Cox was never wronged by UG

first_imgDear Editor,An article (which appeared in one of the daily newspapers on Sunday, April 23) under the title: “Law student spends years fighting for UG results – intended career quashed, as the University moves to CCJ”,  in which specific mention is made of me, including that “Repeated efforts by this newspaper (KN), to contact Mr Alexander have proven futile.”I find it necessary to comment on the content of that article, for three reasons.I would have commented on the matter if I had been contacted by the media house that carried the article. The failure of their effort to contact me was unfortunate.While my name is highlighted, I wish to clarify that in relating to Mr Clairmonte Cox, I did so on behalf of the University, whose management’s position I would have communicated. As of December 2014, I no longer spoke for, or acted on behalf of, the University. I never took the matter personal, but was, and still am, of the view that Cox was never wronged by the University.The article, whether intentional or not, veils and omits pertinent information thus allowing for the readers to come to ill-informed conclusions.In the article, Cox is quoted as stating “the Ministry of Finance apparently had some hiccups in accurately getting the payment to UG”.  Cox is dishonest in making such a statement. It is a verifiable fact that Cox was granted a loan in the first year on condition that he commenced repayment immediately, on a monthly basis. He never honoured that commitment/obligation and as such, was refused loans in the subsequent two years of the programme. Thus, his fees were not paid and he literally ignored all notices of his non-entitlement to sit examinations and in collusion with members of the University’s staff sat examinations, the results of which he now argues he is entitled to.It is not for me to second guess the court, but the fact of the matter is there was no hiccup on the part of the Ministry of Finance. Cox was in default with regard to his first loan. He was not granted the two subsequent loans and consequently, did not pay his fees for the two remaining years of his programme.It is also pertinent to note that when Cox first filed his action against the University, the University’s administration was never served notice and was not aware of the proceedings until after the court had ruled on a case in which there was no active respondent. The notice was served on then Pro Chancellor Dr Prem Misir, whose office took no action and allowed the court to hear the matter in the absence of any response/defence from the University. It is anyone’s guess as to what the outcome would have been had the University been able to present its case. When the Pro Chancellor informed the Council of the University of the matter and its outcome, it was even too late for the University to have appealed. I know of no other instance when the Pro Chancellor was the recipient of a court order on behalf of the University. It is worthy of note that this matter was brought to the Council’s attention by a member and that only then the Pro Chancellor’s office acknowledged receipt of the summons and the court order.While it is true that initially the University, at the end of the programme, engaged Cox on the possibility of paying up the fees, he was not forthcoming, thus the University resorted to the position that Cox had not registered (not paid fees) for two years and was not entitled to results for examinations taken in defiance of clear stipulations that he was not entitled to sit the examinations. His statement that he had three years to pay his fees, after the end of the programme is but another fabrication of Cox. The University has no such facility.It is true that some three years after the University had ruled on Cox’s matter, he did come forth with an undertaking of the Ministry of Finance to grant him loans retroactively. At that time, the University had already disengaged three years prior and moved on.For me, this letter is simply intended to lay the facts bare. I have no interest in what the court decides. I am in my third year away from the University and its actions, but cannot standby and have Cox use the media to mislead and misinform the public.Yours truly,Vincent Alexanderlast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *