THE EXPULSION OF MIA KHALIFA BY THE AUTHORITIES OF BABCOCK UNIVERSITY: X-RAYING THE LEGALITY THEREOF.

By Isajini Amos.

The media, like flies that feasts on decaying substances has feasted to its full on the alleged #SEXVIDEO of two students of Babcock university. According to a statement by its Director of Communications, Joshua Suleiman, the young man was also a student before his expulsion in February this year following activities, that were considered anti the values of the christian based institution.

A lot of questions and comments flowing from divergences in emotions have been aroused by this issue. However, I am not writing to sympathize with the victims herein or to share sentiments with anyone. The fulcrum of my ink is to diagnose the Constitutional Legality of the said expulsion.

That a young man and a lady were videotaped having sex is not in dispute.

That the said parties were identified by the authorities of Babcock University as its students is also not in issue.

That the video was in fact done by the victims is not in doubt as a close look so reveals.

What I think is in issue is whether the expulsion was proper ?

The need to respect and jealously protect the sanctity of the sacred rights of students is not in issue. This is so even when such a student is alleged to have been liable for some misconducts. This position was firmly affirmed in the celebrated case of Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) ANLR 149. Particularly at pages 172 of the Judgment, Obaseki, JCS had this to say on the value of a university student to the nation :

"A university student is a priceless asset and he is on the threshold of useful service to the nation...."

I cannot agree less with the revered judicial demon on this point. However, the right of a university student to be protected from the whims and caprices of maladministration, is coextensive with a duty upon him/her to be of noble and good behaviour. A university student owes a duty of care to protect the image and reputation of his institution even after graduation. Where he or she acts otherwise, it is only righteous, that the disciplinary machinery of such institution be called in aid.

A university, we must not forget is a being that lives. It has hands and legs. It has a dignity, a reputation and a business interest that must be protected. Where as in the instant case, the activities of a student brings odium, shame and disrepute to her, she can rightly exercise its powers appropriately under the circumstances.

Every institution, in addition to its express powers, has implied powers to act where necessary. Apart from being a citadel of learning, a university is also a custodian of morals just as the English court in the notable case of Shaw v. DPP affirmed its responsibility to protect societal morals.

Viscount Simonds had this to say :

"In the sphere of criminal law I entertain no doubt that there remains in the Courts of Law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State, and that it is their duty to guard it against attacks which may be the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for. That is the broad head (call it public policy if you wish) within which the present indictment falls. It matters little what label is given to the offending act. To one of your Lordships it may appear an affront to public decency, to another considering that it may succeed in its obvious intention of provoking libidinous desires, it will seem a corruption of public morals. Yet others may deem it aptly described as the creation of a public mischief or the undermining of moral conduct. The same act will not in all ages be regarded in the same way. The law must be related to the changing standards of life, not yielding to every shifting impulse of the popular will but having regard to fundamental
assessments of human values and the purposes of society."

I dare say, that there remain in a university a residual power to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the university and the society at large.

Furthermore, it has been argued by some fellows, that the victims were not given fair hearing. This is a misguided conclusion as due procedure was followed before the said expulsion was decreed as the following statement from the institution's director of Communication discloses :

"His girlfriend in the same video, until the video broke out, [was] a third-year student of accounting of this university. After due process, she was expelled from the university for violation of university rules and regulations,”.

However, assuming but not conceding, that the victim was not heard, the position would still not be different. What fair hearing should be required from circumstances that speaks for itself ? An argument of lack of fair hearing will not find shelter under the case of Garba v. University of Agriculture. The courts have cautioned in the case of Esiaga v. University of Calabar on the need to be cautious in hiding every claim of this nature under Garba's case. A university cannot fold his hands in the face of an activity of a student that threatens its very essence. On this point, the court in Esiaga's case had this to say :

"Are we now to understand that a University should be incapable of enforcing ultimate and extreme disciplinary measures of expulsions where the facts and circumstances of the case demand that it so acts? The celebrated case of Garba v University of Maiduguri (supra) is not intended to be a court given licence and judicial umbrella to provide students of unbridled, recalcitrant and impetuous behaviour in the University system who have no sense of ethics and acceptable level of decency in a civilised society to cause ruination to the education institution by their uncouth and display of primitive characterisations. No it is not. It is equally not intended to tie the hands of the College Authority and debar it from making an effort temporarily to arrest a perceiving evil that is seen rearing its head which if not nipped in the bud might conceivably raise again".

