The recent expulsion of Miss Goddy-Mbakwe Chimamaka Precious from Nnamdi Azikiwe University, UniZik, Awka, has sparked debate over whether the punishment fits the offense.
The 300-level History and International Studies undergraduate was dismissed following her physical assault on Dr. Chukwudi Okoye, a lecturer in the Department of Theatre and Film Studies.
The incident, captured in a viral video, drew widespread angst and condemnation from the public and led to swift disciplinary action by the university.
While no one disputes the inappropriateness of Precious’ actions, the severity of her punishment raises questions about the proportionality of the university’s response.
Did the university miss an opportunity to enforce discipline in a more balanced and rehabilitative manner?
According to reports, the altercation occurred when Dr. Okoye allegedly interrupted Precious while she was recording a video on campus.
Her reaction, which was to physically assault the lecturer by biting him and tearing his shirt—was met with outrage, especially as the video circulated widely on social media.
The Student Disciplinary Committee, SDC, investigated the matter and found her guilty of gross misconduct under Regulation 4 of the university’s Students’ Disciplinary Regulations.
Acting Vice-Chancellor Prof. Bernard Odoh approved the recommendation for expulsion, which was communicated to Precious via a letter from Acting Registrar Mr. Victor I. Modebelu.
The letter explicitly stated that the expulsion was immediate, barring her from university premises and requiring the return of any university property in her possession.
With this decision, Unizik sent a strong message that indiscipline, particularly acts of violence against staff, would not be tolerated.
While disciplinary action was necessary, was expulsion the best course or an overreach? Institutions of higher learning are meant to mold character, correct deviant behavior, and provide students with a second chance to learn from their mistakes. Degrees are awarded based on excellence in character and learning.
However, expulsion, an irreversible and career-altering penalty, should typically be reserved for the gravest offenses, such as endangering lives, persistent criminal behavior, or academic fraud.
In this case, Precious’ actions, though clearly unacceptable, could have been met with alternative sanctions.
Without recourse to the university’s disciplinary guidelines, elsewhere, a temporary suspension, which would have allowed her to reflect on her behavior while sending a strong deterrent message to others, would have sufficed.
In another instance, assigning the student to Community Service within the university could have been an effective way to instill responsibility while allowing her to continue her studies.
The university could have also explored an alternative such as loss of Privileges such as revoking access to certain university benefits—such as scholarships, hostel accommodation, or leadership positions—could have served as an appropriate disciplinary measure.
By immediately opting for expulsion, UniZik may have denied itself an opportunity to rehabilitate the student and teach her a more constructive lesson about accountability and consequences.
A critical issue arising from this case is the consistency of disciplinary measures at UniZik. Have all cases of student misconduct been treated with the same level of severity or this was expeditiously and severely treated because of its viral nature?
Universities have witnessed cases of students engaging in exam malpractice, cultism, and even physical altercations, many of whom received lesser punishments.
Moreover, how does the institution handle cases where lecturers misbehave or violate ethical codes? Reports of sexual harassment and misconduct by university staff are not uncommon in Nigeria, yet there are concerns that students often face harsher consequences than erring lecturers. Fairness in disciplinary measures is essential to maintaining institutional credibility.
Another factor that may have influenced the university’s decision is the role of social media in amplifying the incident. The rapid spread of the video likely pressured the university into taking swift and decisive action to maintain its reputation.
However, disciplinary decisions should be made based on careful deliberation rather than public outrage. The danger of allowing social media narratives to dictate institutional actions is that it can lead to disproportionate punishments designed more for public appeasement than actual justice.
Instead of outright expulsion, UniZik could have adopted a restorative justice approach—one that focuses on accountability, learning, and making amends. A mediated resolution, in which Precious publicly apologized and took part in campus-wide anti-violence advocacy, could have turned the incident into a teaching moment for both students and faculty.
Education is not just about academics but also about character-building. Universities should strive to correct rather than simply discard students who err, especially when the offense, though serious, does not constitute a long-term threat to public safety.
While UniZik was right to discipline Miss Precious for her actions, and respect for lecturers and adherence to campus rules remain fundamental to maintaining order in any academic institution, the decision to expel her outright appears an overkill, especially when other disciplinary options could have served the same purpose without permanently derailing her education.
As institutions seek to enforce discipline, they must also uphold fairness, proportionality, and the rehabilitative role of education. UniZik’s decision may serve as a deterrent, but it also raises the question: Should one mistake define a student’s entire future?
