Dr. Maurice Tabang Bisong V. University of Calabar, Calabar (2016)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ONYEKACHI AJA OTISI, J.C.A.

The Appellant lodged this appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, sitting at Calabar Division, Coram Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae, J. delivered on June 13, 2014 in Suit No. NICN/CA/83/2013, wherein the reliefs sought by the Appellant, as claimant were dismissed with costs of N20,000.00.

The facts leading to this appeal, as discernible from the Record of Appeal are as follows: The Appellant, who was a Lecturer II in the Respondent’s Department of English and Literary Studies, applied for promotion to Lecturer I, upon a Memo sent by the Registrar of the Respondent to all Deans of Faculties, Provosts, Directors of Institutes and Heads of Departments calling for Academic Staff who were due for promotion to submit their works and articles through their respective Heads of Departments for the purpose of the 2012 Assessment and Promotion. The Appellant submitted the required items through his Head of Department.

The Appellant’s Head of Department had prepared a check List, which acknowledged all the items submitted by the Appellant and

1

received by the said Appellant’s Head of Department. The Respondent, through its Vice Chancellor, thereafter consulted a body called “Confidential Academic Verification Associates” (CAVA) to investigate fake journals submitted to the Appointments and Promotions Committee by the Respondent’s academic staff, including the Appellant. The said CAVA concluded its investigation and submitted its Report to the Respondent’s Vice Chancellor. In the said Report, CAVA alleged and concluded that the Appellant submitted eight journals to the Appointment and Promotions Committee for the 2012 Assessment and promotion, and that the Appellant published in eight fake and non-existent foreign journals and plagiarized four out of the eight articles allegedly published by the Appellant. The Appellant was not invited to the sitting of the panel.

The Respondent’s Appointments and Promotions Committee forwarded the CAVA report to the Respondent’s Governing council, which approved same and referred the matter to the Management of the Respondent for disciplinary actions. At this point, and as recommended by the Respondent’s Governing council, the Respondent’s Vice Chancellor

2

constituted a five-man Investigatory Committee headed by Professor Akanimo Essiet to investigate all the cases of suspected fake journals submitted by some academic staff for the 2012 promotion exercise, and to recommend punishment. The Investigatory Committee concluded its investigation and submitted its report to the Vice Chancellor who in turn submitted the said Committee’s Report to the Respondent’s Governing Council. The Committee had recommended the dismissal of the Appellant from the Respondent’s employ, for misconduct of publishing his articles in fake journals and plagiarism. The Appellant was not invited to appear before the said Investigatory Committee. The Appellant’s stand was that the seven journals submitted by him for the 2012 Assessment and Promotion exercise and the articles published in the said journals, contained in the Check List with his Head of Department, were different from the eight journals and articles he was accused of faking and plagiarizing as contained in both the CAVA Report and as contained in the Investigatory committee’s Report.

?The Respondent’s Governing Council wrote to the Appellant a letter, inviting him to

3

appear before its Disciplinary Committee “for further interrogation”, under the assumption that he had already appeared and testified before the Investigatory Committee. The Appellant responded by letter, denying that he had appeared before the Investigatory Committee and pleaded to be allowed to appear before the Committee. The Appellant was thereafter invited to appear before the Respondent’s Council Disciplinary Committee to clarify issues related to some of his journal submissions for promotion.

On 16/01/2013, the Appellant appeared before the Respondent’s Council Disciplinary Committee. The Appellant informed the Council Disciplinary Committee that he had never appeared before the Investigatory Committee and denied that he had faked or plagiarized any journal or article. The Appellant alleged he was not shown a copy of the alleged fake journal or plagiarized article and was not told the titles of the alleged fake journals or plagiarized articles. That he was also not given the opportunity of confronting his accusers or of making any representation as the session ended within three minutes. The Appellant left the Disciplinary Committee

4