Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Essay Example for Free

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Essay Characters: Huckleberry Finn The protagonist and narrator of the novel. Huck is the thirteen-year-old son of the local drunk of St. Petersburg, Missouri, a town on the Mississippi River. Tom Sawyer Huck’s friend. Tom serves as a foil to Huck: imaginative, dominating, and given to wild plans taken from the plots of adventure novels, Tom is everything that Huck is not. Widow Douglas and Miss Watson Two wealthy sisters who live together in a large house in St. Petersburg and who adopt Huck. Jim One of Miss Watson’s household slaves. Jim is superstitious and occasionally sentimental, but he is also intelligent, practical, and ultimately more of an adult than anyone else in the novel. Pap Huck’s father, the town drunk and ne’er-do-well. Pap is a wreck when he appears at the beginning of the novel, with disgusting, ghostlike white skin and tattered clothes. Plot: The story is all about a young boy named Huck, and a slave named Jim. Huck had faked his death and left town and then met the runaway slave,Jim.The two of them travel on a raft up the Mississippi river and meet and have to overcome many obstacles which bring them closer together as they both learn lessons all the way through to the end. Conflict: When Huck’s dealings with Jim, as Huck must decide whether to turn Jim in, as society demands, or to protect and help his friend instead. Climax: When Huck considers but then decides against writing Miss Watson to tell her the Phelps family is holding Jim, following his conscience rather than the prevailing morality of the day. Instead, Tom and Huck try to free  Jim, and Tom is shot in the leg during the attempt. Denouement: When Aunt Polly arrives at the Phelps farm and correctly identifies Tom and Huck, Tom reveals that Miss Watson died two months earlier and freed Jim in her will.  Ending: When Jim is free, Toms leg is healed, Huck still has his $6,000, and Aunt Sally has offered to adopt him. Lesson learned: I learned that I learned that we should never judge people by their appearances.

Superman vs Batman Essay -- essays papers

Superman vs Batman Look up in the sky. It’s a bird. No, it’s a plane. No, it’s Superman. No. Wait. Maybe it’s the Bat signal. Metropolis and Gotham city each have their own unique super heroes that save them daily from evil villains trying to take over the world. Both superheroes have been quite successful over the years in doing so. Batman and Superman. Two household names that strike fear into any evil doers heart, if they even have one. Batman and Superman are both wonderful superheroes and they each have their own unique abilities. They have always come out on top whenever in a battle with an enemy. Throughout the years, however, one question remains in everyone’s mind that concerns the two. Who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman? Easy answer, Superman. Superman, also known as the â€Å"Man of Steel†, is Metropolis’ savior. He stays undercover as a news correspondent for the Daily Planet, Clark Kent. He was sent to Earth on a meteor by his parents when his home planet was attacked. He was then adopted by a farmer and his wife who found the baby boy in a field. Clark Kent was a simple person. He lived in an apartment and kept to himself and to his work. Whenever people called, Clark Kent would enter a phone booth, rip off his shirt, and fly out as Superman. Superman has the ability to fly, can carry things 10 times his weight, and isn’t easily bruised. He has supersonic hearing, laser vision, and x-ray vision. Superman...

