States and children’s unpaid exam fees

The WAEC Head of Nigeria National Office,  Mr Charles Eguridu, said that the Council was on the verge of bankruptcy due to N4 billion debt owed it by the 19 states in the North.“These state governments owe WAEC in respect of entry fees for students they sponsored for the school certificate examination. Some of the […]

The WAEC Head of Nigeria National Office,  Mr Charles Eguridu, said that the Council was on the verge of bankruptcy due to N4 billion debt owed it by the 19 states in the North.
“These state governments owe WAEC in respect of entry fees for students they sponsored for the school certificate examination. Some of the states owe the Council fees for the 2014 examination. We have written to the states and have received no response. This is threatening the smooth operation of the Council. We therefore want to plead with the affected states to offset the registration fees of their candidates as soon as possible, because we cannot accept responsibility for the results of their candidates not being released along with others”, he said.
A day after the announcement, parents in some states appealed to the Council not to visit the wrongs of the states on the children.  Members of the House of Representatives also noted, in a motion tabled by Mr Linus Okorie, that the decision by WAEC would be catastrophic to the nation’s education sector, and urged the 19 states to save the situation by settling all outstanding debts.
 It is indeed worrisome that the states would make such a pledge on behalf of their citizens and fail to meet their commitments.  But the management of WAEC is should take some of the flak for allowing itself to get into this mess in the first place.  This is because, based on its regulation, those who register for the examination must have paid all the required fees before sitting for them. Even when state governments or whatever entity offers to pay for students they sponsor, the Council should have insisted on the principle of cash and carry. If WAEC had adhered to its own rule, its management would not be lamenting now.  But it’s also a delicate situation, and WAEC must proceed with caution in it.   Using the Council’s regulation as a guide, it would be problematic for it to withhold results of students from debtor-states because non-payment of registration fees is not listed as a ground for withholding results precisely also because there is no provision for candidates to take examination on a credit basis. To forestall a recurrence of this kind of incident, WAEC should always abide by its own rules and not bend them to suit individuals or governments.  There is also no need to protect defaulting states from living up to their obligation. The Council should take steps to publish the names of the defaulting states.
State government must be wary of jeopardizing the academic endeavours of their citizens as this episode is likely to have a long-term effect the longer it persists.
Parents also must not be laidback in their attitude towards the education of their wards, often relying almost exclusively on government and other agencies to assume such responsibility that actually should the parents’. This has always been the primary duty of parents to their children and, and to register them for the examination until, politicians, in bid to curry favour of the people, began to offer to take over the role.  Many states have not been able to pay workers what is rightfully theirs due to dwindling revenue; how then can such governments engage in charity they are not financially prepared to provide?   The states concerned should end their prevarication on the matter and quickly clear all the debts they owe WAEC. The possibility that these debts could cripple WAC’s operation cannot be allowed to materialise.