As final year students in secondary schools across Nigeria and West Africa prepare for their school leaving examinations, YEJIDE GBENGA-OGUNDARE explores the issue of exam malpractice, acts that can lead students into trouble, as well as what the law says, on offences and penalties.
In few weeks, it will be examination season in Nigeria; the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), Senior School Leaving Certificate Examination (SSCE) as well as the National Examination Council. And as usual, the issue of examination malpractice will rear its ugly head again. Examination malpractice has become a menace that is widespread and every examination season witnesses the emergence of new and ingenious ways of cheating just as examination malpractice has become a problem that pervades the entire educational system in Nigeria
Examination is the process of conducting assessment or evaluation on students or learners in order to evaluate the students’ understanding of knowledge and gaining feedback on knowledge that had been impacted. Indeed, for a student to move from one level to the other, it is a criterion that such a student must be put through specific tests on the knowledge acquired.
Across the world, examination is considered the best tool for an objective assessment and evaluation of what students have achieved after a specific period of learning. But like in other facets of life where moral decadence is fast eroding values and truthfulness, students have also found a way to circumvent the process of examination with the help of parents who also lack values and other adults who allow them get away with wrongdoings.
But all acts that undermine examinations pose a great threat to the validity and reliability of examination results and certificate. And because education is responsible for the moral, skills, attitude and behavioural improvement of the citizenry, every society must hold the education of its citizenry as very important through a well-developed curriculum which the school earnestly impacts on the upbringing of the individual and the society at large.
Laws on malpractice
Examination malpractice which is as old as examination itself undermines this; this is the reason government makes it an aberration and indeed considers it a criminal act with grave penalties. This is also one of the reasons there are various accrediting bodies in place in countries of the world and Nigeria is not an exception.
And this is why there are rules in place for such situations. These rules define what constitutes examination malpractice and the effect of engaging in the act. According to the Examination Malpractice Act (1999), any act of omission or commission by a person who in anticipation of, before, during or after any examination fraudulently secures any unfair advantage for himself or any other person in such a manner that contravenes the rules and regulations to the extent of undermining the validity, reliability, authenticity of the examination and ultimately the integrity of the certificates issued. Again, examination malpractice is commonly defined as a deliberate wrong doing contrary to official examination rules designed to place a candidate at an unfair advantage or disadvantage, is considered to be examination malpractice.
Section 19 of the Examination Malpractice Act 33 of 1999 defines examination as an examination conducted by a body statutorily assigned this role by government i.e. West African Examinations Council, Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board, National Business and Technical Education Board, National Examinations Council and any other body established by the government to conduct examinations.
Sarkin Noma Yahaya Sabo of the Nasarawa State University, Keffi, in a write-up on Law and Examination Malpractice in Nigeria defined examination malpractice as any irregular behavior exhibited by a candidate or anybody charged with the conduct of examination before, during or after the examination that contravenes the rules and regulations governing such examination.
Over the years, there have been pronouncement and diverse measures to curb examination malpractice even during the military era. Such include the promulgation of decree 20 of 1984 by the Federal Government of Nigeria, formation of disciplinary committees by institutions of learning, examination bodies, ministries and establishments in charge of education. Part of Decree 20 of 1984 reads: Any person who fraudulently or with intent to cheat or secure any unfair advantage to himself or any other person or in abuse of his office, produces, sells or buys or otherwise deals with any question paper intended for the examination of persons at any examination or commits any of the offences specified in section j (27) (c) of this decree, shall be guilty of an offence and on conviction be sentenced to 21 years imprisonment.
However, the Examination Malpractice Act 33 of 1999 reversed this decree and stipulated punishment ranging from a fine of N50,000 to N100,000 and imprisonment for a term of 3-4 years with or without option of fine when it became difficult for the appropriate authorities to enforce the old Decree 20.
