FACULTY OF LAW,
UNIVERSITY OF BENIN
BENIN-CITY, NIGERIA.
12th February, 2016.

TO: The Council of Legal Education, Nigeria.
CC: Nigerian Bar Association.
CC: Nigerian University Commission.


COMPLAINT ON HARRASMENT OF STUDENTS BY THE DEAN OF UNIBEN FACULTY OF LAW
This letter is written out of repressed and long held feelings of frustrations borne by most undergraduate students of the faculty of law of the University of Benin.
Our point of substance and straight to the point, that it is a recognized principle of Nigerian jurisprudence as encapsulated by Justice Obaseki in the case of Odi v Osafile that “laws are made for men, and not men for laws…”. In the Faculty of Law of the University of Benin, draconian laws as well as rules that grossly offends the human conscience are being made for undergraduate law students to obey, and the mere perception of an intention to disobey such laws are met with severe sanctions.
Ever since July 2014, when Prof. Richard I. Idubor Ph.D. assumed the reins of command as the Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Benin, students of the faculty have been intimidated, harassed, oppressed and subjugated in the name of keeping the law. Prof. Idubor is a man who loves law and order, and likes everything to be done so orderly. This has led to severe repercussions on innocent students.
Firstly, he conceives the mere intention to commit an offence as sufficient proof of commission of that offence. For example, when he sees a student and feels that from mere countenance, the person has the markings of a deviant, such unfortunate student is made to face the music. Hence, situations where students are booked for “looking like someone who is conspiring against the faculty” or “walking like someone who has evil in his heart” or mere “smiling vacantly like a malignant deviant” are rampant in the faculty, and such students are made to pay the same penalty as one who has actually taken positive action to malign the university. Under our criminal laws, mere intention to commit an offence is not sufficient proof of commission of the offence. It is therefore ridiculous that some students suffer grievous penalties such as non-recommendation for law school simply because in the opinion of the dean, they possess some mental attributes of one planning to commit an offence.
The very fact that the dean of law wields the power to sign the law school forms of law students and recommend students who are eligible to go to law school is one which has been grossly abused by Professor Richard Idubor in the University of Benin. The special reservation of a book for those persons whom he feels are deviants and his high favoritism for female students as against the males for matters unjustly not needing attention is greatly unbecoming of a dean as he has permanently said and swore over his living body that the said book are for those law students that will never go to law school.
We categorically state that confirmed rumours have been making the rounds that the dean is engaged in sale of law school slots for the University of Benin to other schools. This is indeed a shameful act that the mere reportage of such wells up tears of infamous embarrassment in the hearts of these writers. He uses the excuse of deviant behavior to reduce the number of legitimate UNIBEN students qualified to go to law school. The dean is a principal member of the University Senate, this has prevented many lecturers who are aware of this insalubrious and diabolical act of turpitude from protesting and remonstrating, due to fear of either spiritual, physical or financial reprisal.
Many students have been coerced into making decisions and taking actions which they ordinarily would not take, because if they do otherwise, they would “not go to law school”. The dean has acerbically abused this power to the extent that he has marginalized student unionism and religious activities within the faculty. He has successfully prevented the Christian Law students Fellowship of Nigeria (CLASFON) from holding religious meetings within the faculty which is a violation of Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution which provides for the right to worship freely. This has greatly reduced the image and activities of CLASFON within the university.
Furthermore, Professor Idubor has stringently dealt a heavy blow and clamped down student unionism in the faculty. He has prevented the Law Students Association (LAWSA) of the university from conducting their lawful business, and has interfered with every single activity carried out by the body, including subtle manipulation of elections into the LAWSA executive body. Anybody that dares to oppose his anointed candidate through constructive criticism will immediately be challenged with the threat of not going to law school. Extra-curricular activities within the faculty has come to a standstill simply because the dean does not approve of such.
Furthermore, the dean has systematically broken family relationships between parents and their children through his incessant intrusions into family affairs. He has an uncanny habit of calling the parents of any student whom he accuses or suspects of being a deviant. Hence, where a student who for the first time is in a slight violation of the dress code regulation of the faculty, he always request for the phone number of the father of such student and calls to report the student to his father, representing that the student is a very stubborn deviant and a serial law breaker who has lost track of his purpose in school as against who ordinarily is. He does this notwithstanding the fact that the student might be a first time offender. This creates the impression in the mind of such parent that his child is involved in some heinous crime like rape, assault, or cultism. The implication of this is that an elderly father with a weak heart could develop heart attack or cardiac arrest due to the undue stress and worry being placed on him over some frivolous claims. It also unjustly represents the student to be wicked and extremely disobedient and insubordinate whereas he might indeed be otherwise.
Furthermore, it cannot be said that the dean is effectively discharging his duty as the leader of the faculty. This can be seen in light of the recent accreditation exercise carried out by the Council of Legal Education and the NUC. Whatever renovations that the accreditation officers saw were mainly representations of eye-service. The renovations were simply carried out in a bid to avoid dis-accreditation. Most of the equipment purchased such as the modern electronic boards were simply displayed to catch the attention of accreditation officials, as they have not yet been put to use. The paintings of the faculty itself was as well done in great eye-service. The faculty management on the instruction of the dean even went as far as bribing the students to give good report of the faculty administration in the event that they were interrogated by the accreditation officers that made many a law student cower to talk and speak their mind on the said days of the accreditation exercise.
In light of the excesses and abuse of power being carried out by the megalomaniac dean, we fashion this letter in the hopes of effecting an external investigation into the undue marginalization of some students who are unjustly prevented from going to law school for frivolous reasons. Many innocent final year students are already languishing with the knowledge that they have been book-marked as never to be recommended for law school.

Yours Faithfully,
A conglomeration of aggrieved law students