Minutes of 2nd African Law Deans’ Forum University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, Nigeria June 2013

(Monday 10 June 9:00 – 17:45; Tuesday 11 June 9:00 – 15:30)

Present 1. Abdulqadir Abikan University of Ilorin, Nigeria 2. M.O. Adediran Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria 3. Idowu Adegbite Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria 4. Agu Gabriel Agu Enugu State Univ. of Science & Tech., Nigeria 5. Abdulminii Ahmed Bayero University, Nigeria 6. Ifedayo Akomolede Ekiti State University, Nigeria 7. Joash Amupitan University Jos, Nigeria 8. Y.Y. Bambale Ahmadu Bello University, Nigeria 9. Oluyemisi Bamgbose University of Ibadan, Nigeria 10. Ifeoma Enemo University of Nigeria, Nigeria 11. Enefiok Essien University of Uyo, Nigeria 12. Joy Ngozi Ezeilo University of Nigeria, Nigeria 13. Elizabeth Gachenga Strathmore Law School, Kenya 14. David Jallah University of Liberia, Liberia 15. Pamela Tibihikirra-Kalyegira Uganda Christian University, Uganda 16. Emmanuel Magade University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe 17. Tahir Mamman Nigerian Law School, Nigeria 18. Sarah Banenya-Mugalu Kampala International University, Uganda 19. Uba Sonny Frank Nnabue Imo State University, Nigeria 20. Obiajulu Nnamuchi University of Nigeria, Nigeria 21. D.O. Odeleye University of Abuja, Nigeria 22. Amari Omaka Ebonyi State University, Nigeria 23. Kofi Quashigah University of Ghana, Ghana 24. Barbara Holden-Smith Cornell University, United States 25. David Tom Delta State University, Nigeria 26. Patrick Ugochukwu Abia State University, Nigeria 27. Paul Musili Wambua University of Nairobi, Kenya 28. Francis S.L. Wang Kenneth Wang School of Law, China

1

Report of the second day (11 June 2013) of International Law Schools 2nd African Regional Law Deans’ Conference hosted by the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus @ Nike Lake Resort, Enugu

Conference proceedings commenced at exactly 9:27am.

Session 4: Statement of outcomes of a legal education

The proceedings started with page 25 of the conference program booklet (“booklet”). This page contains statement on the expected outcomes of a legal education.

Resolution: members accepted the points raised at page 25 of the booklet, which are:

1. Knowledge A law graduate should know and understand: i) the core areas of substantive and procedural law; ii) how laws are created, implemented, and changed; and iii) the contextual underpinnings of the operation of law both domestically and globally.

2. Skills A law graduate should be proficient in: i) general academic skills, including critical analysis and reasoning; ii) reading and analytical legal materials; iii) planning, strategizing and complying with legal requirements; and effectively communicating within a legal context, both orally and in writing. 3. Values A law graduate should understand and act in accordance with: i) the professional ethics and values of the jurisdiction; and ii) the fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law.

Session 5: Standards Project

Outline of Inputs of a legal education

At this point, the attendees turned to page 27 and 28 of the booklet. These pages contain the database for legal education. Members are expected to take a summative stand on the points raised in the pages, which are: (a) establish statement of outcomes of a legal education; (b) define template for database of legal education; data collection; analysis of data; and standards development. Overall, the database for legal education is divided into three phases. The three phases were briefly explained to the attendees.

Members made contributions on the points listed at page 27 of the booklet. In the main, the points referred to revolve round: (i) overall country information on the number of law schools – including those accredited and unaccredited, whether public or private, number of students and faculty, full or part time, degrees awarded; (ii) subject areas for a database of

2 legal education by jurisdiction which comprises: regulation, accreditation and oversight. This is further extended to issues relating to the licensing of attorneys; accreditation process; oversight authority and other stakeholders.

One Nigerian participant expressed the view that since it is possible to have both accredited and unaccredited law schools, especially when candidates from an unaccredited law school are capable of doing as well as students from accredited law school, it becomes questionable why in Nigeria law schools are subjected the stringent and uncoordinated requirement of accreditation by the National University Commission (“NUC”) and the Council of Legal Education (“CLE”). Another Nigerian participant countered by saying that accreditation and regulation of law schools are necessary to ensure commonness and similarity of programs amongst law schools in the country. Other participants from other countries agreed that legal education in their countries are regulated and controlled by appropriate regulatory bodies. In addition, issues relating to the conduct and quality of examinations were discussed.

A question was brought up to know how the IALS will ensure that it is consulted when rules and or important decisions are taken by individual member countries. A Nigerian participant reminded the participants that in Nigeria, all the deans of accredited law schools are members of the Council of Legal Education in Nigeria and therefore can use that opportunity to push the case of IALS.

