Dear Editor,
I wish to thank the media for their expeditious handling of my letter on the Cox matter, albeit in different ways. I, however, wish to clarify some issues raised by Cox, since they represent his trend of trying to mislead and bamboozle the public.
Cox is reported as saying that ‘Alexander wrote him to the effect that since he was not a student, the University hadn’t any examination results for him; however, simultaneously, he received additional letters from UG officials acknowledging that he was a student who needed to settle all his outstanding balances before receiving his examination results’.
It is true that some time in the 2012-2013 academic year, he received the latter letter which was issued at the behest of the new Vice Chancellor. It is not true that the contradictory letters were issued simultaneously. However, the said Vice Chancellor, subsequently, in his affidavit to the court, indicated that the issuance of the letter was a mistake on his part and that in fact Cox was not a student and was not entitled to examination results. Cox seeks to mislead the public by omitting to tell the entire story.
Secondly, rather than producing some document of 2012 in relation to a 2000 transaction, Cox should produce the 2000 agreement, which clearly stipulated his obligation and commitment to repay the loan, granted in 2000, in monthly instalments immediately thereafter. He defaulted on that agreement and was not granted loans in 2001 and 2002.
Let’s assume that Cox is right that he had six years to repay the loan granted in 2000, why is the document to that effect dated 2012? And why if that was the case, he failed to acquire loans for the years 2001 and 2002?
Further to that, the repayment of the loan and payment to UG are quite different transactions. As a loan student, Cox was required to acquire a loan at the commencement of each academic year. The transmission of the loan document to the University would have been his payment of his fees and would have had nothing to do with when the loan is to be repaid to the Ministry of Finance. UG’s regulations clearly and publicly stipulates the deadline for payment, be it by cash or loan; that non-payment by the deadline incurs a late fee for which there is also a deadline; and that, at the time of examinations, if the fee is not paid, the student is not entitled to write the examinations.
Cox’s claim, after defaulting for two years (2001 and 2002), that he still had the latitude of time to pay in 2012 is clearly a figment of his imagination. In fact, under the law of contract, which would have established Cox’s relationship with the University, by 2012 and much earlier, the University would have lost its claim on his debt due to the statutes of limitation.
This case provides a good opportunity for investigative journalism, using primary sources, thus pulling the rug from under the feet of Cox or Alexander, whoever is the stranger to the truth. A lie detection test may also be helpful. On all fronts, I am game. Is Cox?
Yours truly,
Vincent Alexander
