Covenant university will lose any case brought against it. But you know the owner is the personal confessor of some of our top government officials.

KaptainAfrika:
Covenant university will lose any case brought against it. But you know the owner is the personal confessor of some of our top government officials.

It's just painful... members are defending their church instead of the truth. If someone is attending seventh day adventist that worship on Saturdays, do you force them to church on Sundays? is that not a breach of rights?
Imagine you don't celebrate Easter, will you attend Easter retreat? let's be factual

maclatunji:


Quite educative from a legal perspective. The students should sue.

Many of us Nigerians and by extension, Africans (Blacks) sign dotted lines without critically reading the terms and conditions. Do not think that the school authority will be this naive. It is possible each student signed certain clauses subjecting them to adhere to these kind of instruction while and when they were accepting the provisional offer of admission. Those laws can or may not be found in the schools book of law or constitution or whatever name it is called.

When you choose to go to those glorified secondary schools all in the name of standard, that is what you get.

There are so many laws in that school. what to eat, when to eat, where to eat etc. Sometimes I wonder, is this an university?

abouqi:
Your own reasoning showed you are less educated bro!
Were they forced to go to CU?
Are there no universities they can attend apart from CU?
There are other alternative universities that they could have gone to that won't even bother whether they attend church services or not now, abeg!
Pls think well!!!

You're the one who is supposed to make use of your grey matter. You don't just support everything because you felt like doing so.
Did the university take time to listen to the individual student to find out why they missed the "part" of the four day programme before punishing all of them based on the number of days they missed? One year suspension for missing a programme!

willjoe:
what is it supposed to be? you scum.

It takes scum to identify one, they must have been abundant in your family.

TerrorSquad147:
I doubt bro

Don't doubt it. He will go to jail for failing to protect his child, wickedness and negligence.

maasoap:

It takes scum to identify one, they must have been abundant in your family.

i've seen u'r a zombie, proly from d north. Im not amazed, you pple only go to school, u dnt knw what education means. If u want to reply me, go get abundant wisdom cos if ur mention me again, without that, i'd regard u as a dastard. Thanks

TerrorSquad147:
not by suspending them, they could have given them lighter punishments especially as they're first time offenders.

If they had flogged them people will shout. If they tell them to do community service people would shout that they are treating them like labourers. A suspension is a normal punishment it allows you to take time off to rethink your reason for disobeying the rules.

aduje:


Many of us Nigerians and by extension, Africans (Blacks) sign dotted lines without critically reading the terms and conditions. Do not think that the school authority will be this naive. It is possible each student signed certain clauses subjecting them to adhere to these kind of instruction while and when they were accepting the provisional offer of admission. Those laws can or may not be found in the schools book of law or constitution or whatever name it is called.

When you choose to go to those glorified secondary schools all in the name of standard, that is what you get.

There are so many laws in that school. what to eat, when to eat, where to eat etc. Sometimes I wonder, is this an university?

Certain rules are ultra vires and of no effect ab initio. Signing them does not make them valid.

willjoe:
i've seen u'r a zombie, proly from d north. Im not amazed, you pple only go to school, u dnt knw what education means. If u want to reply me, go get abundant wisdom cos if ur mention me again, without that, i'd regard u as a dastard. Thanks

Calling people names must have been part of wisdom you acquired through your education or family trait.

dotun365:
If they had flogged them people will shout. If they tell them to do community service people would shout that they are treating them like labourers. A suspension is a normal punishment it allows you to take time off to rethink your reason for disobeying the rules.

You can't flog an adult, even flogging kids is considered an abuse. Community service is the best. Suspension for a year in this case can derail careers of many of the students.

dotun365:
If they had flogged them people will shout. If they tell them to do community service people would shout that they are treating them like labourers. A suspension is a normal punishment it allows you to take time off to rethink your reason for disobeying the rules.

