t witness one form of sharp practice or the other.

In deed, every examination season witnesses the emergence of new and ingenious ways of cheating. Yes. This is an achievable notoriety, here in Nigeria.

What Does Examination Malpractice Mean?

This phrase is defined by section 19 — The Interpretation Segment of The Examination Malpractice Act 1999, as an act which constitutes an offence under this act. But simply put, as the phrase implies, it means a deliberate wrong doing contrary to official examination rules designed to place a candidate at unfair advantage or disadvantage.

What Constitutes Examination Malpractice within The Realm of The Law?

Under the Act –The Examination Malpractice Act, there are plethoral of actions and omissions which are condenmed as they form part of examination malpractices, within the purview of the act. These include the following, but not limited to them:

1. Cheating at examination:

This is clearly enunciated by section 1 of The Act. When a person who, in anticipation of, before or at any examination, is by any fraudulent trick or device or in abuse of his office or with intent to unjustly enrich himself or any other person procures any question paper produced or intended for use at any examination of persons, whether or not the question paper concerned is proved to be false, not genuine or not related to the examination in questionis said to have cheated in the examination.

And hence, liable to imprisonment not exceeding three years, or fine of #100,000, or to both fine and imprisonment, for any offender under the age of eighteen years, see action 1(2)(a) of The Examination Malpractice Act. But, if the accused happens to be a principal, teacher, an invigilator, a supervisor, an examiner, or an agent or employee of the examination body concerned with the conduct of an examination, he shall be liable for imprisonment of four years without the option of fine — section 1(2)(b) of the Act.

2. Stealing, etc…, of The question paper

A candidate who, at any examination, by any fraudulent trick or device or with intent to cheat or secure an unfair advantage for himself or any other person, steals or otherwise appropriates or takes a question paper, an answer sheet or a script of any other candidate commits, an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of #100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment. See section 2 of The Act.

3. Personation

If a person falsely represents himself as a candidate and he sits for an examination, or he attempts to write a paper in the name of some other person, whether that name is the name of a person living or dead, is guilty of an offence which attracts three to four years imprisonment or a fine of #100,000, or both such fine and imprisonment. See section 3 of the Act.

4. Disturbance at Examination

A person who, at or near an examination hall or any other place appointed for an examination, has in his possession any offensive weapon or other material or uses any offensive weapon or other material on any other person; or acts or incites any other person to act in a disorderly manner, such person will be punished for fine or imprisonment. See section 5 of The Examination Malpractice Act of 1999.
5. Forgery of Result Slip

A person who forges or fraudulently or without lawful order, alters or in any other way tampers with, the scores of a candidate as contained on a result slip or certificate duly issued by an examination body, commits an offence and then guilty of both fine of #100,000 or imprisonment of three to four years

Which Court Has Jurisdiction to Entertain Same?

Basically, according to section 14 of The Examination Malpractice Act, it’s only exclusive power of the Federal High Court to entertain and sit over examination malpractice cases.

Per ABOKI, J.C.A stated in OLUTAYO v. FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, MINNA (2007) LPELR-CA/A/136/06 therein inter alia that;

“…The offence of Examination Malpractice which the appellant was accused of and upon which she was investigated by the Students’ Disciplinary Committee of the Federal University of Technology, Minna and later expelled by the Senate of the University is only triable by the Federal High Court pursuant to section 14 of the Examination Malpractices Act. Neither the Students’ Disciplinary Committee nor the Senate which approved the recommendation of the Students’ Disciplinary Committee have jurisdiction under the law to adjudicate on allegations of crime as they are not a court of law. Offences against the laws of the land fall outside the jurisdiction of the University Senate or Committee set up by the University Council. If a student in a University is charged with the commission of a crime, that student can only be proved guilty before a court of law”.

Similarly, in UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR vs. UGOCHUKWU and ORS (No. 2) (2007) 17 NWLR (PT. 1063) 248 AT 266-267 where the noble Justice, NGWUTA, JCA (as he then was) held the view that an academic institution may discipline a student for infractions to University Rules and Regulations bordering on Examination Malpractices and Cultism, notwithstanding that these infractions also amounts to serious criminal offences.

It is perhaps, important to state that the only requirement to be met on the part of the University or Institution in question is that in exercising its disciplinary powers, it must adhere strictly to the twin principles of Natural Justice, i.e., the doctrines of “audi alteram partem” and “nemo judex in a causa sua” in the conduct of its activities.” See the case of KOBI v. USMANU DANFODIYO UNIVERSITY SOKOTO & ORS (2018) LPELR-CA/S/48/2015.

Trial of Children and Young Persons

In a situation, whereby the person alleged to have engaged in examination malpractice(s) is a child or a young person (within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons Act, that is, a person who has not attained the age of seventeen years), and he is charged with an offence under The Examination Malpractice Act of 1999, he shall be dealt with under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act. See section 13 of the Act.

Also, The Examination Malpractice Act empowers the examination body withhold, suspend or cancel the results of a candidate or ban or blacklist a candidate from taking its examinations if it is satisfied that the candidate has engaged in any form of examination malpractice;Or withdraw recognition, suspend, ban or blacklist or place on probation a school or an examination centre if it is satisfied that the school or examination centre is involved in any form of examination malpractice. See section 16(1) (a-b) of the Act.

© Olokooba Abdulwasiu; a 300level student of Faculty of Law, UDUS., 08160590983, oomobolajiabdulwasiu@gmail.com