The Federal Minister of Education has no power – oversight functions – to refuse to transmit to Nigeria’s President the Governing Council of the College of Education’s recommendation of candidates for the office of the Provost.
Background
The Sokoto Division of the Court of Appeal, in a May 2024 judgment, held that the Federal Minister of Education lacks the power to refuse to transmit to the President the lists of candidates the Federal College of Education’s Governing Council submitted to it.
Under the Federal College of Education Act, the Minister of Education facilitates correspondence between the Governing Council and the President on appointing the Provost of a College of Education.
In MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS v. MAFARA[1], the education minister unsuccessfully appealed the decision of the Federal High Court on multiple grounds.
The Minister of Education contended that it enjoyed the authority as a Visitor to decline a list of candidates from the Governing Council, Federal College of Education (Technical) Gusau (the “Governing Council”), submitted to the Minister for onward transmission to the President.
Be that as it may, the Governing Council in 2022 transmitted the names of three candidates, including the respondent, Associate Prof. Rabiatu Musa Mafara.
What the Minister Did
However, the Minister refused to transmit the list to the President and appointed Dr. Umar Bello – whose name was not on the list – the acting Provost of the College.
Associate Prof. Mafara, as the plaintiff, successfully challenged the Education Minister’s administrative discretion, and the Federal High Court gave judgment to the plaintiff.
What the Court of Appeal Found
The Court of Appeal considered the parties’ briefs and found that once a Governing Council followed the procedures under section 10 of the Federal College of Education Act after the vacancy in the Provost’s office, the Minister’s role was limited to transmitting the list of candidates to the President.
The Court of Appeal[2] held that the procedure for filing a vacancy in the Provost’s office includes:
- publication of the vacancy in newspapers
- constituted search team’s report
- The joint council and Academic selection Board review the report, and
- a recommendation of 3 candidates is made through the council to the President for consideration.
Above all, the President will appoint one of the three recommended candidates forwarded to the President.
The Appellate Court affirmed that the legal provision is evident in all intent and purpose regarding the procedure from publication to recommendation to the President for appointment.
Furthermore, the Court relied[3] on decided cases where the law was not ambiguous but clear enough and applied the literal rule of interpretation.
Conclusion
Likewise, the Court noted that the Minister could only act on the matter of the candidates’ list with the President’s directive on the grounds of procedural irregularities.
The Court of Appeal’s judgment in MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS v. MAFARA (Supra) laid to rest the public governance tensions between the Minister of Education and the Governing Council of Federal Colleges of Education.
Otherwise, the education minister could act as an emperor in a Constitutional democracy.
SRJ Legal is an education law firm. We complement our education law practice with fintech and commercial dispute (litigation). At the same time, we provide corporate counsel services to schools, education non-profits, alumni associations, regulators, and parent-teacher associations.
[1] (2024) LPELR-62557(CA)
[2] MINISTER OF EDUCATION & ORS V. MAFARA (2024) LPELR-62557(CA)
[3] G.C.M. LTD VS TRAVELLERS PALACE HOTEL (2019) 6 NWLR (pt1669) 507.