I understand, the school should tamper justice with mercy, especially for those that have some months, a year or two to go

wirinet:

Religion seems to operate only on our reptilian brain. It switches of critical thinking of the neo cortex and triggers aggression, fear and basic instincts. This is the only reason I can see for people defending barbaric acts of religious authorities and people are ready to commit suicide or murder and lie for their religious beliefs.
CU is a conventional university and not a faith based university. It was given a license by NUC to offer conventional degrees and not faith based degrees. It collects fees from the public to offer services of providing university education to the public - both Nigerians and foreigners. It cannot and I repeat cannot impose its religious views on anybody. If a Muslim or even an atheist meet all criteria for admission, it cannot be refused admission based on religion alone. It would be violating both the Nigerian constitution and the international charter on freedom of religion which Nigeria is a signatory of.


You understand wrong. All universities give students an undertaking to adhere to all rules and regulations when they are admitted into universities, that does not give universities blank check to make rules and regulations that infringe on the liberty, rights and dignity of its students. Any rule and regulation that is inconsistent with our constitution is null and void.

Maybe the students did not read the undertaking in the first place or maybe they read it but know that the contentious parts of it are null and void.
I doubt covenant university will put compulsory attendance of all religious activities or compulsory conversion to a winners church member in their handout. If they did, they would be legally implicating the institution as violating the constitution and hence their condition of license.

You react to my submission then contradict yourself.

That the student signed legally binding documents that perhaps stated that they shall obey all instructions and rules passed by the school and you imply they were either ignorant of what they signed or trivialised what they sign as null and void is ludicrous and laughable...

I presume you work.. when a work document has your signature, that document is binding in any court of law whether you were ignorant of what you signed or not...
You perhaps are smart enough to know that.

Oh CU is not a faith based institution, questions.

The way CU is run and the way a Conventional University like say Uniben is run, are they the same?

Do students in conventional universities sign undertaken when admitted? I don't remember signing one when I was a student.

The establishment of CU was based on what vision, compared with a conventional University are they the same?

How was CU built compared to a conventional University? CU is church built, established and sustained, Conventional universities are either govt or state built. So your statement of CU not a faith based institution because they obtained license from NUC is lame and unfounded.

The conclusion of this matter is simple, while I hope and pray the CU management would reconsider their stand of suspension for the students disobedience of the school rules and instructions. However, CU cannot be faulted in any respect because students who were admitted and now affected committed by putting their signature on documents requiring them to agree to obey all rules and instructions passed by the school from time to time.

As a student if you won't or can't obey the rules of CU then don't seek to become a student of CU, go somewhere else. After all like some folks would say. It isn't by school!!

Safiaa:
Wow.

How much are you selling your wigs?

Depends on the length and type u want. When i say type i mean, mesh cap or lace wig.
For more inform
Check debs belle and styles (@dbshair) on instagram
Or send a whatsapp to
08125015728

maasoap:

You can't flog an adult, even flogging kids is considered an abuse. Community service is the best. Suspension for a year in this case can derail careers of many of the students.

In real life and in societies we usually look up to, Suspensions are usually for disobedient behaviours while community service for physical wrongs and there must be a power to enforce e.g courts and police. In my place of work like many other places of work, if you flaunt a rule you are suspended

After reading all what u have posted, my point is this nobody is perfect. Our so called CONSTITUTION is not that correct too. But CU is training people and their selling point is DISCIPLINE.

See, people are trying to break the standard of CU. Mind u CU has lawyers too.....

Note: CU has modul oprandi which must be followed.

maclatunji:
By Festus Ogun

The management of the Covenant University, Ota, Ogun State has suspended about 200 undergraduates of the faith-based institution for missing an Easter ‘Youth Alive’ program. The school had earlier organized the four days Easter retreat for the students and had also made attendance mandatory. However, while some of the students were fed up – for various reasons – of going for church services in the morning and evening for the four uninterrupted days, they couldn’t just but miss some days out of the retreat. Surprisingly and unfortunately to them, they have been punished through suspension by the school management for simply missing the compulsory Easter program. Some were suspended for a year.

