LAWRENCE SELORM AGBEVADI VS WEST AFRICAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL

01. On the 3/07/2023, this application for an order of certiorari, pursuant to Article 141 of the 1992 Constitution and Order 55 of the High Court Civil Procedure Rules was filed, seeking to quash the decision of the Final Award and examinations Appointment Committee of the West African Examination Council (W. A. E. C. ). The deposition of the Applicant who is the NEXT FRIEND of his son[Lawrence] showed that on 20/10/2022, he had reported for his Integrated Science paper for Junior High School Examination.

And that his index/candidate number is 0109052011. In paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 are details of what allegedly transpired in the examination hall, leading to this litigation.

These paragraphs are to the effect that Lawrence Selorm Agbevadzi was found by an external invigilator with a mobile phone in his hand, and was marched by this invigilator to give a statement, having collected the phone from him.

It was contended the statement was taken from the candidate without the presence of his parent or a guardian.

And that the candidate was made to write a statement to the effect that he was caught with a mobile phone in the examination hall.

In addition, these paragraphs cited supra showed that an allegation of internal invigilator being an Agent of Respondent/W. A. E. C. herein was made.

Furthermore, it was stated this local invigilator also gave a statement confirming what the candidate has recorded or said.

In paragraph 7, it was stated the next day which was the last day of examination, the external invigilator returned and handed over the mobile phone seized back to the local invigilator.

Besides the above, the deposition is to the effect that evidence of the candidate’s involvement in violation of examination rules is inadequate and doubtful, yet Respondent cancelled the entire examination result of the candidate without causing an investigation into the ownership of the phone.

The Applicant alleged the local invigilator is indeed the owner of the phone in question.

Further to this, it was alleged it was not the candidate who took the phone into the examination hall and that he was entrapped, therefore he did not voluntarily participate in any examination malpractice.

The fact that the candidate was only fifteen years old was also raised as a defence to the determination made by the Respondent against the candidate.

It was stated on 21/02/2023, solicitors of the Applicant petitioned the Respondent over the issue but it failed to respond.