On the strength of the arguments canvassed above, I submit with the greatest legalistic respect, that the expulsion of miss Mia Khalifa for her misconduct is legal and proper. I hold further, that the decision is right because :

#Jurisprudentially, it is in line with the postulation of the Naturalist and Utilitarian schools of thought.

#Legally, the courts in their judicial foresight laid down guidelines in cases such as this.

#Spiritually, it is in line with unseen eternal laws ordering the affairs of men.

#Biblically, the eternal book of moral conducts affirms this as it enjoins parents in to spare not the rod that spoils a child.

#Psychologically, it will help to restore mental confidence in the minds of parents who have their wards in the institution.

This is my humble view.

Lawyers can talk ehn.

Anyway, thank you for your submission

Should she decide to sue, I recommend this able lawyer.

See what many ladies do in the university

https://ntells.com/news/Campus-Life-Marriage-Advice

Please beware of charge and bail lawyers who speak empty babbash and gibberish. The law is sometimes vague contingencies like this but there are always sections of the Constitution to build on
Your arguments won't hold weight in a court of law.

If you had read the ruling on Esiaga vs Unical and Garba vs unimaid
You would know
1 she was outrightly expelled denying her right to fair hearing whereas in the Esiaga vs Unical case he was suspended.
A cardinal principle of this doctrine of fair hearing is that the judge, tribunal or panel must be free from bias. In the case of Okoduwa V. State the Supreme Court described fair hearing in the following languages; “Fair hearing incorporates a trial done in accordance with the rule of natural justice and Natural Justice carries with it the implication that justice should not only be done but must be seen done"
Was this the case section36 subsection 1,2
2 the video was recorded for private viewing which she is at liberty to do see section 35, 36 sub section 8, see also section 37
3 She had committed no crime by law, nothing incriminating was found on her but rather was a primary victims of sexual assault. Their is no legal backup or grounds for any disciplinary action section 36 subsection 12 underline the word defined there.
4 on association with an expelled student see section 40

Forgive my disorganized writing but if I put time to this case I would drain that school like a rat that was electrocuted.
P.s I'm not a lawyer

pocohantas:
Lawyers can talk ehn.

Anyway, thank you for your submission

Should she decide to sue, I recommend this able lawyer.

Lol

fabre4:
Please beware of charge and bail lawyers who speak empty babbash and gibberish. The law is sometimes vague contingencies like this but there are always sections of the Constitution to build on
Your arguments won't hold weight in a court of law.

If you had read the ruling on Esiaga vs Unical and Garba vs unimaid
You would know
1 she was outrightly expelled denying her right to fair hearing whereas in the Esiaga vs Unical case he was suspended.
A cardinal principle of this doctrine of fair hearing is that the judge, tribunal or panel must be free from bias. In the case of Okoduwa V. State the Supreme Court described fair hearing in the following languages; “Fair hearing incorporates a trial done in accordance with the rule of natural justice and Natural Justice carries with it the implication that justice should not only be done but must be seen done"
Was this the case section36 subsection 1,2
2 the video was recorded for private viewing which she is at liberty to do see section 35, 36 sub section 8, see also section 37
3 She had committed no crime by law, nothing incriminating was found on her but rather was a primary victims of sexual assault. Their is no legal backup or grounds for any disciplinary action section 36 subsection 12 underline the word defined there.
4 on association with an expelled student see section 40

Forgive my disorganized writing but if I put time to this case I would drain that school like a rat that was electrocuted.
P.s I'm not a lawyer

I think you missed the point.

The issue is not that she had sex and videotaped it. It is that the video became public knowledge and has caused odium and disrepute to the university

My brothers at Law, have you not noticed that where there is a wrong, there is hue and cry? And have you not seen that it is the Law, that when there is a wrong, bickering must follow?