Suspension is a very serious punishment. As serious as it is, however, there are instances where it will and must necessarily be applicable on erring students. Yet, the means by which students are suspended from school must be reasonable and must be carried out within the confines of our laws.

This case of the Covenant University suspending about 200 of its students for not attending an Easter program is a prima facie case of unconstitutional suspension of university students.

Before continuing with this piece, there is need to state clearly that if there is any enacted law in the university that have made attending religious functions compulsory, such law is void and of no effect whatsoever. I am quite sure that the school would have relied on a particular written law of the institution before the suspension since “nulla poena sine lege” – there can be no punishment or penalty without law. And if such law exists in the school, the law is clearly against the provisions of the Constitution; the sacred book where all other laws derive their validity. And if not, that will amount to the height of total unconstitutionality because there ought to be no punishment without law. See Section 36(12) of the 1999 Constitution.

Interestingly, the school itself is a creation of law and the law is above the school authority or laws – the Constitution is supreme and all other laws derive their validity from it. The implication of this is that its (the school’s) actions must be within the provisions of our laws, particularly the Constitution. By virtue of Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution, the Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on all authorities (including Covenant University authority) and persons throughout Nigeria. See MADU v. ONUAGULUCHI (1985) 6 NCLR 365.

Therefore, any law made by the institution that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution shall be declared void and unconstitutional. Section 1(3) of the Constitution goes further to provides very clearly that “if any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this constitution, this constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” See ABACHA v. FAWEHINMI (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228; F.R. N. v. IFEGWU (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 842) 113; A.G ABIA STATE v. A.G. FEDERATION (2002) 6 NWLR (Pt. 763) 264.

First, the students’ right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed under section 38(1) of the 1999 Constitution has been breached. The section provides thus “every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom (either alone or in community with others, in public or private) to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”

The implication of this section is that even though the school is established by a church, it will be quite unapt to deny students the right to freedom of religion. Even when, for example, all the students are Christians, the constitution has granted them the right to change their religion or belief without notifying anyone. The constitution has also granted the students the freedom to manifest their beliefs either alone or in public and this can in fact justify their sitting in their hostels instead of joining the congregation.

If based on personal conviction – brought about by deep thought (a constitutional right) – the suspended students have changed their religion, should that lead them out of the school? Should exercising the constitutional right to change religion amount to automatic carry overs and extra-years? Frankly, making attendance of students compulsory and mandatory at a ‘Youth Alive’ Easter program is a breach of this fundamental right.

Section 38(2) of the Constitution goes further by providing thus: “No person attending any place of education SHALL BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OR TO TAKE PART IN OR ATTEND ANY RELIGIOUS CEREMONY OR OBSERVANCE, if such instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a RELIGION OTHER THAN HIS OWN or religion not approved by his parent or guardian.” (Emphasis supplied by me).

The above provision has expressly precluded any institution from imposing religious instructions on students for any reason whatsoever. However, there are two main clauses that need to be clarified.

They are:

(1) Where the religious instruction relate to a religion other than his own OR (not AND)

(2) Where the religion is not approved by his parent or guardian.

Thus, if the school religion is approved by the parent of the students, it will amount to a lawful instruction. And where the instruction is in consonance with the plaintiff’s religion, it is legally binding.

After all said however, in my humble view, the former relates to where the person relying on the provision is an aduItand is deemed fit under law to make decisions of his own without any interference from anybody including the parent or guardian. And the latter will be applicable where the person relying on the section is still an infant under the law and is incapable of making some decisions without the parents’ or guardians’ consent. And that’s why the drafters of the Constitution were careful in making use of OR instead of AND. You either fall within a category. I stand to be corrected!