But in spite of the provisions of the law, examination malpractice has been on the increase due to factors that experts have identified to border mainly on non-implementation of the law. Consequently, in 2013, the Federal Government at her Executive Council meeting of September, approved a proposal to amend the West African Examination Council (WAEC) Act for culprits to spend five (5) years in jail or pay a fine ofN250,000.
But this did not stop the pervasive and alarming trend of examination malpractice which remains a social evil that can damage the society. However, this legal sanction appears to be ineffective as a high number of people still commit Examination Malpractice.
There are various forms of examination offences enumerated in Act 33; cheating at examinations; stealing of question papers; impersonating; disorderliness at examinations; disturbance at examinations; misconduct at examination; obstruction of supervisor in carrying out his duties during examinations; breach of duty during examinations; conspiracy to cheat; aiding and abetting examinees to cheat; and other related offences.
The Act stipulates that for very many offences committed by a person of age of 18 years and above, a fine up to N100,000 or imprisonment of a term up to 3 years or more would be applied. However, Part II (miscellaneous schedule) provides that when the person charged for any of the listed offences above is below the age of 17, he/she shall be dealt with under the provisions of children and young person’s act. If the accused is a school principal, invigilator, supervisor, agent, custodian or employee of an examination body, he/she will be liable to imprisonment of a term of 4 or 5 years without an option of fine, or in any other case, liable to imprisonment of a term of 4 years without option of fine. It is remarkable that any of the listed offences above could be committed by individual or groups.
It has however been argued that the specified offences in the Act reveals that it has not taken care of some of the new forms of examination malpractice especially in terms of test preparation; administration; external assistance; smuggling of foreign materials into the examination hall; copying; substitution of scripts; improper assessment; ghost centres; marking malpractice; forgery of certificates, among others.
Act 33 of 1999 defines each leakage to involve content of the examination or any part thereof being disclosed to candidates prior to time of taking examination. It involves staff of the examination body, test developers and test moderators. Test preparation can be a malpractice if the students have access to the items or questions before taking the paper. Conventional test preparation including practices on parallel type papers or on copies of old papers does not normally qualify as malpractice; it normally involves staff members of examination authorities and school administration.
External assistance involves individuals who are not registered examination candidates but who give unauthorized assistance to registered candidates. This form of malpractice involves invigilators dictating answers, writing answers on the chalkboard, circulating sheets of worked out answers during the course of the examination, or acting as carriers of unauthorized materials into the examination centre.
Smuggling of foreign materials; adjudged to be the most common form of malpractice relates to the bringing of unauthorized materials like textbooks or notebooks into the exam hall usually, only the candidates are involved but they are sometimes aided.
Copying is the reproduction of another candidates work with or without their permission. It usually involves only the candidate but can be facilitated by inadequate spacing between desks and poor test supervision. There are also Ghost Centres which are fictitious examination centres established by corrupt examination officials where candidates can complete the examination with the support of helpers and without supervision; this is like an external assistance, thus an offender under the Act. It is also regarded as act of conspiracy under Section 10 of the Act.
Examination Malpractices Act
The part 1 of this Act is divided into 12 sections; cheating at examination, stealing, etc., of question papers, impersonation, orderliness at examinations, disturbances at examinations, conduct at examinations, obstruction of supervisor, forgery of result slip, breach of duty, conspiracy, aiding, conviction for alternative offence and offences by bodies corporate.
Part 2 is the miscellaneous part that covers issues like trial of children and young persons, jurisdiction, pending proceedings, power of the examination body, power of search, repeal of section 3 (16) and interpretation.