Taj People Philosphy and Star System

The employee at Taj is viewed as an asset and is the real profit centre. He or she is the very reason for our survival. The creation of the Taj People Philosophy displays our commitment to and belief in our people. We want an organisation with a very clear philosophy, where we can treasure people and build from within. * Bernard Martyris. Senior Vice-President, HR, Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) Introduction In March 2001, the Taj Group launched an employee loyalty program called the ‘Special Thanks and Recognition System’ (STARS). STARS was an initiative aimed at motivating employees to transcend their usual duties and responsibilities and have fun during work. This program also acknowledged and rewarded hard working employees who had achieved excellence in their work. The Taj Group had always believed that their employees were their greatest assets and the very reason for the survival of their business. In 2000, to show its commitment to and belief in employees, the Taj Group developed the ‘Taj People Philosophy’ (TPP), which covered all the people practices of the group. TPP considered every aspect of employees’ organisational career planning, right from their induction into the company till their superannuation. TPP offered many benefits to the Taj Group. It helped the company boost the morale of its employees and improve service standards, which in turn resulted in repeat customers for many hotels in the group. The STAR system also led to global recognition of the Taj Group of hotels in 2002 when the group bagged the ‘Hermes Award’ for ‘Best Innovation in Human Resources’ in the global hospitality industry. The Taj People Philosophy Since its establishment, the Taj Group had a people-oriented culture. The group always hired fresh graduates from leading hotel management institutes all over India so that it could shape their attitudes and develop their skills in a way that fitted its needs and culture. The management wanted the new recruits to pursue a long-term career with the group. All new employees were placed in an intensive two-year training program, which familiarised them with the business ethos of the group, the management practices of the organisation, and the working of the cross-functional departments. The employees of the Taj Group were trained in varied fields like sales and marketing, finance, hospitality and service, front office management, food and beverages, projects, HR and more. They also had to take part in various leadership programs, so that they could develop in them a strong, warm and professional work culture. Through these programs, the group was able to assess the future potential of the employees and the training required to further develop their skills. The group offered excellent opportunities to employees both on personal as well as organisational front. In order to achieve ‘Taj standards’, employees were made to undergo a rigorous training program. The group strove hard to standardise to all its processes and evolve a work culture, which appealed to all its employees universally. The group believed that talent management was of utmost importance to develop a sustainable competitive advantage. The group aimed at making the HR function a critical business partner, rather than just a support function. To further show its commitment to and belief in employees, the group created the ‘Taj People Philosophy’ (TPP) covering all people practices of the group. The concept of TPP, developed in 199,was the brainchild of Bernard Martyris, Senior Vice-President, HR, IHCL, and his core team. The concept, originally planned to be called as ‘The Womb to Tomb Approach’, covered all the aspects of an employee’s career, from joining the group until his/her retirement. TPP was based on the key points of the Taj employee charter. Key Points of the Taj Charter Some of the key points of the Taj Charter are given below: * Every employee of the Taj Group would be an important member in the Taj family. * The Taj family would always strive to attract, retain and reward the best talent in the industry. * The Taj family would commit itself to formal communication channels, which would foster transparency. It was developed in line with the Tata Business Excellence Model (TBEM). Explaining the rationale for implementing the philosophy, Martyris said, â€Å"It is to achieve that international benchmarking in hospitality, and HR must fit into it†. According to him, the three major areas of TPP included work systems and processes, learning and development and employee welfare. As part of the TPP, the Taj Group introduced a strong performance management system, called the Balanced Scorecard System (BSS) that linked individual performance with the group’s overall strategy. BSS was based on a model developed by Kalpan and Nortan, and focused on enhancing both individual as well as enterprise performance. BSS measured the performance of employees across all hierarchical levels against a set of predefined targets and identified their variances. Martyris explained, â€Å"We are looking at a matrix form of organisation which cuts across hierarchy. It is important to understand the potential of people†. Therefore, BSS was implemented even at the lowest levels of hierarchy. The BSS included an Employee Satisfaction Tracking System (ESTS), which solved employees’ problems on a quarterly basis. As a part of ESTS, Taj carried out an organisation-wide employee satisfaction survey in mid 2000 of about 9000 employees. According to this survey, the reported satisfaction level was about 75%. The group aimed to increase this level to 90-95% and eventually to 100%. The group also took strong measures to weed out under-performers. The group adopted the 360-degree feedback system to evaluate the performance of all top officials, from the managing director to departmental managers, in which they were evaluated by their immediate subordinates. The 360-degree feedback was followed by personal interviews in individuals to counsel them to overcome their deficiencies. The Taj Group also established Centres of Excellence for its 14,000 employees at five locations in India, including Jaipur, Bangalore, Ernakulam, Chennai and Hyderabad. At these centres, departmental heads in each functional area were trained. These departmental heads later trained their own staff. The training included foundation modules and accreditation programs that familiarised the employees with Taj standards. Apart from adopting stringent measures to improve performance, Taj also recognised and rewarded its best employees across all levels of the organisation. For this purpose, Taj created a unique employee identification tracking and reward program known as STARS. Describing the program, Martyris said, â€Å"It’s an HR initiative aimed at creating an association ‘between our star performers and our brand, the Taj’†. The Star System The STAR system (STARS) was the brainchild of Martyris. The system was developed in accordance with Taj’s core philosophy that ‘happy employees lead to happy customers’. STARS, operative throughout the year (from April to March), was open to all employees across the organisation, at all hierarchical levels. It aimed to identify, recognise and reward those employees who excelled in their work. STARS was actively promoted across the group’s 62 chain of hotels and