There is need to categorically state that an aduItdoes not necessarily need the approval of parents for the religion he wishes to practice. More importantly, the students, presumed to be adults, have been granted the right under section 38(1) of the constitution to change their beliefs and religion without the approval of or from anyone. Thus, where some of the students have exercised their constitutional right to change their beliefs, it will be unconstitutional and very violating to force the students of the institution to attend religious functions other than theirs. For the constitution has provided in clear terms that no student shall be compelled to attend religious function or ceremony where such instruction or ceremony relates to a religion other than his own. And since most of them are adults, the alternative (2) of “parents’ religion or consent” can be do away with and inapplicable to this very serious matter.

Since it has been established that the student has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religious, it will also be very unlawful for an institution to compel students to be in the midst of others for religious purpose. Apart from the fact that section 38(1) has vested on the students the right worship alone or in the midst of others, making it an imperative for the student to be in attendance has also violated the students’ right to peaceful assembly guaranteed under section 40 of the 1999 Constitution. It provides (in part) thus: “Every person shall be entitled to assemble freely and associate with other persons, and in particular he may form or belong to any political party, trade union or any other association for the protection of his interest”. See the celebrated case of AGBAI v. OKAGBUE (1991) 7 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 204) 391 and the provision of Article 10 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act.

Additionally, one of the students was reported by Punch to have said this: “They stopped me from sitting for a paper last week because I did not go for a service and I don’t know if I will be allowed in today either.” This statement has the effect that the student was not in fact aware of his suspension until he got to the exam hall. Since the students appear not to have been summoned before suspended, it is therefore safe to submit that the place of fair hearing is missing!

Fair hearing is a very sacrosanct provision of the Constitution that relates to administration of justice. Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution provided for the right to fair hearing or trial. Since the students are not summoned and interrogated formally before suspension, it will be trite to submit that this fundamental right has also been violated. It is a cardinal principle of Natural Justice that “nemo judex in causa sua”; no one must be a judge in his own cause. But here, the management of the Covenant University has assumed the role of the complainant and the judge which is against the above principle. The school authority has also failed to hear from the other side before meting out punishment since it is the law that “audi alteram partem” – both sides must be heard in determining cases.

Commenting on the sacrosanct nature of fair hearing, in OMOKHODION V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND 6 OTHERS (2006) All FWLR 1, the court observed that a hearing can only be fair when all of the parties involved are heard. And so, without fair hearing or trial, the principles of Natural Justice, highlighted above, are out rightly abandoned and violated. See GARBA V. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUDURI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt 18) 550, OTAPO V. SUNMONU (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 58) 587, KOTOYE V. CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA AND OTHERS (1989) 1 NWLR (Pt. 98) 419

Having established the grave violations of the authority of the said school, it will be instructive to assert that the school should as a matter of urgency withdraw the suspension in order to promote rule of law in this country for the truth is that suspension as punishment in this kind of situation is too harsh a decision. Saying it is the height of cruelty and illegality is an understatement.

Relying on the above legal authorities and provisions, the school is therefore enjoined to recall the students and reinstate them and thereafter offer them public apology with immediate effect. Unconstitutionality shouldn’t be celebrated and overlooked in this country. We have laws in Nigeria which are above all of us and as such all citizens and authorities must abide by it, whatever the state of our temper.

Remember, this piece is not written to promote insubordination or indiscipline but to ensure justice is done to the poor students.

God bless Nigeria.

Source: http://www.opinions.ng/illegality-covenant-university-students-suspension-school-management/

stop quoting law like a false prophet. Even though i'm not a fan of the ridiculous suspension spree. the law is the law
section 38(3) states that
'No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any place of education maintained wholly by that community or denomination.'
CU has the constitutional right to provide religious instruction for its pupil of the Canaan land community in which CU students are a part of. since they signed up for it with and are aware of what they are to face.
why should you after sleeping on your right com back and cry foul.

maclatunji:


Certain rules are ultra vires and of no effect ab initio. Signing them does not make them valid.

