Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project(SERAP) has dragged the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board and the University of Lagos to court over “outrageous cut-off marks decisions”.

The organization is seeking an order stopping JAMB, UNILAG and others from implementing the decision. The suit number FHC/L/CS/1139/2015 filed today at the Federal High Court By Adetokunbo Mumuni on behalf of SERAP and three applicants affected by the cut-off marks decision, the Applicants contend that “the provisions of Section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the JAMB Act are very clear and unambiguous. The letter and spirit of the provisions is to ensure that the preferences of candidates in terms of the university they choose to attend are sacrosanct. Even a contrary or adverse decision by individual university cannot override decision made pursuant to the provisions of Section (5)1)(c)
(iii).”

The three other applicants are: Adeola Hammed Ayobami; Abass Ololade; andAbass Ajibola. The Respondents in the suit apart from JAMB and UNILAG are: the Permanent Secretary, Federal Ministry of Justice and the Permanent Secretary,Ministry of Education. The suit reads in part: “Given that the 2nd-4th Applicants and several other candidates across the country are children striving to pursue their education, it is argued that the interpretation of Section 5(1)(c)(iii)warrants an assessment of the principle of the best interests of the candidates affected and this principle should be taken as a primary consideration when different interests are being considered in order to reach a decision whether to change the preferences of the candidates. There should be a guarantee that the preferences of the candidates will be respected.” “If a legal provision such as Section 5(1)(c)(iii) is open to more than one interpretation, the interpretation which most effectively serves the child’s best interests should be chosen and that in this case will be to fully respect their preferences of universities. The failure of the Respondents to consider the possible negative impact of the decision on the 2nd-4th Applicants and several other

candidates across the country amounts to a breach of Section 5(1)(c)(iii) of the JAMB Act.” “In Meyer v Nebraska, the court held that human dignity denotes the right of the individual to acquire knowledge, engage in the common occupations of life, marry, establish a home and generally enjoy those privileges long recognized as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness. This means that several candidates across the country are entitled to choose appropriate academic environment they consider conductive, to, in the words of the court in the Meyer case just cited, “acquire knowledge”. Denying them this fundamental rig