among its 18,000 employees globally, out of which 15,000 were from India. STARS had five different levels. Though employees did not receive any cash awards, they gained recognition by the levels they attained through the points they accumulated for their acts of kindness or hospitality. ‘Level 1’ was known as the ‘Silver Grade’. To reach this level, employees had to accumulate 120points in three months. To attain ‘Level 2’, known as the ‘Gold Grade’, employees had to accumulate 130 points within three months of attaining the silver grade. To reach ‘Level 3’, called the ‘Platinum Grade’, employees had to accumulate 250 points within sic months of attaining the gold grade. To attain ‘Level 4’, employees had to accumulate 510 or more points, but below 760points, to be a part of the Chief Operating Officer’s club. ‘Level 5’ which was the highest level in STARS, enabled employees to be a part of the MD’s club, if they accumulated 760 or more poi nts. Points were granted to employees on the basis of parameters like integrity, honesty, kindness, respect for customers, environmental awareness, teamwork, coordination, cooperation, excellence in work, new initiatives, trustworthiness, courage, conviction, among others. Suggestions by employees that benefited the organisation fetched them significant points. Such suggestions in each hotel of the Taj Group were examined by the General Manager and training manager of the hotel the employee worked in. the suggestions could also be posted on the Web, which were constantly monitored. Employees could also earn points through appreciation by customers, ‘compliment-a-colleague’ forums and various suggestion schemes. Employees could also get ‘default points’ if the review committee did not give feedback to the employee within two days of his/her offering a suggestion for the betterment of the organisation. In such cases, the employee concerned was awarded ’20 default points’. Hence, in an indirect manner, the system compelled judges of the review committee to give feedback to employees as early as possible. STARS helped employees work together as a team and appreciate fellow employees for their acts of kindness and excellence. It enhanced their motivation levels and led to increased customer satisfaction. In one case, a bellboy in one of the group’s hotel who received an American customer wen out of his way to care for the customer. Noticing that the customer, who had arrived late at night, was suffering from cold, he offered to bring him a doctor. However, the customer refused the boy’s offer. The bellboy then, on his own, offered a glass of warm water mixed with ginger and honey, a traditional Indian home remedy for cough and cold. The customer felt surprised and also happy at the bellboy’s gesture. He left a note of appreciation for him, which added to his existing points. According to the number of points accumulated, employees would receive a star, which could be pinned on to their coat. When a certain number of points were collected, employees received gift hampers, cash vouchers or a vacation in a Taj Hotel of their choice in India. The winners of STARS were felicitated at a function held in Taj, Mumbai. The winners’ photographs were displayed on a big screen at the function and they received awards given by the MD of the Taj Group. This award ceremony significantly boosted their morale. The STARS program seemed to have generated lot of attention among the employees at the Taj Group. During the initial phase, not every hotel seemed to be serious about adopting STARS, but after the first awards ceremony was conducted, every hotel in the group reportedly became very serious about the implementation of STARS. Reportedly, customer satisfaction levels increased significantly after the implementation of STARS. Commenting on the success of STARS, Martyris said, â€Å"After the campaign was launched, a large number of employees have started working together in the true spirit of teams and this helps us value our human capital. There are stars all around us but very often we look only at stars outside the system. Many employees do that extra bit and go that extra mile, out of the way to dazzle the customer satisfaction with employee recognition. Employee recognition is hence, directly linked to customer satisfaction. It is a recognition for the people, of the people and by the people†. STARS was also used by the group as an appraisal system, in addition to its regular appraisal system. The Future The STARS was not only successful as an HR initiative, but it brought many strategic benefits to the group as well. The service standards at all hotels of the group improved significantly because the employees felt that their good work was being acknowledged and appreciated. This resulted in repeat customers for Taj hotels. And because of STARS, the Group won the ‘Hermes Award 2002’ for ‘best innovation in HR’ in the hospitality industry. Analysts felt that the fame and recognition associated with the winning of the Hermes award would place the Taj Group of hotels at the top of the list of the best hotels in the world. The group also received requests for setting up hotels in Paris (France), where the ‘Hermes award’ function took place. The HR practices at the Taj Group attracted several Human Resources and Organisational Behaviour experts world over. In late 2001, Thomas J Delong, a professor of Organisational Behaviour from Harvard Business School (HBS), visited India and interviewed various employees in the Taj Group. After his visit, the Taj Group was â€Å"envisioned as an example of organisational transformation wherein key dimensions of cultural change went into the making of global managers†. Analysts also felt that social responsibility and people-centric programs were the core values of the Taj Group, which were well demonstrated through the ‘Taj People Philosophy’. Martyris said, â€Å"The challenges here lay in retaining the warmth and relationship focus of the Ta and inculcating a system-driven approach to service†. Analysts felt that the Taj Group had been highly successful because of its ability to provide better opportunities and gave greater recognition to its employees, which motivated them to work to the best of their abilities. The Employee Retention Rate (ERR) of the Taj Group was the highest in the hospitality industry because of its employee-oriented initiatives. In spite of the highest ERR, Martyris felt that the retention of talent was Taj’s major challenge. He said, â€Å"Our staff is routinely poached by not just industry competitors but also banks, call centres and others. In 2002, in the placement process at the hotel management institute run by the Taj, more than half of those passing out were hired by non-hospitality companies. While we are happy to see the growth and opportunity for this sector, we also feel there is a need for introspection. Are we offering swift and smooth career paths to our employees? How am I to retain staffers from moving across industries? In late 2002, the Taj Group, to demonstrate its strong belief in employees, announced plans to make further investments in training, development, and career planning and employee welfare. The group also tried to standardise its various processes and develop a common work culture. After winning the Hermes Award in 2002, the group also planned to nominate the BSS for the Hermes Award 2003.