Bros read and analyze section 38(3) of the constitution

doovers:


stop quoting law like a false prophet. Even though i'm not a fan of the ridiculous suspension spree. the law is the law
section 38(3) states that
'No religious community or denomination shall be prevented from providing religious instruction for pupils of that community or denomination in any place of education maintained wholly by that community or denomination.'
CU has the constitutional right to provide religious instruction for its pupil of the Canaan land community in which CU students are a part of. since they signed up for it with and are aware of what they are to face.
why should you after sleeping on your right com back and cry foul.

An Easter programme is not crucial to your faith as a Christian. On that score you will fail woefully if the students go to court.

Afrokan:

Religious freedom is guarantee by the Nigerian constitution.
From what you are saying, If CU puts up a death sentence for missing mass then they are free to behead the students.

It's not by force to be student of CU.

abouqi:


Illegality
A university that has been in existence for how many years?
Nigerian constitution to a school's rules n regulations that were used to set it up?
These boys are everywhere God!

The fact that a thief has not been caught or arraigned does not mean his acts of stealing is legal. That CU has never been challenged does not make their regulation or acts arising from same legal.
The constitution is Supreme and it's provisions shall have binding force on all authorities and persons (including CU) throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution shall to the extent of its inconsistency be void. In fact, such inconsistent law is a nullity even if it was made before the constitution.

divinelove:


What nonsense are you writing about when u choose to study at covenant uni u have chosen to abide by their rules and regulations. Y didn't d demonic students attend d compulsory church program in the first place

So not attending a church program makes them "demonic"? I weep for Nigeria.

:Du

maclatunji:


An Easter programme is not crucial to your faith as a Christian. On that score you will fail woefully if the students go to court.

I don't get what you're saying. the premise of my position is on that section. it makes the act of the school not illegal

uzolexis:


The right to religious freedom is being violated. You know there are different sects of Christianity right?? They are entitled to practise their religion in their own way again as long as they are not violating any laws, if they decide they don't want to pray at that time or the way the church/school practises Christianity is contrary to theirs they should not be punished for that. Remember, the constitution is against punishment for someone exercising their fundamental human right......there, case closed.

You are applying the Freedom of Religion wrongly as you are confusing "Practice" with "Religion". Pentecostal, Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Winners, Christ Embassy or Redeemed are all the SAME religion, or aren't they?

I'd suggest you read the constitution and see what it actually defines what constitutes a violation of the religious freedom.

doovers:
:Du
I don't get what you're saying. the premise of my position is on that section. it makes the act of the school not illegal

My dear stop analysing nonsense from that section... go through the citations the op gave. I called 5 senior lawyers to seek their opinions, it was the same... people that have practised law for over 20 years said it. What CU did is illegal ogbeni which law school you attend??
so if someone is attending seventh day Adventist(Saturday church) they must attend Sunday AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS?? Or like some denominations that don't celebrate Christmas nor Easter, why will such attend an Easter programme but they are Christians. The constitution also gives freedom to practice their beliefs... that section you quoted was mentioned by one of the lawyers casually and he said it only applies in extreme cases like vandalism and some others not cases like missing Easter retreat.

doovers:
:Du
I don't get what you're saying. the premise of my position is on that section. it makes the act of the school not illegal

The section you quoted implies that a religious school can teach religion, it does not say the students must attend every religious programme organized by the school outside their academic work.


A university student can only be suspended based on academics or conduct relating to criminality not attendance of a contrived religious event.

It is not even fundamental to being a Christian. Where in the Bible does it say you must attend Easter event?

Akainzo:


You are applying the Freedom of Religion wrongly as you are confusing "Practice" with "Religion". Pentecostal, Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, Baptist, Winners, Christ Embassy or Redeemed are all the SAME religion, or aren't they?

I'd suggest you read the constitution and see what it actually defines what constitutes a violation of the religious freedom.

The people I quoted below explained better. CU has no right to punish them for not attending a church program even if they are Christians.

