On The 18-Year-Old Proposed Admission Policy, Did Education Minister Abandon Fettered Discretion?

 Minister of Education, Prof. Tahir Mamman (SAN), recently announced the federal government’s decision to ban students who are under 18 years from sitting for the West African Senior Secondary School Certificate (WASSCE) examination, and the National Examinations Council (NECO). Both are crucial for admission into tertiary institutions. The federal government, according to Mamman (SAN), has instructed WAEC and NECO to enforce the directive that has stirred outrage across the country. Mamman (SAN) had earlier stated that the age limit for any candidate intending to write the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) organised by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) remained 18 years.

Describing the policy as absurd, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar said it is a disincentive to scholarship and “belongs in the stone ages.” Chancellor of Afe Babalola University, Afe Babalola, SAN, argues that it flies in the face of university autonomy. “We do not forge with our own hands the chain that will hamper the development of our gifted children”, Babalola said. “University autonomy includes among other things the discretion to waive the minimum age requirement for students who pass the minimum requirements and possess exceptional academic potential,” as obtainable in several countries.

The Minister of Education has significant authority over the admission policies for tertiary institutions. This is not the first time a minister of education has fettered his discretion on education policy matters. In 2018, a controversial admission policy was put forth, which mandated that all universities adhere to a specific cut-off mark for admissions. This policy aimed to standardize admissions across the country but raised concerns about the flexibility and discretion of individual universities.  When the 2018 admission policy was announced, there was significant backlash from various stakeholders, including educators and students, who argued that the policy did not take into account the diversity of educational backgrounds and abilities across different regions. Critics claimed that this rigid approach could lead to a situation where deserving candidates were denied admission solely based on a standardized score, thus fettering the discretion of universities to make holistic admissions decisions.

Fettering discretion refers to the situation where a public officer restricts or limits their own discretion when making decisions, often by adhering strictly to predetermined guidelines or policies. This can lead to inflexible decision-making that may not consider the unique circumstances of individual cases. Fettering discretion occurs when a public officer, instead of exercising their judgment based on the specifics of a situation, confines their decision-making to a set of rules or criteria, thereby failing to apply their discretion appropriately. This can happen either through explicit policies or implicit practices that bind the officer to a certain course of action. In the context of of 18-year-old admission policy in Nigeria, this can occur when the Education Minister, apply rigid policies or guidelines without allowing for flexibility in decision-making. This can lead to unjust outcomes and is often challenged in court. Unreasonable fettering of discretion by public officers has often resulted in setting outside such policies by the courts.

I am unable to find examples of court cases here in Nigeria on fettering of discretion by a public officer. However, in the UK we have some examples;

Examples with UK Court Cases:

1. R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Venables (1998)

   In this case, the Home Secretary had a policy regarding the minimum length of detention for certain offenders. The court found that the Home Secretary had fettered their discretion by applying a rigid policy without considering the individual circumstances of the case. The ruling emphasized that public officers must consider the specific facts rather than simply following a predetermined guideline.

2. R (on the application of Khatun) v. Newham LBC (2004)

   In this case, the court held that the local authority had fettered its discretion by strictly adhering to a policy on housing allocations. The policy did not permit any flexibility for individual circumstances, which led to an unfair outcome for the applicant. The court emphasized the need for decision-makers to exercise their discretion appropriately and consider individual cases.

3. R (on the application of C) v. Secretary of State for Justice (2015):

   This case involved the application of a policy that restricted the availability of certain types of rehabilitation programs for prisoners. The court found that the Secretary of State had fettered their discretion by not considering the individual needs and circumstances of prisoners when applying the policy, leading to a failure in providing necessary support.

4. R v. London Borough of Barnet (2013):

   In this case, the council’s decision to refuse a planning application was challenged on the grounds that they had fettered their discretion. The council had a policy that limited certain types of developments, and the court found that the council did not adequately consider the merits of the application before rejecting it, thereby failing to exercise their discretion appropriately.

