Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Gabriel Osa
The Federal High Court sitting in Calabar has delivered a decisive judgment against University of Calabar, its former leadership and several officials over the admission and continued retention of students in engineering programmes that lacked full accreditation at the time of their enrolment. The ruling, issued on Wednesday, March 4, culminates a legal battle that has spanned several years and carries significant implications for higher education governance in Nigeria.
The suit, filed as FHC/CA/CS/117/21, was brought before the court by eight former engineering students — widely referred to in public discourse as the “UNICAL 8” — led by plaintiff Idiong Ekpedeme Godwin. The plaintiffs contended that they were admitted into engineering programmes without valid accreditation from the National Universities Commission (NUC), a regulator mandated by law to certify academic programmes before universities can legally recruit students into them.
In his judgment, Justice R. O. Dugbo-Oghoghorie described the university’s conduct as “fraudulent, reckless, and deceitful,” emphasising that no institution should enrol students into programmes without prior approval and that UNICAL owed a legal “duty of care” to disclose the accreditation status of its engineering courses to prospective students. The court acknowledged evidence showing that full accreditation for the programmes in question was only obtained in the 2024/2025 accreditation cycle — several years after the affected students were expected to have completed their studies.
The dispute reportedly originated with regulatory challenges dating back to 2021, when an earlier verification exercise by NUC triggered controversy over the status of UNICAL’s engineering faculty. Online educational resources and student advocacy postings show that groups of engineering students had previously sued the university, claiming that the institution failed to inform them that the programmes were not accredited before they paid fees and began coursework. Those earlier actions sought substantial damages and declarations that the university’s conduct was unlawful, alleging that students were misled and subjected to demotion and course adjustments because of accreditation failures.
In delivering his judgment, Justice Dugbo-Oghoghorie underscored that upholding the integrity of academic approvals is essential to protecting students’ rights and the quality of tertiary education. The court found that prospective students’ reasonable expectation — that their admission would lead to a valid and recognised engineering qualification — was unlawfully frustrated, causing psychological distress and academic stagnation for the plaintiffs. It noted that students invest not only financial resources but also time and career aspirations when they commit to degree programmes.
As a remedy, the court ordered UNICAL to pay the plaintiffs general damages totaling ₦50 million for psychological trauma and the disruption of their academic progression. In addition, special damages amounting to ₦5.247 million were awarded to cover quantifiable financial losses directly linked to the circumstances of their enrolment and delays in programme accreditation. The combined award of approximately ₦55 million reflects the court’s assessment of the harm suffered by the students.
The judgment not only condemns the actions of the institution but also implicitly affirms the statutory framework governing programme accreditation in Nigeria’s tertiary sector. It reinforces that universities must obtain regulatory approval before admitting students into specialised courses, and that failure to do so — especially without clear disclosure to applicants — amounts to a breach of statutory duty and student trust.
Public and student reactions to the ruling have been visible on social media, where screenshots of the court order and discussion around the implications of the judgment have circulated widely. Some commentary emphasised the precedent value of the decision, arguing that it may empower students in other institutions who face similar accreditation issues. Other posts show ongoing concerns within the academic community about how universities manage accreditation challenges and inform prospective applicants.
Several stakeholders in the education sector have long warned that operating programmes without full regulatory approval carries risks to students’ future employment prospects, professional licensing, and academic integrity. Engineering programmes, in particular, require rigorous evaluation by both the National Universities Commission and the Council for the Regulation of Engineering in Nigeria (COREN) before they can lawfully confer recognised qualifications.
Speaking with legal analysts familiar with the case, observers note that the judgment may prompt universities to revisit internal governance practices, especially in how they sequence accreditation applications, disclosure protocols, and student admissions. They argued that the decision could deter institutions from enrolling candidates into programmes with pending accreditation or unclear regulatory status in the future.
Neither UNICAL’s management nor its legal representatives had publicly responded to the judgment as of the latest reports, although enquiries made by news outlets seeking comment from the institution remained unanswered. It is common in such high-stakes cases for affected universities to consider appeals; whether UNICAL will pursue that route remains unclear at this stage.
Legal experts also highlighted that the judgment affirms students’ rights as consumers of educational services. They noted that when universities make representations about their programmes — particularly those that carry professional and regulatory implications — they are bound by legal obligations to ensure those representations are truthful and complete.
Stone Reporters note that while the UNICAL 8 have obtained a measure of redress through the court’s awards, broader questions about the handling of accreditation anomalies by institutions across Nigeria’s university system remain unresolved. The judgment may trigger further review of accreditation enforcement processes by regulators and could influence how similar disputes are resolved in the future.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @StoneReportNew
Add comment
Comments