Many things about Law have been hidden from lawyers.

The Law is Always and Absolute about Good, Right, Balance and Everything Good. The Law quenches all Wrongs, Not Goods, Bad's and Evils.

The reason for the hue and cry is because of the imbalance of the decision of the school in expelling the students.

The school had a right to terminate the relationship with them and the students but what should have been advocated for was for the students to have been withdrawn.

Injustice and wrong of the school's decision lies in the giving of justice in excess of the grievance it has with the students for by their action, they destroyed and punished both the past and future of the students with one swoop in the play of punishing the students.

This is not double jeopardy but triple jeopardy, an overkill!

Dtruthspeaker:
My brothers at Law, have you not noticed that where there is a wrong, there is hue and cry? And have you not seen that it is the Law, that when there is a wrong, bickering must follow?

Many things about Law have been hidden from lawyers.

The Law is Always and Absolute about Good, Right, Balance and Everything Good. The Law quenches all Wrongs, Not Goods, Bad's and Evils.

The reason for the hue and cry is because of the imbalance of the decision of the school in expelling the students.

The school had a right to terminate the relationship with them and the students but what should have been advocated for was for the students to have been withdrawn.

Injustice and wrong of the school's decision lies in the giving of justice in excess of the grievance it has with the students for by their action, they destroyed and punished both the past and future of the students with one swoop in the play of punishing the students.

This is not double jeopardy but triple jeopardy, an overkill!

I am not interested in this moral considerations you are advancing here. I may have to do another post on that but for now, it is the legality or otherwise of the university's action.

The law may be harsh but it still remains the law.

coolxpaul:

I am not interested in this moral considerations you are advancing here. I may have to do another post on that but for now, it is the legality or otherwise of the university's action.

The law may be harsh but it still remains the law.

The Law is the Law and it was never harsh. It is the laws made by men that is partial, selective and outrightly (out of right) unjust, injust and unfair.

Law is Morals which is concerned with Righteousness. Which is why you used the word "righteous" in your statement.

I am simply stating that the legality of the school is limited and not to the full extent as they went.

Do they have a right to expell? Yes
Should they have exercised it? No, Triple jeopardy occasions.

Are there not other remedies that do not occasion the doing of another wrong of their own? There are.

It is the Law, that one wrong must not lead to the doing of another wrong, hence the principle two wrongs do not make a right.

In this case, the justice and right is in the middle.

pocohantas:
Lawyers can talk ehn.

Anyway, thank you for your submission

Should she decide to sue, I recommend this able lawyer.

with this lawyer I see them winning already!! Thanks for recommendation you are such a humanitarian

Very simple, always read terms and condition, agreement document and laws before signing a University acceptance, it varies from schools to schools and if you signed acceptance form without reading it always refer to the schools student handbook and manuals

Governing laws of a school like Leadcity is very linient on students so long you stay off campus, but if you stay within the jurisdiction of the school then you must abide by the governing laws which you signed to abide by,. and if you attest or sign not to do anything to bring disrepute to the name of the instituition please make sure you abide by it because even after graduation your certificate can still be cancelled or withdrawn for a while

..

[s]

solmusdesigns:




Very simple, always read terms and condition, agreement document and laws before signing a University acceptance, it varies from schools to schools and if you signed acceptance form without reading it always refer to the schools student handbook and manuals



..

[/s]

op want me to read dat epistle as Buhari say am

another video of Mia khalifa of Babcock seen here, rated Bleep click on the link below �

https://www.instagram.com/p/B5KuwvABFVn/?igshid=jkurmyaaeaxo

Babcock Students Viral Sextape (Live Video) 18+

https://amebo9ja.com/babcock-students-viral-sextape-live-video-18/

Learned colleague the verdict pass by Babcock is fair and not ambiguous, our university system in Nigeria is not only academics based. It also teaches morals and ethics in which students of higher institution of learning is expected to adhere to strictly.
Personally I am not proud of Miss Mia Khalifa action.
The management of Babcock should temper justice with mercy and water down the verdict from expulsion to suspension.

coolxpaul:
THE EXPULSION OF MIA KHALIFA BY THE AUTHORITIES OF BABCOCK UNIVERSITY: X-RAYING THE LEGALITY THEREOF.

