Everything with a beginning also has an end. The law graduates of National Open University of Nigeria, NOUN, were shut out since 2013 from the Nigerian Law School for vocational training by the Council of Legal Education, CLE, despite National Universities Commission’s accreditation. The graduates had futilely approached all relevant authorities for succor, and lastly perched at the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt, inter alia, for writ of mandamus.
Regrettably, three years counting at the same court, Justice B. O. Quadri heard the case after numerous adjournments but never showed up for judgment on January 27 as scheduled. Neither a communication nor new date was allocated until after four months of concerted commotions by the graduates.  Suddenly, the baton was transferred to Justice H.I.O. Oshomah leading to another hearing on July 5, and unswervingly, Prof. Abiodun Amuda-Kannike, SAN; lead counsel to the graduates conscientiously maintained his positions on points of law.
After that, a new date for judgment, October 4, was fixed. The question is; has the end come? Will the judgment hold this time or repetition of the former? The court is the temple of justice, and should always display justice irrespective of whose ox is gored. A situation where a court, after hearing, scheduled a judgment but inexplicably failed to deliver, is inconsistent with justice and judicial process. Incontestably, that is aberration and meanness, and could snowball to loss of confidence and cynicism.
Conventionally, matters relating to education deserve premium attention with accelerated actions. To daringly subject students affairs to unending years in court is abysmal and unacceptable; the financial implications notwithstanding, with two different hearings at the same trial court. In a nutshell, the burlesques obviously signpost the nation’s pintsized commitment to education.
By precedent, supposing the whys and wherefores are too weighty to ignore, equitably, students cannot be jeopardized as innocent third-parties. In such a scenario, the doctrine of bona fide purchaser for value without notice the court perspicaciously laid down per Lord Denningin Bishops gate Motor Finance Corporation Ltd v Transports Breaks Ltd (1949) E.R. 37 at pg 45; (1945) 1 K. B322 at 336, and meritoriously espoused in Omosanya v Anifowoshe (1995) 4 FSC 99 at pg 94, by Mbanefo F.J. Can astutely guide.
Interestingly, CLE punctiliously embraced the doctrine in similar issues against Madonna University; same noncompliance to standard, inadequate physical and learning-facilities. In a statement for exonerating its existing law students, the Council unequivocally stated, “this was done to ensure that students did not suffer for the indiscipline of their institution”. I decline to conjure up the noble body with double-standard. Nonetheless, is it justifiable for NOUN students to become the grass that suffers where two elephants fight? Clearly, the Council synergized NUC for resolutions on the private university, unlike NOUN’s; the two giants are enigmatically, diametrically opposing each other.
Pragmatically, a university’s programme cannot be certifiably accredited and contemporaneously disapproved; otherwise, a gross contradiction. It is bizarre shutting the doors against qualified students from accredited university while accreditation subsists. Administratively, the appropriate step where accreditation is perceived unjustifiable or inconsistent to standard is to liaise, approach NUC for review or protest to superior authorities for intervention. Precisely, accreditation clears universities as institutions, but doesn’t extend to personality’s traits which fall under ancillary requirements. Any student found guilty on gross misconducts, may be dismissed irrespective of university’s accreditation as held by Court of Appeal in Okonjo v Council of Legal Education FCA/16/78 (1979) Digest of Appeal Cases 28. By hierarchy, professional bodies report to NUC as the regulator, and therefore cannot override its actions. Thus, with NUC’s subsisting accreditation of NOUN’s law programme, it remains valid until a contrary deed.
Unavoidably, I would digress to an article by Mr. Sylvester Udemezue; ‘Between NOUN, NUC and the CLE, A legal Perspective ‘which was inaptly anchored on Okonjo v CLE (supra). Factually, the plaintiff was refused admission over his referee’s detestable reference; ancillary requirements which commonsensically falls within the ambits of CLE’s powers, and not the primary prerequisite; accreditation. Generally, admission requirement into the law school is Bachelor of Laws (LLB-Law) degree from accredited universities; while subservient requirements include etiquettes, recommendations among others, as determined by the Council for professionalism and nobility.
The onus therefore lies squarely with the court; ultimate arbiter, since Senate’s recent amendments were regrettably snubbed. The populace looks forward to the conclusion of the prolonged quagmire, mêlée as students that spent resources on accredited programme in a national institution cannot perpetually remain in dilemma. Amazingly, CLE publicly admitted granting waivers magnanimously and repetitively to a law student from another university with alleged copious gross-misconducts but denied innocent NOUN students opportunity to prove their worth. Yet again, conceded that a graduate from conventional university with requisite trainings and etiquettes was ethically unfit? This is a paradox and self-indictment. By and large, the October 4 scheduled-judgment, come rain or shine, must hold, and explicitly. Delayed justice is synonymous with injustice. According to Martin Luther King Jr, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
Umegboro is a public affairs analyst.

Carl Umegboro