Site Inspection: Beyond-Scope Certification and a Copied Seal
Council inspectors visit a Lagos building site where a four-storey residential block is under construction. The site signboard reads Okafor Engineering Technologists Ltd - Structural Design and Certification. Mr Okafor is a registered Engineering Technologist; he signed and sealed the structural drawings and the structural certification. Site supervision is carried out by an unregistered graduate who signs daily sheets as Engr. Tunde. A technician employee copied Mr Okafor's COREN seal onto a second set of drawings for a different site. During the visit a scaffold collapses, injuring two workers; the scaffold had no design calculation or tag. Mr Okafor says he reviewed the drawings and that the graduate only supervised, while the company says the title on the signboard is just a trading name. The client produces a fee invoice that describes the service as engineer's certification.
1. Identify the regulatory breaches and the parties who may be liable.
Read the worked answer
Several distinct breaches appear.
(a) Scope: structural design and certification of a four-storey building is normally reserved to a registered engineer; a technologist may carry out technical work within competence and under appropriate engineering supervision, but signing and certifying structural adequacy is outside the technologist's scope unless specifically authorised.
(b) Title: Engr. Tunde is a protected title for registered engineers; the unregistered graduate using it is holding out.
(c) Supervision: site supervision by an unregistered person, with daily sheets signed as if qualified, is unlicensed practice.
(d) Seal: copying Mr Okafor's COREN seal onto another set of drawings is misuse of the seal, whether or not he consented; if he allowed it, he is complicit.
(e) Corporate and trading name: Okafor Engineering Technologists Ltd - Structural Design and Certification implies a certified service and may mislead clients; the invoice describing an engineer's certification reinforces the misrepresentation.
Liability is individual and corporate: Mr Okafor for signing beyond scope and for seal control; the graduate for holding out; the technician for copying the seal; the company for the misleading name and invoice.
2. Outline the enforcement actions and due process the Council should follow.
Read the worked answer
The inspectors should secure evidence first: photographs of the signboard, drawings, seals, daily sheets, the invoice and the scaffold. They should issue an immediate stop-work or prohibition notice on the structural works and the scaffold, because there is a serious risk to life; the injured workers trigger a separate health-and-safety report.
Then issue a notice to show cause to Mr Okafor, the graduate, the technician and the company, with a deadline to respond. Interim measures can include suspension of Mr Okafor's licence pending inquiry if the risk is serious, and a direction that no further drawings be signed by him. Refer the criminal elements - unregistered practice, false title, seal forgery - to the police or the relevant prosecuting authority, while the Council's disciplinary tribunal handles professional misconduct.
Due process requires notice, disclosure of the evidence, a hearing and reasons; the Council should not impose a final sanction on the day of inspection.
3. What should a technologist in Mr Okafor's position have done differently, and what does this show about scope of practice?
Read the worked answer
A technologist in Mr Okafor's position should have: (i) declined to certify structural adequacy and instead referred the structural design to a registered engineer, or worked under that engineer's supervision with the division of responsibility recorded; (ii) kept his seal in his personal control and never allowed copies to circulate; (iii) ensured site supervision was by a registered person or by a competent person under a registered supervisor; (iv) refused to allow a company name or invoice that described technologist services as engineer's certification; and (v) corrected the signboard and the graduate's title immediately.
The broader lesson is that registration categories are not interchangeable labels: public safety depends on matching the task to the registrant's competence, and a technologist who accepts work beyond scope exposes the client, the public and his own licence.