By Isajini Amos.

The media, like flies that feasts on decaying substances has feasted to its full on the alleged #SEXVIDEO of two students of Babcock university. According to a statement by its Director of Communications, Joshua Suleiman, the young man was also a student before his expulsion in February this year following activities, that were considered anti the values of the christian based institution.

A lot of questions and comments flowing from divergences in emotions have been aroused by this issue. However, I am not writing to sympathize with the victims herein or to share sentiments with anyone. The fulcrum of my ink is to diagnose the Constitutional Legality of the said expulsion.

That a young man and a lady were videotaped having sex is not in dispute.

That the said parties were identified by the authorities of Babcock University as its students is also not in issue.

That the video was in fact done by the victims is not in doubt as a close look so reveals.

What I think is in issue is whether the expulsion was proper ?

The need to respect and jealously protect the sanctity of the sacred rights of students is not in issue. This is so even when such a student is alleged to have been liable for some misconducts. This position was firmly affirmed in the celebrated case of Garba v. University of Maiduguri (1986) ANLR 149. Particularly at pages 172 of the Judgment, Obaseki, JCS had this to say on the value of a university student to the nation :

"A university student is a priceless asset and he is on the threshold of useful service to the nation...."

I cannot agree less with the revered judicial demon on this point. However, the right of a university student to be protected from the whims and caprices of maladministration, is coextensive with a duty upon him/her to be of noble and good behaviour. A university student owes a duty of care to protect the image and reputation of his institution even after graduation. Where he or she acts otherwise, it is only righteous, that the disciplinary machinery of such institution be called in aid.

A university, we must not forget is a being that lives. It has hands and legs. It has a dignity, a reputation and a business interest that must be protected. Where as in the instant case, the activities of a student brings odium, shame and disrepute to her, she can rightly exercise its powers appropriately under the circumstances.

Every institution, in addition to its express powers, has implied powers to act where necessary. Apart from being a citadel of learning, a university is also a custodian of morals just as the English court in the notable case of Shaw v. DPP affirmed its responsibility to protect societal morals.

Viscount Simonds had this to say :

"In the sphere of criminal law I entertain no doubt that there remains in the Courts of Law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the State, and that it is their duty to guard it against attacks which may be the more insidious because they are novel and unprepared for. That is the broad head (call it public policy if you wish) within which the present indictment falls. It matters little what label is given to the offending act. To one of your Lordships it may appear an affront to public decency, to another considering that it may succeed in its obvious intention of provoking libidinous desires, it will seem a corruption of public morals. Yet others may deem it aptly described as the creation of a public mischief or the undermining of moral conduct. The same act will not in all ages be regarded in the same way. The law must be related to the changing standards of life, not yielding to every shifting impulse of the popular will but having regard to fundamental
assessments of human values and the purposes of society."

I dare say, that there remain in a university a residual power to conserve not only the safety and order but also the moral welfare of the university and the society at large.

Furthermore, it has been argued by some fellows, that the victims were not given fair hearing. This is a misguided conclusion as due procedure was followed before the said expulsion was decreed as the following statement from the institution's director of Communication discloses :

"His girlfriend in the same video, until the video broke out, [was] a third-year student of accounting of this university. After due process, she was expelled from the university for violation of university rules and regulations,”.

However, assuming but not conceding, that the victim was not heard, the position would still not be different. What fair hearing should be required from circumstances that speaks for itself ? An argument of lack of fair hearing will not find shelter under the case of Garba v. University of Agriculture. The courts have cautioned in the case of Esiaga v. University of Calabar on the need to be cautious in hiding every claim of this nature under Garba's case. A university cannot fold his hands in the face of an activity of a student that threatens its very essence. On this point, the court in Esiaga's case had this to say :

"Are we now to understand that a University should be incapable of enforcing ultimate and extreme disciplinary measures of expulsions where the facts and circumstances of the case demand that it so acts? The celebrated case of Garba v University of Maiduguri (supra) is not intended to be a court given licence and judicial umbrella to provide students of unbridled, recalcitrant and impetuous behaviour in the University system who have no sense of ethics and acceptable level of decency in a civilised society to cause ruination to the education institution by their uncouth and display of primitive characterisations. No it is not. It is equally not intended to tie the hands of the College Authority and debar it from making an effort temporarily to arrest a perceiving evil that is seen rearing its head which if not nipped in the bud might conceivably raise again".

