At no other time have we witnessed the barrage of outrage that greeted this year’s entrance exams.
By IFEANYICHUKWU AFUBA
Did we have mass failure of candidates in the 2025 tertiary institutions’ qualifying examination or a deplorable conduct of the scheme by the JAMB? While it would take time and independent investigation to unravel candidates’ allegation of “wrong result”, the role of JAMB generally, presents another case study in the difficulty of making the Nigerian system work. No, the trouble with Nigeria is not simply a failure of leadership. It goes beyond leadership and indeed beyond political leadership. The judiciary, the legislature, the civil service, security agencies, health sector workers, universities, to mention only a few sides of public service are as dysfunctional and corrupt as various executive arms of government. What seems more characteristic of Nigeria’s public life is the unwillingness to uphold the common good.
Personal, narrow and group interests are brought to override the larger societal interest in many decisions and execution of public programmes. Added to the vice of privatisation of policies is the near – absence of work ethics. We routinely chant “international best practices” without corresponding commitment to upholding standards. That is why service delivery is mediocre, bumpy and slow. That is why built infrastructure and facilities deteriorate in no time. As will be seen, JAMB’s controversial outing this year cannot be situated far from this background.
At no other time have we witnessed the barrage of outrage that greeted this year’s entrance exams. While in the last ten years, results for 2020 and 2021 were considered poor, they did not receive the widespread protests nor intensity of criticism trailing the current exercise. JAMB had announced release of the 2025 result on Friday, May 9, with emphasis on the 78 percent below 200 mark score. In 2020, under 200 point score was 79 percent; and climbed to 87 percent the following year 2021. Yet, reactions to those results were not as strong as with this year’s edition. Public response to result of the April 2025 higher institutions’ entry exam was largely dismissive. Significantly, candidates and or their parents rejected the low scores on their slips as incorrect. They did so with such confidence and resolve that could not be ignored. As at Monday, May 12, 2025, about 8400 candidates had reportedly filled the formal complaint form demanding access to their scripts. Typical of Nigerian government agency, JAMB leadership’s initial attitude to the outcry was playing the ostrich and deflecting the heart of the matter. Reacting after 72 hours of public outcry over the doubtful results, the Board’s spokesman appeared on Channels television on Monday, to read the stilted official line of candidates’ errors, omissions and challenges with digital demands as the issues. This technical slant featured prominently in a briefing by the Board’s registrar to announce the results on Friday, May 9, 2025. However, as the resolve to take legal steps to compel JAMB to transparently authenticate the disputed results gathered momentum, the Board finally buckled. By Monday afternoon, the JAMB leadership was forced to set aside it’s stereotype of candidate technical inadequacy to pledge a fact – finding review of the examination package.
While we await report of investigation into the doubtful results, it’s necessary to draw attention to other controversial steps by JAMB with hope that corrective action will be taken going forward. There were problems with the much advertised mock UTME test. Some candidates were posted outside their chosen States for the exam. Defending the arrangement, JAMB’s Public Communication Advisor, Fabian Benjamin told journalists that not all computer based centres were available for the mock exam. “If centres for mock in Abuja are filled up and there were available centres in Nasarawa State, candidates will be sent there” Vanguard, April 15, 2025 reported. This still does not absolve the admissions body from responsibility to place candidates where they registered. JAMB conducts two major exams in a calendar year. What does it do with the considerable time at it’s disposal? Is it asking too much to say the Board ought to confirm the availability of needed facilities before commencing sale of registration forms? The crux of the matter is that this oversight, this inconvenient relocation of candidates repeats every year. Where then is the supposed value of the mock exam as mirror towards successful main exam? Conducting hassles – minimal, mock exam which involves a tiny number of candidates, should not continue to be problematic.