University of Maiduguri with Disciplinary - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2510 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Education Essay Type Cause and effect essay Did you like this example? Garba v.University of Maiduguri with Disciplinary issues in Tertiary Institutions Introduction A watershed moment in the landscape of the nations judicial decisions took place in the last century in the case of Garba v.University of Maiduguri[1] Where the Supreme Court laid down a marker in respect of disciplinary issues in our tertiary institutions, and the limits and otherwise of the powers of institutions to punish erring students. The decision has been the subject of criticism, and it has been subjected to several scrutinies through several cases which has besieged the courts over the years. This article will attempt to reconcile disciplinary issues in the tertiary institution and the ropes that bind the various bodies that can prescribe the required punishment. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "University of Maiduguri with Disciplinary" essay for you Create order Salient points were raised by the Supreme Court in this case on rules of natural justice and the fact that an offence which amounts to a crime punishable by a court was not within the remit of a university disciplinary board to pass punishment, until a court has first done so. The question is would the decision of the Supreme Court be different had the rules of natural justice being observed, and if the proper channel of judicial punishment had be carried out in the first instance. Indeed some commentators[2] had stated that the Supreme Court decision raises concern as to the proper limit of all University disciplinary functions, the rights of an aggrieved student and the proper nature of judicial intervention in the domestic sphere. Is there a limit to the scope of disciplinary issues a tertiary institution can handle vis-ÃÆ'  -vis the enormity of the offence? This article will attempt to proffer answers to these questions. The Facts and principles laid down in Gar ba v.University of Maiduguri The extant law or enabling statute of most Universities have similar provisions that for the discipline of student. Section 18 of the University of Maiduguri Act[3] 1979 is here reproduced. It provides: (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where it appears to the Vice-Chancellor that any student of the University has been guilty of misconduct, the Vice-Chancellor may, without prejudice to any other disciplinary powers conferred on him by statute or regulations, direct- (a) that the student shall not, during such period as may be specified in the direction, participate in such activities of the University, or make use of such facilities of the University, as may be so specified; or (b) that the activities of the student shall, during such period as may be specified in the direction, be restricted in such manner as may be so specified; or (c) that the student be rusticated for such period as may be specified in the directi on; or (d) that the student be expelled from the University. (2) Where a direction is given under subsection (1) (c) or (d) of this section in respect of any student, the student may, within the prescribed period and in the prescribed manner, appeal from the direction to the Council; and where such an appeal is brought, the Council shall, after causing such inquiry to be made in the matter as the Council considers just, either confirm or set aside the direction or modify it in such manner as the Council thinks fit. (3) The fact that an appeal from a direction is brought in pursuance of the last fore- going subsection shall not affect the question of the direction while the appeal is pending. (4) The Vice-Chancellor may delegate his powers under this section to a disciplinary board consisting of such members of the University otherwise than on the ground of misconduct. The facts of the case were that following a violent student demonstration, the appellants, amon g other student were expelled by the respondent University for their alleged involvement. The students left on their trail criminal acts such as assault, theft, robbery, house trespass and arson which are serious offences under the penal code. The Deputy Vice Chancellor who was the chairman of the disciplinary investigative board instituted by the Vice Chancellor set up to investigate the matter was a victim of the student rampage. As a result of this irregularity and the issues of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the university and the panel, the appellants sought to quash their expulsion. They were successful in the High Court, but this was reversed on appeal by the respondent university to the Court of Appeal which held that there had been no denial of fair hearing and that the High Court had no jurisdiction à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“to state who should not be expelled from or admitted to the Universityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and the High Court ought to have referred the matter back to the U niversity for necessary action, following the rules of natural justice. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the main issue was whether the University had jurisdiction to inquire into and impose disciplinary measure for misconduct, which amounted to a crime under the penal code Act. This was answered in the negative. According to Obaseki JSC as he then was, who read the lead judgement, Students in all Universities and institutions of Higher learning are not above the law of the land and where obvious cases of breaches of our criminal and penal laws occur, the authorities of the University are not empowered to treat the matter as an internal affair.