The Act is to create offences relating to examination malpractices and to prescribe penalties for such offences. It has diverse provisions; “a person who, in anticipation of, before or at any examination by any fraudulent trick or device or in abuse of his office or with intent to unjustly enrich himself or any other person procures any question paper produced or intended for use at any examination of persons, whether or not the question paper concerned is proved to be false, not genuine or not related to the examination in question; or
“by any false pretence or with intent to cheat or secure any unfair advantage for himself or any other person, procures from or induces any other person to deliver to himself or another person any question paper intended for use at any examination; or
“by any false pretence or with intent to cheat or unjustly enrich himself or any other person buys, sells, procures or otherwise deals with any question paper intended for use or represented as a genuine question paper in respect of any particular examination; or
“fraudulently or with intent to cheat or secure any unfair advantage for himself or any other person or in abuse of his office, procures, sells, buys or otherwise deals with any question paper intended for the examination of persons at any examination, commits an offence.
“A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this section is liable on conviction- in the case of a person under the age of eighteen years, to a fine of N100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment; in the case of a principal, teacher, an invigilator, a supervisor, an examiner, or an agent or employee of the examination body concerned with the conduct of an examination, to imprisonment for a term of four years without the option of a fine; and in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of three years without the option of a fine.
“Where the person accused of the offence is an employee of an examination body concerned with the conduct of examinations or a head teacher, teacher or other person entrusted with the safety and security of question papers, he shall be proceeded against and punished as provided in this section, notwithstanding that the question paper concerned is proved not to be live, genuine or does not relate to the examination concerned.
“A candidate who, at any examination, by any fraudulent trick or device or with intent to cheat or secure an unfair advantage for himself or any other person, steals or otherwise appropriates or takes a question paper, an answer sheet or a script of any other candidate commits, an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine of N100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment.
“A person who, at an examination- falsely represents himself to be a candidate sitting for the examination; or writes or attempts to write a paper in the name of some other person whether that name is the name of a person living or dead, commits an offence.
“A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this section is liable on conviction- in the case of a person under the age of 18 years, to a fine of N100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment; in the case of a principal, teacher, an invigilator, a supervisor, an examiner, or an agent or employee of the examination body concerned with the conduct of an examination, to imprisonment for a term of 4 years without the option of a fine; and in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of three years without the option of a fine.
“A person who alters or in any other way tampers with a document which has been issued to a candidate in relation to an examination, so that the person is taken to be the candidate, commits an offence and is liable on conviction- in the case of a person under the age of eighteen years, to a fine of N100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment; in the case of a principal, teacher, an invigilator, a supervisor, an examiner, or an agent or employee of the examination body concerned with the conduct of the examination, to imprisonment for a term of four years without the option of a fine; and in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of three years without the option of a fine.”
On orderliness at examinations, it provides that acandidate at an examination who leaves the examination hall or any other place appointed for the examination, and mixes up with any other person with intent to cheat or secure any unfair advantage for himself or any other person in the examination, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding N50,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment and, in addition, the candidate shall not be allowed to re-enter the examination hall or any other place to continue with that examination.
And a person who without lawful excuse, with intent to aid a candidate to cheat or secure any unfair advantage for himself or any other person at the examination, communicates or attempts to communicate to the candidate any information relating to any question paper in the examination; or not being involved in the conduct of the examination, is found in or near the examination hall or any other place appointed for the examination with intent to aid a candidate to cheat or secure an unfair advantage for a candidate at the examination, commits an offence.
A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) of this section is liable on conviction- in the case of a person under the age of eighteen years, to a fine of N100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to both such fine and imprisonment; in the case of a principal, teacher, an invigilator, a supervisor, an examiner, or an agent or employee of the examination body concerned with the conduct of an examination, to imprisonment for a term of four years without the option of a fine; and in any other case, to imprisonment for a term of three years without the option of a fine.
It also made pronouncements on disturbances at examinations, conduct at examinations, obstruction of supervisor, forgery of result slip, breach of duty as well as conspiracy and aiding among other acts considered as a crime under examination malpractice.
However, in spite of the definition of these forms of malpractices and the subsequent prescription of penalties appropriately, it still appears that little has been done to enforce them beyond measures taken internally by examination bodies to check malpractices like withholding and but outright cancellation of results.
READ ALSO: Exam malpractice: WAEC derecognises 13 schools in Kogi
