By Little Spikes

“The decisions of the judges are final and cannot be reviewed.” — TLDS Constitution

Governing documents exist to maintain order and fairness within an organisation or group. Oftentimes, it is referred to as constitutions; setting out what is right or wrong, what is permitted or prohibited, and the procedures for handling issues within the organisation. Unless amended, the constitution remains the authority on matters concerning the society.

Despite the University of Ibadan Literary and Debating Society having its own constitution, the events that followed the semifinal between the Faculty of Law and the Faculty of Education have raised a question: Who calls the shots? If the constitution does not have the final say and rules can be bent for a category of individuals, then who does? The changes to the decisions made during the competition and how a conclusion was reached in the clash between the Law Faculty and education is a concern worth examining.

Background

On September 16, 2026, the semifinal, held at the Large Lecture Theatre, Faculty of Social Sciences, ended in a tie between the two faculties. The judges then announced an impromptu debate to determine the winner. Representatives of both faculties picked sides through a random draw using folded papers for a tie-breaker debate on the topic, “Youthquake: The Solution to Nigeria’s Political Instability.” The Faculty of Law argued in favour of the motion, while the Faculty of Education argued against it. Each side was given five minutes to prepare for a one-minute delivery.

At the end of the tie-breaker, the Faculty of Education defeated the Faculty of Law with a total score of 84 per cent against the Faculty of Law’s 79.3 per cent. The debate took place on Wednesday, but by Thursday, the Faculty of Law had issued a petition demanding a review of the debate round, particularly the impromptu round organised to break the tie. The petition questioned the procedure adopted for the tie-breaker and presented the grounds upon which the faculty sought a review of the outcome.

In response to the complaints, the Theatre and Literary Arts Society, University of Ibadan (TLDS’UI), issued a statement assuring the student community that the concerns had been noted and were being reviewed. In its words, “We write to assure the Faculty of Law Literary and Debating Society and the public that the concerns raised have been duly noted and are currently undergoing a thorough review.”

This is not the first time a constituency has expressed displeasure with the outcome of a JAW WAR debate. In fact, such disagreements are reportedly among the reasons the JAW WAR rulebook was created. In the 2021 edition, Sultan Bello Hall complained about its loss to Nnamdi Azikiwe Hall and threatened to withdraw from the competition. Other halls also raised concerns about their results. An investigation by IndyPress at the time documented complaints from affected parties and the responses from TLDS’UI.

Following the complaints, TLDS convened an emergency Senate meeting involving the Chief Judge and constituency senators to recalculate the results. The revised calculations changed the winners in several matchups, including those involving Sultan Bello, Alexander Brown and Queen Idia halls.

It is worth noting that The Titijesu administration in 2021 distinguished between reviewing the judges’ decisions and correcting errors in the computation of their scores. He maintained that the judges’ scores themselves were not being reviewed; the problem, according to the administration, was that the calculations had been done incorrectly.

Similarly In 2024, Alexander Brown Hall reportedly withdrew from the competition after losing to Obafemi Awolowo Hall. The hall raised concerns about access to judges’ score sheets, judging standards and timekeeping. That same year, Great Independence Hall reportedly petitioned for a review of a semifinal result, prompting TLDS’ disciplinary committee to halt the quarterfinals while the matter was considered.

It is not out of place to say it is for incident and precedence like this was the rule book created under the Okere Ogona-led administration for the 2023- 2024 academic session. Citing reasons while it was created. He noted that the “handbook was developed after careful reflection on past events and observations of constituency actions that, at times, posed challenges to the smooth running and public image of Jaw War. By codifying these rules, we aim to provide clarity and fairness for all participants and constituencies. It is important to state that this document derives its power and validity from the Constitution of The Literary and Debating Society, University of Ibadan which is supreme.” Yet again, the constitution has the final say and should not be interpreted to suit certain cases.

What Does the Rulebook Say?

Article 3 of the JAW WAR Rulebook covers the appointment of judges and the judging process. It places the responsibility for determining the outcome of each round on a panel of judges. Section 1 provides that all rounds of the competition shall be presided over by impartial judges whose assessments determine the results. Section 2 stipulates that all judges must be presented and ratified by the Senate. Section 4 establishes the number of judges required for each round and provides for standardised score sheets to ensure objective assessments.

Section 5, however, states that “The decisions of the judges are final and cannot be reviewed.” What exactly does this provision mean for a disputed result?

Does it rule out every form of intervention, including the correction of computational errors? Or does it distinguish between challenging a judge’s assessment and correcting an error in the calculation of scores? These are two different things. Disagreeing with a judge’s assessment is not the same as pointing out an arithmetic error. Even so, the rulebook needs to establish who has the authority to correct such errors and the procedure for doing so.

Section 6 also assigns the President a responsibility concerning the Judges’ Conference, which must be held at least a month before the competition begins. The President determines the mode and duration of the conference. Its purpose is to familiarise judges and constituencies with the competition’s judging framework.

The section gives the President authority over the arrangements for the conference but it does not expressly grant the President the power to review judges’ decisions or alter announced results.

Where, then, does the President derive the authority to intervene in a disputed result? Is that power provided for elsewhere in the governing documents, or is it being inferred from the President’s general administrative responsibilities?

The actions of the Akinloye Goodness-led administration have also raised questions about impartiality and consistency. It is arguable if the same decision would have been taken if the faculty involved had been different from that of the President. Nevertheless, could the action taken in this instance become a precedent for subsequent administrations?

These questions deserve consideration, just as faculties must be held to the appropriate procedures when seeking redress. The process through which a decision is reached matters. If the basis for an intervention is unclear, it becomes difficult to address the concerns surrounding it. The question of who calls the shots in JAW WAR remains one that the society must answer.