Resolution: It was agreed that the general principle of regulation in relation to the points noted above should be: country specific, objective, transparent, verifiable, and consistently applied with the requirement of submitting the outcome to external and or international peer review.

Admissions/Selection process of law students:

From the contributions and observations of members from different countries, it was clear that there are local differences in admission and selection processes. There is no common standard in all the countries. For instance, while prospective students could be admitted into a law program directly from secondary schools in most African, European and Asian universities, it is not the same in Canada and America, where a prospective student is expected to have graduated from another degree program before being enrolled into a law program.

Also, most countries do give priority or preference to some minorities or group of people considered to be disadvantaged in one form or the other.

Resolution: It was recognized that admissions should be based on established local criteria. It must be objective, transparent, and consistently applied to the extent that the standard followed or adopted shall conform with evolving domestic and international norms.

Evaluation of Students:

Resolution: It was recognized that evaluation could differ from country to country, but members resolved that evaluation should be tied to output and must be objective, transparent and consistently applied.

3

Faculty:

A member raised the question of what standard do we maintain as law schools in recruiting either full-time or part-time faculty. Do we restrict our recruitment to only full-time without adjuncts or part-time? Some Nigerian participants raised the peculiar problem of having lecturers who are on full-time and also engaged in litigation and commercial practice of law, or involved in serious business outside law teaching. They argued that the society allows it and such practice creates problem in achieving quality teaching. Others opposed this view, saying that law teaching cannot be cut off from valued experience gathered from practice that in turn enriches our teaching. Hence, they argue that experience gathered from practice helps lecturers impart real and practical knowledge blended with theory on students.

Resolution: It was resolved that balance should be struck between full-time and part-time, while local standard that must be objective, transparent, consistently applied while recognizing the existence of local standards and needs should guide the recruitment of faculty.

Curriculum:

Resolution: It was resolved that law school curriculum should be comprehensive and flexible; subjected to periodic review to ensure conformity with domestic criteria; and tied to the output of legal education. Thus, a law school curriculum is expected to meet the following standard:

(a) conform with established criteria and policies taking into account the impact of globalization. (b) tied to outcome (c) comprehensive and flexible (d) subject to periodic review

Evaluation of faculty:

Resolution: Whatever the criterion for evaluation is, it must be objective, transparent and consistently applied test. This should incorporate all teaching methodologies which must be subjected to periodic peer evaluation.

Infrastructure:

Resolution: It was resolved that available infrastructure should be sufficient, adequate, physical, technological, and administratively supportive to enable law schools accomplish the outcomes of legal education. It was further resolved that in providing these infrastructure, domestic and international norms should be considered.

Succession/continuity problem facing IALS member schools:

After members had considered the points raised at pages 27 to 28 of the booklet, Dr. Joy Ezeilo raised the issue of succession and continuity problem that could arise when a Dean who supports IALS’ program is removed or changed. Ordinarily, it is expected that the next

4

Dean should take over from where the retiring one stopped, but sometimes a retiring Dean may not do a proper handover or briefing to the in-coming one; and this could negatively affect the participation of such law school in IALS programs.

Resolution: It was resolved that once a Dean of a law school is registered that the entire faculty are automatic members. As a result, IALS should have the email contacts of all faculty from each member school so they could be copied in all mails sent out by IALS. With this the problem that other members are not aware of IALS’ program is resolved.

It was further resolved that all member schools should ensure that their Vice-Chancellors or Presidents are involved in IALS’s programs.

Participants were reminded that the annual due payable by developing countries is $500 but any law school in this category that is unable to make the payment is encouraged to apply for a reduction which could come down to $250.

The Annual Regional Law Deans’ Forum of IALS:

Prof. Wang assured members that financial support will be made available for the annual Africa regional law deans’ forum. Members applauded and thanked him for the good gesture.

Global Deans’ Forum of the IALS:

It was suggested that the global deans’ forum of the IALS should be bi-annual and arranged in a way that it does not conflict with the regional forums and spaced enough to ensure members do not in preference of the global forum of the IALS stay away from the regional forums, especially in developing countries.

Getting North Africans Involved:

Dr. Joy Ezeilo noted that the North Africans are not represented in the IALS. It was resolved that IALS should reach out to them.

Host of Next African Regional IALS Conference:

The East African representatives elected to host the next meeting of IALS. They noted that the IALS’ conference has been held in both West and Southern Africa, therefore it is their turn to host the next meeting. They agreed to communicate us as to which country between Uganda and Kenya will host the next conference.

Vote of Thanks:

All the participants at the conference thanked the University of Nigeria, Nsukka immensely for a well-organised and successful conference.

5