Dear Editor,
MARCUS’s entry into the arena on the denial of grades to students-at-law (Cox, Marcus and Mustapha) warrants a response, if only to debunk Marcus’s misrepresentation of what is “full registration”. At the University of Guyana, a student becomes eligible for full registration only when he or she has paid the requisite fees. It therefore stands to reason that based, on the information provided by Marcus, one can only conclude that they were not fully registered and not entitled to write examinations, and/or receive results for examinations which they were not entitled to write.

The registration process required three acts by the University: recommendation by the Department, endorsement by the Assistant Dean, and approval by the Assistant Registrar, Admissions. Only after all three of those sequential acts are completed can a student be deemed to be fully registered. The first two acts focus on the academic preconditions for registration. They seek to determine the student’s eligibility for the courses for which he or she proposes to be registered.

The Assistant Registrar confirms the correctness of the recommendation and endorsement, and, upon the determination and payment of the requisite fees, approves the registration. The latter act never occurred in their cases.

Marcus further argues that they were never told that they could not, or should not, have written the examinations which they were clearly not entitled to write, though they had not completed payment and consequentially were not registered.

To write a final examination at UG, one is required to be issued with an examination slip which clearly indicates the examinations which one is entitled to write; and that slip is the basis for entry into the examination. They were never issued such slips.

In addition, the University published, in prominent places and on official notice broads around the campus, the prohibition that “no one who had not completed registration and had not been issued an examination slip should present him or herself for any examination”.

They cannot claim ignorance of these stipulations, since they had all previously completed programmes at the University and would have undertaken and met those requirements umpteen times.

In fact, it is because of their prior attendance at, and graduation from, the University and their non-compliance with the loan repayment schedule that they were being denied access to new loans for new programmes. The bottom line is they did not pay their fees, which they indicated they would have paid by way of loans.

The case of Cox will be used as an actual illustration of what occurred.
Cox is a former government-sponsored student-at-law who failed to graduate from the UWI-UG law programme. He subsequently completed a BA at UG. He then applied and gained entry to read for a degree in Law.

He proposed to pay by loan, and, upon application to the Loan Agency, was granted a loan on condition that he paid monthly installments either for an outstanding loan or the current loan, since he might have passed the statutory age for accessing a loan. He defaulted on that agreement, hence he was not granted a loan in his second year.

He approached the Assistant Registrar, who gave him an extended deadline to pay his fee. He defaulted on that arrangement, and, for the two latter academic years of the programme, never completed registration, including the non-payment of fees.

He, however, in defiance of all of the University’s lawful notifications to all students on the stipulations with regard to being registered as a perquisite to attending examinations, and in the face of his own prior experience and knowledge, proceeded to sit examinations, with the facilitation of officials who were well aware of their wrongdoing.

At the end of the third year, when the Examinations Division refused to release the grades for examinations unauthorizedly/conspiratorially sat, Cox approached me for a resolution to the matter. He was offered advice on a payment arrangement that the University was prepared to entertain, but never responded to the offer. He, however, kept badgering the University for the release of ill-gained grades; and some three years, after the University had closed the case, came forward with a belated letter from Mr Rekha (Finance Secretary) to the effect that the Loan Agency was then prepared to issue loans retroactively.

The University had already determined — and had maintained — that the case was closed.

The circumstances of his colleagues were pretty much the same in principle. Marcus and Mustapha had respectively less and lesser degrees of interaction with the University as they pursued their cases in the political corridors and piggy-backed on Cox’s pursuit, as is the case even now.

I have avoided being judgmental in this missive. I have laid the facts bare, and will continue to rely on the chips falling where they may, be it administratively or juridically. I derive no joy from the foolhardiness of this matter.

VINCENT ALEXANDER
Registrar (rtd)
University of Guyana