HONOURABLE Justice B.O. Quadri of the Federal High Court sitting in Port Harcourt on Wednesday in adjudication of the suit filed by six law graduates of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) and several others against the Council of Legal Education (CLE), Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), National Universities Commission (NUC) and alma mater, NOUN listened to the arguments of the parties.
The plaintiffs; Messrs. Aaaron George Chituru, Eric Onyenuforo, Okafor Joseph, Magnus Amadi, Obi Raphael, Ogoloma Darlinton Bekwele are praying the court to declare that the arbitrary refusal of the CLE and three other defendants to admit them alongside other law graduates of the federal government-owned university into the Nigerian Law School (NLS) despite its accreditation and approval by the statutorily approved bodies are unfounded and inconsistent with the principles of law, and therefore prayed the court to compel the defendants to admit them forthwith.
Leading counsel to the plaintiffs, Professor Amuda Kannike (SAN) argued that NOUN was established by an Act of the National Assembly, and evidently accredited by NUC and approved by the federal government as required in law to admit and award law degrees which it conferred to the plaintiffs, and therefore met all the legal requirements for admission to the Law school without hitches. The learned silk pointed out in his arguments that in nowhere in the CLE Act did any provisions confer the powers the body is exercising, and therefore submitted that its actions against NOUN law graduates are indicative of animosity recalling that when some universities in the country were running evening law programme which had no legal backing and protection of any sort, the same CLE knowingly admitted all its graduates into the NLS for the vocational training prior to liaising with NUC for the stoppage of the programme but NOUN that is at the moment legally fit, approved and recognized as long of laws of the federation are concerned, is snubbed and rejected.
He further contended that the CLE had skillfully attempted to amend the CLE Act overnight to pave way for it to have absolute powers on eligibility of universities to offer law degrees in the heat of its refusal to admit NOUN law graduates but was thrown out by the Senate, and therefore questioned its powers to go ahead with its refusal since its wishes to exercise absolute powers didn’t see the light of the day as sought in the bill. Professor Amuda therefore urged the court to give judgment in favour of the plaintiffs stating that the refusal to admit them into Law School is not backed up by any law but dictatorial and malicious adding that the treatment meted out to NOUN law graduates by CLE by allowing them parading the streets with law degrees that cannot add any values to their lives is wicked and inhumanity to man.
On the other hand, counsel to CLE, Dr. E.C. Ukala (SAN) argued that admittedly, the NUC is solely responsible for accreditation of all university programmes including Law, however, the Council as the professional body cannot sit and allow the profession being taking to the mud, hence its refusal to admit NOUN was anchored on its passion to protect the profession. He added that the council was convinced that NUC erred in its accreditation based on procedural defects in NOUN mode of operations. In his submission, he prayed the court to strike out the originating summon by the plaintiffs in the interest of the profession. The counsel to the AGF however didn’t put arguments but urged the court to adopt its written position in place of oral arguments.
Present at the court were the plaintiffs, the National Coordinator of Law Graduates Forum (LGF), Hon. Carl Umegboro, other graduates and some members of LAWSAN Progressives Forum; an umbrella of NOUN Law Students led by Mr. Uchenna Lasbery Nduwuba.
After listening to all parties, Justice Quadri adjourned the court to 27 January 2017 for judgment.