The Prefect Election and the Unpublished Penalty
During the JSS3 prefect campaign at Bright Star Junior Secondary School, the electoral committee - five pupils - published three rules: no writing on walls, no campaigning during lesson time, and every poster must be signed by the candidate. Amina, a candidate for Head Girl, chalked her name across the assembly-ground wall during break, and her brother in SS2 handed out 60 unsigned flyers at the school gate on Monday morning. The other candidate, Ngozi, reports both to the committee. The committee's chairperson shares a desk with Amina. Some pupils say Amina should be disqualified on the spot; others say the brother acted on his own and Amina should only be warned. The teacher-adviser asks the committee to decide within two days, using the rules as published, and to write reasons the whole school can read.
1. Identify the civic principles at stake and explain why the chairperson is in a difficult position.
Read the worked answer
The principles at stake are: fairness, equality before the rules, the rule of law (published rules, applied as written), transparency (reasons given publicly) and accountability.
The chairperson's difficulty is a conflict of interest. She shares a desk with Amina, so whatever she decides, pupils may believe the decision was influenced by friendship. Even an honest decision will be doubted. The civic answer is not to hide this but to declare it: the chairperson should stand aside from this item and let another member chair, with the teacher-adviser present as a witness, and the reason recorded in the minutes. Fairness must be seen as well as done. The same standard then applies to every candidate, including Ngozi.
2. Recommend a decision, with reasons, on whether Amina should be disqualified, warned, or cleared.
Read the worked answer
The decision must follow the published rules, and those rules say nothing about penalties - that is the committee's own fault.
Clear violation: the chalk on the assembly wall is Amina's own act, admitted. The rules were broken.
Unclear violation: the unsigned flyers. A rule about posters does not clearly cover flyers, and it is not yet shown that Amina asked her brother to act. Punishing her for another person's act without evidence is unfair.
Recommendation: a recorded formal warning; Amina cleans the wall herself and apologises at assembly; one day's suspension from active campaigning; no disqualification. Disqualification would be a heavy punishment invented after the event, which is exactly what the rule of law forbids. If evidence later shows Amina directed her brother, the committee should meet again - and say so publicly, so the process is seen to be consistent.
3. Suggest two changes to the rules or the process to prevent a repeat next year.
Read the worked answer
- Publish the penalty with the rule. Each rule should carry its consequence in advance, for example: first breach = warning and clean-up; second breach = loss of one campaign day; third = disqualification. A rule without a stated penalty invites arguments after the offence.
- Vet all campaign materials and separate the campaign from relatives. Every poster, flyer and banner must be submitted to the committee and stamped before use, and no candidate may be represented by a relative or friend at the gate. This closes the loophole the brother used.
- Handle conflicts openly. Require any committee member to declare a friendship or family link with a candidate and hand that item to another member, with reasons minuted.
Each change answers a specific failure this year rather than adding general advice, which is what makes a rule enforceable.