The recent resolution by the University of Ibadan Literary and Debating Society (TLDS) on the reassessment of the JAW WAR ’26 semi-final between the Faculties of Law and Education has sparked reactions from the student community.

IndyPress received over 60 responses from students across different faculties and levels. While most respondents criticised the TLDS resolution, some supported the decision or raised questions about the circumstances surrounding the review. Below are selected responses reflecting the range of views received.

For Iyanoluwa, a 200-level student of the Faculty of Agriculture:

“Having the results reviewed with the prior loser winning now paints the judges as incompetent and their decision as a big mouth talk. Jaw War seems like a joke with this resolution. If the Faculty of Law can, then every other hall of residence and faculty that were defeated should get their results reviewed then.”

For Fiyinfoluwa, a student of the Faculty of Education:

“It doesn’t look or sound professional to declare a winner, a loser for a competition that has due processes and was conducted a few weeks ago.

“I believe the judges knew what they heard, saw and picked from the points of the opposing team (Faculty of Education) before declaring them the winner. Moreover, the Faculty of Law is not the first faculty to lose a round. As a matter of fact, the work of the judges is to pick what and who? The best speaking and realistic faculty and of course the faculty with the most outstanding point.

“This is where the unacceptable comes in, DROPPING FACULTY OF EDUCATION from the finals is highly unacceptable. It’s just like a lecturer who sets an exam without instructions and after the exam, went to tell the students they were to answer one question. With due respect, EDUCATION IS GOING NOWHERE, this should be thoroughly reviewed.”

For Aishat Alim, a 100 level student of the Faculty of Education:

“I think the major concern is the change from the initial declaration to the recent resolution. The Faculty of Education was initially declared the winner, so seeing a later resolution state otherwise naturally raises questions about what happened and what informed the change. I believe there should be clear communication explaining the basis for the reversal, because without that clarity, people are bound to form their own conclusions.

“I personally cannot say that the process was biased because I do not have evidence to support that. However, I understand why some people, including students who are not from either faculty, now perceive it that way. The fact that the President is from the Faculty of Law has also contributed to that perception. I believe transparency would go a long way in addressing these concerns.”

Viewing the issue from a wider perspective, Michael (Nexus Mind), a student of the Faculty of Science, said:

“I can never see what I believe is wrong and refuse to speak about it. To be clear, I am not supporting any faculty in this matter. My concern is strictly about the decision-making process and the standard of JAW WAR.

“Declaring Law the winner after an initial result had already been announced raises serious questions. Even if there was a valid ground for appeal or reassessment, I don’t think the appropriate response should simply be to overturn the result and declare another faculty the winner after the competition had concluded.

“We see similar situations in football. If an officiating error is discovered after a match has ended, there are rules governing what can and cannot be changed. Depending on the circumstances, the officials may be reviewed, queried or sanctioned, and measures may be introduced to prevent the same mistake from happening again. The important point is that there must be a clear and consistent procedure for handling errors after results have been declared.

“Otherwise, what precedent does this set for JAW WAR? If every faculty or hall of residence that disagrees with a result can write for reassessment and potentially have an already-declared result overturned, then questions could equally be raised about decisions made in previous rounds.

“Appeals are important, but so are finality, consistency and transparency.

“If this becomes a recurring practice, JAW WAR risks losing the credibility and standard that make the competition respected in the first place.

“This isn’t about Education or any other faculty. It’s about protecting the integrity of the competition.”

Seeing the issue from a contrary perspective, Jamiu, a 300-level student of the Faculty of Law, said:

“Law can call for a review and Education submitted to the reassessment in the first place and they must be bound by it.”

For Mary, a 300-level student of the Faculty of Education:

“It looks like a backdoor resolution. Everyone clearly witnessed the semi-final debate, and even if there were to be a reassessment, it should have been done in a more open way where the whole public gets to see.

“And the result of the resolution is like a slap to the initial judges’ face, and a questioning of their competence.

“And lastly, this resolution is a stain on TLDS. JAW WAR was known to be a standard debate where there’s no biasness, but the results of this resolution prove otherwise.

“Imagine other faculties who lost also came up that they want a reassessment. It’s just a way of saying they don’t trust TLDS’ judgement.

“Competition is a game of chance, I get that no faculty wants to lose, but declaring a winner a loser just because a faculty refused to accept their loss is not fair.”

Given a contrary view, Enoch, a 200-level student from the Faculty of Pharmacy stated that

“I feel your [TLDS] judgment is right. Law deserved to win and not Education, and they have no right questioning your judgment.”

For a Hassanah, a student of the faculty of Veterinary Medicine:

“There shouldn’t be anything like doing the debate or rechecking the results again. The rules are the rules. The laws aren’t even called to bar yet, they are trying to bend the rules, what will happen if they are later called to bar will they change the constitution because of what favors them.”

Aside from the ongoing conversations in the student community relating to these concerns, the Literary and Debating society, faculty of education as well as the Nigerian Universities Education Students’ Association University of Ibadan (NUESA UI) has issued a statement rejecting the resolution made by the organising body.