A university cannot protect the value of its degrees if examination malpractice is treated as a minor offence. But when students are removed from school for two years, the seriousness of the punishment also makes transparency, evidence and due process essential.

The latest disciplinary action by the Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) therefore raises a broader question for Nigerian higher education: can universities enforce academic integrity firmly while still ensuring that disciplinary decisions are demonstrably fair?

The Enugu State University of Science and Technology has suspended three Faculty of Law students for two academic years over examination malpractice.

The suspension took effect on June 25, 2026, and is scheduled to run until June 24, 2028, according to separate memos issued by the university's Registrar, Ambrose Ugwu, and reported by Punch through the News Agency of Nigeria.

The affected students were identified as Isong Ugwu, Gad Nwosu and Roseline Nnamani.

According to the Registrar, Vice-Chancellor Prof. Aloysius-Michaels Okolie, acting on behalf of the University Senate, approved recommendations from the Senate Examinations Malpractice Committee.

The three students were instructed to surrender any university property in their possession to their respective heads of department and leave the campus immediately.

Their sponsors and the National Universities Commission were also said to have been informed.

The university said the students would have to apply for readmission after the suspension expires in June 2028.

In the same disciplinary process, another Faculty of Law student, Goodluck Iwuamadi, was exonerated from an examination-malpractice allegation following the recommendation of the Senate Examinations Malpractice Committee.

That detail is important. The university did not sanction every student accused in the process; at least one student was cleared.

ESUT's decision is not an isolated attempt to impose discipline.

In February 2026, the university warned new students that examination malpractice could result in serious sanctions. The chairman of its Examinations Malpractice Committee specifically told students that bringing a phone into an examination hall could attract a two-year suspension, even if the phone was not used, while impersonation could result in immediate expulsion.

That makes the latest two-year suspension consistent with a disciplinary framework ESUT had already publicly communicated.

There is a reasonable argument for such firmness. Examination malpractice does more than give one student an unfair advantage. It undermines confidence in the examination system and, ultimately, in the qualifications issued by the institution.

That concern becomes particularly important in a Faculty of Law.

A law degree is supposed to demonstrate not merely academic knowledge but also an understanding of rules, professional responsibility and ethical conduct. If a university cannot enforce its own examination regulations in a law faculty, its disciplinary credibility becomes difficult to defend.

Yet the opposite danger also exists.

A two-year suspension represents a substantial interruption to a student's education. It can affect graduation plans, finances, family expectations and future employment opportunities. For that reason, strict punishment should be accompanied by a process that is clear enough to withstand scrutiny.

The exoneration of Goodluck Iwuamadi provides one encouraging indication: an allegation did not automatically result in punishment. The disciplinary committee apparently considered individual cases and recommended different outcomes.

That distinction is crucial.

From the university's perspective, the message is straightforward: academic rules must have consequences.

ESUT has previously described examination malpractice as part of the conduct it intends to eliminate. Its management has publicly promoted a zero-tolerance approach to examination malpractice, alongside broader efforts to strengthen discipline within the institution.

From the perspective of students and their families, however, the issue is more complicated.

A student accused of malpractice is not simply facing an examination penalty. A suspension of two academic years can fundamentally alter an educational trajectory. The fairness of the investigation, the evidence considered and the student's opportunity to respond therefore matter almost as much as the punishment itself.

This is where the latest case offers an important lesson.

The fact that one student was reportedly exonerated suggests that the process was not necessarily based on automatic collective punishment. But the public information available does not provide enough detail about the allegations against the three suspended students to independently assess how the committee reached its conclusions.

That gap matters.

Universities do not build lasting academic integrity merely by announcing severe sanctions. They build it when students believe that the same rules will be applied consistently, regardless of status, faculty or personal connections.

The ESUT case comes against a wider Nigerian struggle with examination malpractice.

Across the country's education system, students face pressure to obtain grades that can determine admission, scholarships, employment and professional opportunities. That pressure has helped sustain demand for cheating, impersonation, unauthorised materials and other forms of examination misconduct.

Universities therefore face a difficult balancing act.

If sanctions are too weak, students may conclude that cheating is worth the risk. If sanctions are severe but disciplinary procedures appear opaque, universities risk replacing one credibility problem with another.

ESUT's own February orientation illustrates how seriously the institution is attempting to address the issue. Students were explicitly warned about examination malpractice before their examinations, while the university's management urged them to follow academic regulations and avoid conduct that could prematurely end their studies.

The university has also previously linked discipline to its broader institutional reform agenda. ESUT Monitor reported in 2024 that the administration of Vice-Chancellor Okolie had adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards cultism, social vices and examination malpractice, with some students investigated, expelled or facing court proceedings.

That suggests the latest suspensions should be viewed as part of an established institutional policy rather than a sudden disciplinary reaction.

The most overlooked part of the latest development may be the student who was cleared.

Goodluck Iwuamadi was reportedly accused of examination malpractice but was exonerated after the Senate Examinations Malpractice Committee reviewed the matter.

That outcome demonstrates why disciplinary systems need room for both punishment and acquittal.

A university committed to academic integrity should not measure success by how many students it suspends. The stronger measure is whether genuine misconduct is identified accurately while students who have not committed an offence are protected from unjust punishment.

In that sense, an effective examination system needs two forms of credibility: students must know that cheating will be punished, while innocent students must know that an accusation alone will not destroy their academic careers.

There is also a professional dimension that should not be ignored.

Law students eventually enter a profession where ethics, evidence, procedure and adherence to rules are central to professional practice. Academic misconduct during legal education is therefore particularly troubling because universities are not merely preparing students to pass examinations; they are preparing future lawyers who may later advise clients, represent people in court and interact with institutions of justice.

But that same professional standard should apply to the university's disciplinary machinery.

If future lawyers are being taught that rules matter, the institution must demonstrate that rules are applied through transparent and defensible procedures.

The standard should therefore be the same on both sides: no tolerance for proven malpractice, but no punishment without a credible disciplinary process.

ESUT's two-year suspension of three law students sends a clear message that examination malpractice carries serious consequences. That message is necessary in a university system where the credibility of academic qualifications remains under constant pressure.

But the lasting value of the decision will depend on more than the severity of the punishment.
The real test is whether ESUT can demonstrate that its examination-malpractice system is consistent enough to deter cheating and fair enough to command the confidence of students, parents and the wider public.

If it can achieve both, the suspensions will represent more than punishment. They will become part of a broader effort to restore the meaning of academic merit. If it cannot, tougher sanctions alone will not solve Nigeria's examination-malpractice problem.