Fettering discretion can undermine the fairness and effectiveness of decision-making in public administration. UK courts have consistently emphasized the importance of allowing public officers to exercise discretion based on the specifics of each case, rather than adhering strictly to rigid policies or guidelines.

The Nigerian Minister of Education’s policy enforcing an 18-year minimum age for university entry may have several negative and positive implications:

1. Delayed Education Pathways: Students who complete secondary education earlier than 18 may face delays in furthering their education, which can extend their time before entering the workforce.
2. Increased Pressure on Secondary Schools: Schools may feel pressured to adjust their curricula and teaching methods to ensure that students meet the age requirement, potentially compromising the quality of secondary education.
3. Inequality Issues: This policy could disproportionately affect students from disadvantaged backgrounds who may not have access to educational resources or support, thereby widening the educational gap.
4. Impact on Gifted Students: Talented students who are academically ready for university may be hindered by age restrictions, leading to frustration and disengagement from the education system.
5. Potential for Increased Dropout Rates: Students who are unable to transition to university due to age may lose motivation and drop out of the educational system entirely.
6. Cultural and Regional Variations: The policy may not take into account cultural differences in education paths, particularly in rural areas where students may mature and complete their education at different rates.
7. International Competitiveness: Restricting entry by age may hinder Nigeria’s ability to compete internationally, as other countries often have more flexible entry requirements based on academic readiness rather than age.
8. Administrative Challenges: Implementing and monitoring adherence to an age policy may require significant administrative resources, diverting attention from other critical educational issues.
9. Academic Readiness: Some students may be academically prepared for university before turning 18. This policy could prevent them from pursuing higher education in a timely manner.
10. Delays in Career Advancement: Students who are ready to enter university but are held back by age restrictions may face delays in their careers, impacting their long-term economic prospects.
11. Educational Inequities: The policy may disproportionately affect students from different socio-economic backgrounds, particularly those who may face barriers to accessing education.
12. Regional Disparities: The policy may not account for regional differences in educational attainment and maturity, potentially disadvantaging students in less developed areas

Arguments For the Policy:

1. Standardization: Establishing a uniform entry age could help standardize the education system and create a more predictable academic environment.
2. Emotional and Social Maturity: An 18-year entry age may ensure that students are more emotionally and socially mature, potentially leading to better academic performance and campus experiences.
3. Alignment with International Norms: Many countries have similar age requirements for university entry, which may help align Nigeria with international standards.

Summary of the UK System;

1. Primary (Ages 4-11): Local authority managed, based on proximity and other factors.
2. Secondary (Ages 11-16) Also local authority managed, with various admission criteria.
3. Further Education (Ages 16-18): Based on academic performance and course requirements.
4. Higher Education (Ages 18+): Based on A-level results and specific university requirements through UCAS.  This system ensures a structured progression from primary to university education in the UK.

The Honourable Minister of Education should first create a similar system in place, before attempting to implement the policy on 18 years old. Hopefully, with the Local Government Autonomy coming soon, the minister can work with the incoming Local Government Chairman to harmonise the policy.  Overall, while the intention behind the policy may be to standardize educational pathways, the implications could hinder access to higher education for many deserving students.  While the policy may have some benefits, its negative implications could outweigh these advantages, particularly given Nigeria’s diverse educational landscape and socio-economic challenges. A more flexible approach that considers both age and academic readiness might be more appropriate for fostering access to higher education in the country. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the policy would depend on its implementation and the context within which it operates.

Conclusion

In summary, while guidelines and policies are important for ensuring consistency and fairness, public officers must still retain the ability to exercise discretion in order to make fair and just decisions. Fettering discretion can lead to outcomes that are not in the best interest of justice or the public good. The appropriateness of the Nigerian Minister of Education’s policy on an 18-year minimum age for university entry can be re-evaluated and not carried out in a hurry. A future date for the commencement of the programme should be agreed by all the stakeholders and relevant structures should first be put in place.

Charles Ude, Esq, is an Abuja-based legal practitioner.

Disclaimer: This article is entirely the opinion of the writer and does not represent the views of The Whistler.