LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — Fair Hearing — Garba v. University of Maiduguri Distinguished on Expulsion Versus Suspension
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
The celebrated case of Garba v. University of Maiduguri is not intended to provide students a licence for unbridled behaviour or to tie the hands of university authorities from temporarily arresting a perceiving evil. It distinguishes between expulsion and suspension.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Pats-Acholonu, JSC, in Esiaga v. University of Calabar & Ors (2004) NLC-521999(SC) at p. 14; Paras B–D.
"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 civilized society to cause ruination to the education institution by their uncouth and display of primitive characterizations. 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 Cain."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
Garba does not prohibit suspension pending investigation. The principle applies to university discipline. The case distinguishes between expulsion (requires hearing) and suspension (interim measure). The rule protects university authority to maintain order. The court will not apply Garba to invalidate reasonable interim suspensions. The principle is well-established.