Lancelott:
This is a simple matter.
The op cited cases with references but the problem with some Nigerians is over sabi... read through his cases.
From his post, he made a sound argument but everyone is claiming to know the law more than lawyers.
Thirdly CU has no right to enforce a one year suspension for such IT IS A BREACH OF THEIR BASIC FUNDAMENTAL HR. lemme explain. For those shouting they signed an agreement ab initio attesting to be Christians, do you know there are different sects even in Christianity?? meaning different beliefs. Forcing people to attend all your church programmes is tantamount to FORCEFUL conversion hence the breach. It is called extremism.
CU is NOT a faith based institution, it is a conventional institution as it offers conventional degrees not otherwise...
From the above point, note there is a difference between a rule and a law...CU has rules which is the equivalent of an agreement subject to our laws (Constitution​)
Please don't argue the law with lawyers especially those that have given citations. Take time to read those cases he listed.
If they go to court they will win. it might take time but they will win and the school will pay millions in damages individually if they win...

Lancelott:
My dear stop analysing nonsense from that section... go through the citations the op gave. I called 5 senior lawyers to seek their opinions, it was the same... people that have practised law for over 20 years said it. What CU did is illegal ogbeni which law school you attend??
so if someone is attending seventh day Adventist(Saturday church) they must attend Sunday AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS?? Or like some denominations that don't celebrate Christmas nor Easter, why will such attend an Easter programme but they are Christians. The constitution also gives freedom to practice their belief

uzolexis:


The people I quoted below explained better. CU has no right to punish them for not attending a church program even if they are Christians.

You know one fallacy that keeps ringing hollow: citing senior lawyers with decades of experiences, such means nothing -ZILCH!

Note that at EVERY single case decided by the Supreme Court, one senior lawyer with such decades of experience is told, YOU ARE WRONG. Simple.

I asked you again, which of their rights has been denied? They are clearly practicing Christians who went into an agreement knowing the rules ab initio and broke those rules and were duly suspended.

For me, they could sue for wrongly suspension, demand compensation for loss of time or money due to failure to write exams BUT to sue on fundamental right to religion would be a waste of time and resources.

As always until it is tested in court, no position for or against can be determined to be the correct one.

Lancelott:
It's just painful... members are defending their church instead of the truth. If someone is attending seventh day adventist that worship on Saturdays, do you force them to church on Sundays? is that not a breach of rights?
Imagine you don't celebrate Easter, will you attend Easter retreat? let's be factual

Let me give you this hypothetical situation: You check into an hotel which clearly stated it is a Non-Smoking facility and you signed at the reception that you will not smoke. You however were caught smoking and thrown out.

Would you be suing to enforce your fundamental rights of choice?

You agreed, with no compulsion, to apply to study at the university, therefore "Take its takes, and offer its offers".

Akainzo:


You know one fallacy that keeps ringing hollow: citing senior lawyers with decades of experiences, such means nothing -ZILCH!

Note that at EVERY single case decided by the Supreme Court, one senior lawyer with such decades of experience is told, YOU ARE WRONG. Simple.

I asked you again, which of their rights has been denied? They are clearly practicing Christians who went into an agreement knowing the rules ab initio and broke those rules and were duly suspended.

For me, they could sue for wrongly suspension, demand compensation for loss of time or money due to failure to write exams BUT to sue on fundamental right to religion would be a waste of time and resources.

As always until it is tested in court, no position for or against can be determined to be the correct one.

Is it listed that you must attend all church programmes I ask again, if you are a member of seventh day Adventist or deeper life I think that does not celebrate Easter, so you'll compulsorily attend Easter programmes knowing fully well its against your belief. Contracts have what you call clauses my dear. Don't argue based on the principles of the church, CU is recognized as a separate entity trust and as such is billed that way. They cannot impose their beliefs of the church on members of other churches. So if they suck human blood on Wednesdays, that means you'll join them because you signed up for the tenements of a school and not a sect... look at the case of courtouise and Chelsea. when they loaned him to athletico, they signed an agreement that he won't play against Chelsea but he did..do you know why?? because the football law super cedes their agreement. The constitution provides loop holes for such agreements.