[4] The learned jurist relied on section 33(1) and (4) of the 1979 constitution now sections 36(1) and (4) of the 1999 constitution. Which states thus: In the determination of his civil rights and obligations including and question or determination by or against any government or authority or a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such a manner as to secure its independence and impartiality. Whenever a person is charged with a criminal offence he shall, unless the charge is withdrawn, be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or tribunal. In the opinion of it Lordship, since these provisions above were not followed. He concluded that the fundamental right of the appellants has been violated by their being punished for criminal offence without a preceding trial and a conviction by a court.[5] Disciplinary Issues and present state of affairs The opinion of the Supreme Court is that offences against the laws of the land fall outside the jurisdiction of the visitor and Vice Chancellor. Juxtaposing this position with several disciplinary issues within the tertiary institution, is that majority of the disciplinary issues which could includes cultism[6], examination malpractice[7], personation[8], and so on are crimes against the law of the land and punishable by a court. It therefore means that tertiary institutions would embark on unending court cases before they could punish an erring student should the internal m echanism of punishment outlined in their enabling statute not adhered to. On this Ukhuegbe[9] states that the: The exclusion of criminal matters from the disciplinary jurisdiction is very injurious to the administrative process. Ultimately, it will render the system completely ineffective since many varieties of misconduct fall within the spectrum of the criminal law The decision of the Supreme Court have given room for student to proceed to the courts at the sight of any issues with their parent school which in some instances has resulted in needless judicial exercise. In University of Ilorin v. Oluwadare[10] the respondent was involved in examination malpractice, and he was subsequently expelled in pursuance to the enabling laws that established the University to set up a Student Disciplinary Committee (SDC) to try such offences. The respondent had the option of appealing to the University Governing Council. However he did not await the outcome of the internal appeal, but instead proceeded to the Federal High Court for the enforcement of his fundamental rights. The respondent contended that the SDC lacked the power to deal with examination misconduct which is criminal in nature and that the respondent was not afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. On the other hand, the Appellants contended at the trial that an act of examination misconduct is a misconduct that can be dealt with by the Appellants under the University of Ilorin Act, Cap. 455 Laws of the Federation 1990 and that the Respondent was given a fair hearing while the steps taken by the Respondent in rushing to Court, after he had appealed to the Governing Council, was indeed premature and constituted an abuse of judicial process and also runs counter to the relevant provisions of Unilorin Act, Cap. 455, which allows appeal from the decision of the SDC. The court of first instance and the Court of Appeal upheld the argument of the respondent student. On further appeal t o the Supreme Court, Umaru Kalgo JSC who delivered the lead judgement by dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the case was wrongly commenced at the trial court which therefore robbed it of jurisdiction to entertain the case. He stated thus: In this appeal the claims are partly for wrongful dismissal or termination of appointment and partly for breach of fundamental right. . .the principal claim being wrongful termination of appointment, which ought to have been commenced by a writ of summons, which was not then all the claims, principal and subsidiary which flow directly from it, are incompetent and therefore ought to be struck out. The Respondent was thereby jumping the gun, as his case being a challenge to his expulsion as a student from the 1st Appellantà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s institution, is not one of those claims/reliefs envisaged by the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rules. The right to studentship not being among the rights guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution, the only appropriate method by which the Respondent could have challenged his expulsion was for him to have commenced the action with a Writ of Summons. When an application is brought under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 1979, a condition precedent to the exercise of the Courtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s jurisdiction is that the enforcement of fundamental rights or the security of the enforcement thereof should be the main claim and not an accessory claim. This case was a needless judicial exercise which ought not to have gotten to the courts in the first instance if the internal resolution mechanism of the school has been observed by the erring student. The Shortcomings of the Doctrine Apart from the known fact that frivolous cases have besieged the court as a result of the doctrine, like the case above, it has been submitted that the doctrine is difficult to reconcile with the administrative process of the University and it has in fact created more problems that it sets to solve.