The recent directive linking the payment of basic dues to eligibility for second-semester examinations in the Department of Communication and Language Arts, is not only deeply concerning but also mirrors the same insensitivity that drives the unpopular hikes in school fees across Nigerian institutions. By insisting that students must present receipts for association dues before being permitted to write examinations, both the department and the Association of Communication and Language Arts Students (ACLAS) have crossed a line that undermines academic rights and stretches leadership authority beyond its legitimate limits.
At the heart of both actions is the commodification of access to education. Whether it is a university management increasing tuition fees or a departmental association tying exam access to dues, the result is the same: students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are placed at a greater risk of academic exclusion.
The argument that dues are meant for association development is not invalid, but when such payments become a condition for sitting exams, a core academic right, it crosses into the territory of coercion and academic intimidation. While student dues are important for the running of associations, tying them to academic access undermines the core purpose of education, especially when students have already paid full tuition to the university.
The essence of paying school fees is to earn the right to participate in classes, engage in learning, and be examined; denying that access over unpaid association dues is both unjust and deeply misplaced.
More concerning is the constitutional silence on such a policy. Article 29, Section A of the ACLAS Constitution states clearly: “Each member of the Association shall pay an annual due to be decided by the Executive and approved by the CLC.” Nowhere does the document link dues to examinations or to any function under the jurisdiction of the department or university. The memo therefore rests on a foundation neither supported by law nor aligned with precedent.
For an Executive Council that publicly claims student welfare as its priority, adopting a directive that threatens academic access without constitution backing only deepens distrust. Welfare cannot be proclaimed and violated in the same breath.
The leadership must also be reminded that they are representatives of students not overseers. Decisions of this magnitude require broad yconsultation, ideally through congress, the highest decision-making body of the association
More worrying is the emerging contradiction within the association’s leadership structure. While the Executive Council has positioned the directive as an instruction from the department, the Communicator’s Legislative Council (CLC) insists it was neither informed nor consulted before the memo was circulated. For a policy with direct consequences on students’ academic access, the absence of legislative awareness showed a breakdown in communication that should concern every stakeholder.
The CLC’s claim raises a fundamental question about procedural integrity. If the department indeed issued the directive, why was the legislative arm, constitutionally empowered to scrutinise executive actions, not briefed? Conversely, if the directive originated from the Executive and was only clothed with the department’s letterhead for legitimacy, then the association faces an even more serious problem: an Executive willing to bypass its own internal governance mechanisms to enforce a policy of this magnitude.
Yet, despite these discrepancies, the Speaker of the Legislative Council has attempted to justify the directive, arguing that it aligns with the need to ensure compliance with dues payment. Such a defence, however, does little to address the larger issue of legitimacy. Justifying a policy that the Council claims it did not ratify only undermines the legislative body’s credibility and blurs the boundaries of its mandate.
The path forward requires consultation, compliance with constitutional provisions and a renewed commitment to student welfare. Anything short of this risks damaging the integrity of both the association and the department.
Academic access lies squarely within the jurisdiction of the department and the university. It is therefore incumbent on the department to disassociate itself from any policy that ties examination eligibility to association dues, or to justify, publicly and transparently, the basis for such an unprecedented requirement. Silence at this moment would be irresponsible. It risks allowing a procedural irregularity to be interpreted as official department policy.
The department must also be mindful of the broader implications of this matter. Universities operate on rules, not assumptions. If students begin to perceive that academic processes can be influenced by association-led directives or informal agreements, it erodes confidence in institutional fairness. The management must therefore reaffirm that examinations can only be governed by established academic regulations, not administrative improvisations or external pressures.
The association and department must therefore revisit this directive. Students should not be forced into a situation where financial contributions to their association determine whether they can participate in examinations for which they have already paid tuition. Leadership must adopt more transparent and innovative strategies for generating revenue without infringing on academic rights.
