By Evelyn Omotoye
|
Students studying architecture in polytechnics and graduates with the Higher National Diploma, have urged Architect Registration Council of Nigeria, (ARCON), to accord them professional recognition for career progression.

The students, who stormed the venue of the court proceeding, at the Federal High Court, Akure, told newsmen recently that they were part of the struggle to protect their future.

The aggrieved architects, who graduated from polytechnics had sued the professional body   for giving recognition only to their counterparts with university background.

Oluwaseun Aladesanmi, a student of Rufus Giwa Polytechnic studying Architecture said ARCON should act like a good father by recognising them and giving them the same leverage as their university counterpart.

Temilade Adegbola, also studying Architecture at Rufus Giwa Polytechnic equally begged ARCON to allow polytechnic graduates to rise to the peak of their career by recognising their certificate.

Mr Kayode Omotosho, a graduate of Architecture from a polytechnic said he  became  a sad man because those who graduated from university were being placed on him due to the decision of ARCON not to recognise them.

Omotosho, who revealed that he graduated 16 years ago, added that they had to go to court for the perceived injustice meted out to them by the body.

Earlier, at the court proceeding presided over by Justice Audu Dogo at the Federal High Court sitting in Akure, in a Suit Number FHC/AIC/CS/71/18, Yinka Agboola, lawyer to the plaintiff had filed an application for interlocutory injunction which the court will decide on, on March 4.

Henry Nnabugwu, also representing the plaintiff told newsmen that the application for interlocutory injunction was to stop ARCON from conducting exams for university graduates alone ,pending the outcome of the court case.

Nnabugwu, however, revealed that Justice Dogo did not restrain ARCON from conducting exams but just received the application.

Lawyer to the Defendant (ARCON), Vincent Okafor said the plaintiff served him with bundle of documents, in which there was an interlocutory injunction, which  by the rules of the court, must be given time to respond.

The case was  adjourned till  March 4