[11] The first problem it creates is that the University authority can only discipline student after a courtà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s pronouncement where the issue touches and concerns crime. This will in turn create an unnecessary legalism into the administrative process of the University.[12] According to Professor Hart To turn every hearing of every disciplinary charge into a formal public trial would be, at best, time wasting and at worst, might d amage young menà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s careers, and might sharpened and harden what has been a generally mild and even friendly attitude to those faced with disciplinary charges[13] Another inherent issues with the doctrine is that there was no distinction of cases in respect of the nature and severity of a crime neither did it answer the question as to what happens if the charge was struck out for nolle prosequi especially where there is an unwillingness on the part of the State to prosecute.[14] Another issue that was not clarified was that what happens to a student when a case is in court. Can such a student retain its studentship? To avoid a situation where the status of such student is elevated to realms that will result to internal disturbance, he cannot remain a student of that institution pending the determination of such case. It is advisable that he is suspended not as a punishment for his offence, but as a holding operation.[15] Possible Exceptions to the Doctrine Section 6 of the Studentsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ Union Activities (Control and Regulation) Act[16] provides that The provisions of any enactment, law or instrument relating to any matter to which this Act applies or relating to the admission or disciplinary control of a student in any educational institution affected by this Act, shall have effect subject to this Act. According to Okonkwo[17] any determination of the courts to make an incursion in light of the Garbaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s case will be dampened by section 6 above. The Supreme Court also went further rather persuasively in the dictum of Oputa JSC as he then was in Garbaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s case that in extreme cases, there will an exception to this rule, where a student were to slap the Vice Chancellor, the effect of Section 36 of the 1999 constitution may give way. This position was supported in the cases of R. v. Senate of University of Ashton ex. Roffey[18] and Gylnn v. Keele University[19] where because of the ir peculiar circumstances, fair hearing or the principles of natural justice were dispensed with. Conclusions The Garbaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s case creates a divide in disciplinary issues in the tertiary institutions. Where would the line be drawn in respect of all disciplinary cases especially when it is clear that most if not all the misconduct are offences within the Criminal Code and Penal Code Act? And the courts in such instances must first pass judgement. The proper way to move away from the logjam created by this situation is for the Supreme Court to revisit the case according to Coker JSC[20] Also, according to Uwais JSC[21]Universities should be permitted to deal domestically with minor criminal matters. Ultimately, the last remit lies with the National Assembly through the National Universities Commission to see to it that a law is enacted that will confer full powers on the Vice Chancellor or Rector as the case may be to deal with all categories of disciplinary issu es which might occur within an institution. [1] (1986) 1 NWLR (pt. 18) 500 [2] A. Akinrele, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Domestic Forum of a University- An Inviolable Sanctuary?à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1986) 1 LPR 28 [3] [4] At p. 576 [5] Supra Note 5 [6] Section 63 of the Criminal Code Act provides for seven years in imprisonment for any person who manages or assist in the management of an unlawful society. [7] Section 1 of the Examination Malpractices Act provides for punishment ranging from fines and three years imprisonment for offenders [8] Section 3 of the same Act punishes impersonation by fines and prison terms between three to four years. [9] S. O. Ukhuegbe, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Public Law and the Disciplinary Powers of Universities in Nigeriaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1993)4 UBSLJ 16 [10] (2006) https://www.nigeria-law.org/University%20of%20Ilorin%20v%20Idowu%20Oluwadare.htm accessed 14th January, 2014 [11] F. I. Oshodin, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Garba v. University of Maiduguri revisitedà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1998) LAWSA J. UNIB EN Vol. 7, 14 [12] Supra Note 11 [13] J.W. Bridge à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Keeping Peace in Universitiesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1970) 86 LQR at p. 500 quoted in Supra Note 11 pg. 14 [14] C O. Okonkwo à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Discipline, Nigerian Universities and the Lawà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Nigeria Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, (1996) 21 [15] Dictum of Lord Denning, MR in Lewis v. Haffer (1978) 1 WLR 1073 [16] LFN, 1990 [17] Supra Note 14, pg 35 [18] (1969) 2 AER 964 [19] (1971) 2 AER 89 [20] Supra Note 1 at p.611 [21] Supra Note 1 at p.608-609