On the strength of the arguments canvassed above, I submit with the greatest legalistic respect, that the expulsion of miss Mia Khalifa for her misconduct is legal and proper. I hold further, that the decision is right because :

#Jurisprudentially, it is in line with the postulation of the Naturalist and Utilitarian schools of thought.

#Legally, the courts in their judicial foresight laid down guidelines in cases such as this.

#Spiritually, it is in line with unseen eternal laws ordering the affairs of men.

#Biblically, the eternal book of moral conducts affirms this as it enjoins parents in to spare not the rod that spoils a child.

#Psychologically, it will help to restore mental confidence in the minds of parents who have their wards in the institution.

This is my humble view.

Your views are not sacrosanct.

I respect your opinion Mr Law Student.
Good legal arguments, and Garba v Unical is a good authority on fair hearing. Shaw v DPP is good too and overall I think you made a strong argument.

Some general Points to note, especially for the law school, public Articles and legal practice.

1. Try to avoid verbosity, particularly ‘big grammars’. It can be distracting and often makes your points difficult to understand.

Simple and short sentences are the most effective way to communicate.

2. Avoid quoting long texts from cases. They can be distracting too - and the reader might just get bored. You do not also want to give the impression that you do not have a voice of your own.

Quotes should normally not be longer than 5 lines. Paraphrase if you must.

And more specifically on the subject.

I don’t think you can discuss the legality of the decision without recourse to the rule-book signed by the student - and which is binding on both parties.

The absence of this, makes your argument generalist.

It’s like saying - an action is legal because a particular case determined that Universities can take actions against erring students, no matter what the rule binding the parties says.

This doesnt mean you are wrong. The whole point is that you cannot validly comment on the validity of an action when no ‘rule/law’ has been violated. See Aoko v Fagbemi.

A reasonable perspective devoid of the emotional brouhaha.

Key points noted;

1) The University is an entity which has its right to protect its image.

2) The graduate owes a duty of care to protect the image of the university even after graduation.

coolxpaul:

I think you missed the point.

The issue is not that she had sex and videotaped it. It is that the video became public knowledge and has caused odium and disrepute to the university

None of which was her fault. She didn't give her consent for the video to be made public. If anything she was the one disgraced. What was her crime?

Nulla poena sine lege (one cannot be punished for doing something that is not prohibited by law)

Venerable612:
I respect your opinion Mr Law Student.
Good legal arguments, and Garba v Unical is a good authority on fair hearing. Shaw v DPP is good too and overall I think you made a strong argument.

Some general Points to note, especially for the law school, public Articles and legal practice.

1. Try to avoid verbosity, particularly ‘big grammars’. It can be distracting and often makes your points difficult to understand.

Simple and short sentences are the most effective way to communicate.

2. Avoid quoting long texts from cases. They can be distracting too - and the reader might just get bored. You do not also want to give the impression that you do not have a voice of your own.

Quotes should normally not be longer than 5 lines. Paraphrase if you must.

And more specifically on the subject.

I don’t think you can discuss the legality of the decision without recourse to the rule-book signed by the student - and which is binding on both parties.

The absence of this, makes your argument generalist.

It’s like saying - an action is legal because a particular case determined that Universities can take actions against erring students, no matter what the rule binding the parties says.

This doesnt mean you are wrong. The whole point is that you cannot validly comment on the validity of an action when no ‘rule/law’ has been violated. See Aoko v Fagbemi.

Thanks for this conclusions. They echo my thoughts also. The school expelling her for hurting their ego without pointing to the crime she committed is miscarriage of Justice.