The High Court in Accra has ordered the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) to immediately release the withheld results of over 10,500 WASSCE candidates.
The court ruled that WAEC’s decision to withhold the results without providing exact reasons was unjustified, as the reasons given varied ambiguously between “alleged examination malpractice” and “alleged irregularities.”
Justice Ali Baba Abature, who presided over the case, emphasized that WAEC had invigilators who reported no malpractices or irregularities during the examination.
The court’s decision came after a motion for Mandamus was filed by lawyers representing the affected candidates, led by Martin Kpebu.
The court noted that the continuous withholding of the exam results would hinder the future growth and development of the country, as the affected students are potential leaders and scientists.
WAEC had initially withheld the results of 10,516 candidates, citing alleged examination malpractice or irregularities.
In granting the application, the court considered the interest of the affected students and the potential harm caused by the withholding of their results.
The court’s ruling is a significant victory for the affected candidates and their families, who have been eagerly awaiting the release of their results.
“Upon a careful consideration of the Applicants’ motion, supporting affidavit, and exhibits attached as well as the Respondent’s affidavit in opposition together with the attachments and the Statement of Case filed by Counsel for Applicants, and after hearing the oral submissions of Counsels for both parties, the Application of the Applicants is granted because the Respondent withheld their results without giving them exact reasons why the results were withheld as the reasons ambiguously given varied from ‘alleged examination malpractice’ to ‘alleged irregularities’ contrary to the right of the Applicants to be informed precisely about the offences they committed,” Justice Abature said.
On the issue of the capacity of the Applicants on the non-availability of Power of Attorney from the other 10,516 (10,522) candidates, which is a requirement of Order 2, the Court said, “I am of the opinion that in respect of the circumstances of this case, Order 81 cures that defect especially as the named four (4) Applicants are not said not to be part of the affected students.”
“By reason of the foregoing, therefore, the Application of the Applicants is granted, taking into consideration the interest of the affected students, who are the future leaders, scientists, etc.
“Consequently, the Respondent is to, with immediate effect, release the results of the Applicants for the good of society.
“The continuous withholding of the exam results of the Applicants does not bode well for the future growth and development of the country, especially as the Respondent had invigilators who have not reported any malpractices/irregularities as mentioned by Counsel for Applicants, which was not denied by Counsel for the Respondent,” the Court ruled.
Applicants’ Argument
While moving the Application for Judicial Review of the refusal by WAEC to release the applicants’ results, Counsel prayed that the court compel WAEC to release the results.
“My Lord, it is also the case that some of the Universities have closed their portals and thereby denied Applicants and the 10,516 others the opportunity to apply to those Universities for the current academic year. One notable University that has closed its portal is the University of Ghana.
“Also indeed, KNUST has also closed its portal. My Lord, respectfully, further, bad faith by the Respondent is exhibited in “DA4,” where the Respondent states that ‘the results were withheld due to alleged involvement in examination irregularities’.
“It shows the Respondent’s probating and reprobating. In one instance in exhibit “DA7,” they say it is examination malpractice, and the same is also repeated in the results page. But when they get to exhibit “DA4,” which is a publication to the whole world, the Respondent says in exhibit “DA4” that they were involved in alleged examination irregularities.
“My Lord, when one looks at exhibit “DA2,” the Respondent simply says in page 1 that ‘these are rules and regulations for dealing with cases of irregularities.’ But in that exhibit “DA2,” there is no comprehensive definition of irregularities. Indeed, one only finds examples of irregularities.
“Consequently, it is our submission that this failure to pin Applicants to a specific irregularity is a grave violation of the rights of the Applicants as earlier submitted,” Counsel argued.
Similarly, he argued that “there is no comprehensive definition of malpractice in exhibit ‘DA2.’ So once again, Applicants are left groping in the dark as to exactly what they have done wrong notwithstanding all the protection that Applicants and the 10,516 others have been afforded by the Constitution 1992.
“Counsel added that the right to a fair trial/investigation is inalienable for Applicants; they acquired it at birth, and so that right predates the Constitution 1992.
“That is why the Constitution says those rights are guaranteed. Our point is that these rights cannot be toyed with by the Respondent just like that.
“My Lord, from the quote above, it is clear that the Respondent in this case has acted very unreasonably with the Applicants and the 10,516 others,” Counsel submitted.
WAEC Opposition
Counsel for WAEC vehemently opposed the application and challenged the capacity of the Applicants.
On the issue of capacity, the case of AKOTO II & ORS VS. KAVEGE & ORS settled the position that persons suing in a representative capacity must establish that status and lead evidence of proof in the same.
Counsel said, the list of students does not suffice as proof of authority to institute an action on behalf of these supposed 10,522 students.
And that, the authority is settled that a representative capacity can be proven by way of a power of attorney.
“My Lord, the next ground of our opposition is that the Applicants do not meet the criteria for the grant of an order of mandamus,” Counsel stated.
Counsel said the list of the grounds that must be satisfied for the grant of an order of mandamus include: “The Applicant must show that there was a duty imposed by statute on the Respondent to perform an act, the duty was of a public nature, and that there was a right in the Applicant to enforce the performance of the duty.”
Counsel again said, it further published a notice in the Daily Graphic inviting students who had been allegedly involved in examination malpractice to log onto their website for further details.
“This investigation is an administrative process which is ongoing and takes a bit of time due to the large volumes of students allegedly involved.
“In this matter, investigations and the hearing are pending and hearing do not take a one-dimensional approach, especially when it comes to administrative bodies.
“WAEC has every intention of informing the specific students of specific infractions and hearing them on it before coming to a conclusion and determination of the matter,” Counsel submitted.
Currently, Counsel said, “no results have been cancelled, and WAEC’s invitation for the Applicants in this matter to attend a meeting was not accepted by the Applicants.”
“It has been expressly stated in the rules that where students are alleged to be involved in exam malpractice, those subjects would be withheld.
“We submit that the terms malpractice can be subsumed under examination irregularity and are not different or mutually exclusive.
“We conclude by saying that there is no breach of natural justice, hearing for the affected students is pending, and the integrity of WAEC as a West African Examination body had to be upheld and standards maintained,” Counsel for WAEC argued.
