The Story

Eze v. University of Jos [2021] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1760) 208 SC

Sylvanus Eze was a senior staff of the University of Jos working at the University’s Continuing Education Centre. He was accused of receiving money from newly admitted students of the University without authority. Eze was queried and subsequently suspended by the Vice Chancellor (VC) vide a letter dated 21/6/2006. He appeared before the Council/Senate Disciplinary Committee at a meeting held between 8th and 11th August 2006 and defended himself against the allegation.

The Governing Council of the University held its 5th regular meeting between 2nd and 4th November 2006. At that meeting, the Council considered the report of the Disciplinary Committee and decided to dismiss Eze.

Eze did not appear in person before the Governing Council. His only appearance was before the Disciplinary Committee. For this reason, Eze challenged his dismissal in court on the ground of lack of fair hearing. His case was dismissed by the trial Court and the Court of Appeal. He further appealed to the Supreme Court. His appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the lower courts and held that Eze’s dismissal was a nullity.

The Supreme Court relied on the provisions of Section 16(1) and (2) of the University of Jos Act which provides for the procedure for removal of and discipline of academic, administrative and professional staff of the University. The law provides that if any staff of the institution is to be relieved of his or her employment on ground of misconduct or inability to perform the functions of office, the Governing Council must give notice of the reasons to the person in question and afford him or her an opportunity to be heard by the Council. 

The law also gives the Council the power to make arrangements which involves setting up an investigative committee (joint committee of the Council and Senate) which will look into the allegations. The person under investigation must be given opportunity to appear before the committee to defend himself. After considering the report of the investigative committee, the Council may remove the person from office if satisfied. The removal must be by an instrument in writing signed on the directions of the Council and served on the person.

Supreme Court’s findings that changed everything

M. D. Muhammad, JSC, in delivering the lead Judgment, made the following finding of facts as the basis for nullifying the decision of the University and setting aside the judgments of the lower courts:

A situation such as that of the Appellant herein [that is, Eze] who was suspended by the Vice Chancellor of the Respondent [University of Jos] and directed to appear and make representation before a committee that was not constituted by the University’s Governing Council at his instance or that of any three members of the Council, and the Appellant was furthermore, neither notified by the Council of the reasons for his dismissal nor given opportunity to appear before the Council to personally make representation on the allegation against him, Appellant’s right to fair hearing as held, per contra, in Bamgboye v. University of Ilorin (supra)*, has indeed been breached. I so hold.

From the totality of the facts presented which was accepted by the Supreme Court, the bone of contention was that the disciplinary action taken against Eze was commenced by the VC through the VC’s letter of suspension; and that the VC personally referred the matter to the Joint Committee of the Council and the Senate contrary to Section 16(1)(c) of the University of Jos Act which gave such powers to the Governing Council of the University and not the VC. The power given to the VC regarding staff discipline by Section 16(2) of the Act is the power of suspension. The section mandates the VC to report the fact of the suspension to the Council.

Thus, the real basis for faulting the decision of the University does not appear to be purely on the ground of lack of hearing or even fair hearing per se. Rather, it was because, the hearing took place but not by a committee specifically set up by the Governing Council. The Governing Council never gave the required statutory notice of the reasons for the allegation to Eze. In other words, the Governing Council was not the one who commenced the disciplinary action as envisaged by the Act. The VC did. The office of the VC is distinct from that of the Governing Council. The VC is not the head of the Council. Rather, the Council is headed by a Chairman. The Chairman of Council is the Pro-Chancellor, next to the Chancellor in the order of protocol. See Section 2 of the Act.

In the view of the Court, a hearing that did not take place in accordance with the provisions of the law is not a fair hearing. The Supreme Court decided to strictly apply the law and gave no room for ratification of the VC’s conduct by the Council. Otherwise, it would have been argued that by acting on the report of the Joint Committee of the Council and Senate, the Council impliedly ratified the steps taken by the VC.

Lessons

The Supreme Court’s decision made on 15 May 2020 serves as a lesson to the universities, especially government institutions established by law. They must ensure strict adherence to the provisions of the law. A procedure that is capable of relieving a person of his job and throwing him into the streets ought to be followed to the letters. It behoves on the institutions to seek professional legal advice where necessary to ensure due compliance. This will also help to guarantee that those accused of serious misconduct do not escape due punishment. 

*[1990] 10 NWLR (Pt. 622) 290.