Yisa Usman MSc, FCA, FCTI
The recent wave of heartfelt concern expressed by Nigerian parents regarding the conduct of the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), and the defensive posture taken by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), have once again underscored the pressing need for systemic reforms in institutions entrusted with shaping the educational and professional trajectories of young Nigerians.
What should have been an opportunity for constructive engagement with legitimate grievances has instead devolved into a troubling display of institutional defensiveness. The grievances expressed, ranging from logistical nightmares to emotional and physical tolls on candidates, are not mere complaints. They reflect real trauma and systemic failures that demand serious attention. Yet, JAMB’s leadership appears more preoccupied with vindicating its processes than with acknowledging or addressing the hardships faced by candidates and their families.
The UTME is far more than a routine examination, it is a pivotal moment that defines access to higher education and, by extension, future opportunities for millions of Nigerian youths. Its administration, therefore, must be anchored in empathy, efficiency, and transparency. Unfortunately, the conduct of the 2025 edition has revealed enduring flaws in policy design, operational execution, and leadership responsiveness under JAMB’s current management.
Despite consistent and well-documented concerns from parents, candidates, education stakeholders, and civil society, JAMB continues to meet critical feedback with derision rather than introspection. Reports abound of candidates being assigned to distant examination centres, despite the availability of closer Computer-Based Test (CBT) facilities. These placements not only burden families financially but also expose candidates, some of them minors, to security risks, fatigue, and severe logistical stress. Many parents took to both social and traditional media to share accounts of children traveling in the early hours of the morning, enduring long waits in inadequate conditions, or being sent to locations they did not anticipate.
Rather than acknowledge these issues with compassion and a willingness to reform, JAMB’s Chief Executive, Professor Ishaq Oloyede, opted for an unhelpfully dismissive tone in his public engagements. In a recent interview, he declared the 2025 UTME “one of the best examinations” and brushed off criticisms as being rooted in exaggeration or ignorance. Equating the 6:30 am reporting time for an 8:00 am exam with standard school routines, he justified the early schedule as necessary because of preliminary tasks. Further, he characterize critics as people with a “mob mentality” and “no job,” suggesting that “every reasonable person” should understand and accept the current arrangements.
In addressing concerns about candidate postings, the Registrar challenged the public to provide a single verifiable case of misplacement in exchange for a monetary reward, citing an example in Katsina where he claimed the candidate was at fault.
While Professor Oloyede is right to insist on order and discipline in the administration of national examinations, the manner and tone of his responses raise serious questions about leadership sensitivity, accountability, and the appropriate demeanor expected of a public servant in a democracy. A truly effective educational administrator must balance operational integrity with humility, responsiveness, and a deep respect for the public they serve, especially when that public includes vulnerable young people seeking a fair chance at a better future.
The issues surrounding the 2025 UTME reflect deeper institutional challenges that can no longer be ignored. If Nigeria is to safeguard the aspirations of its youth and the integrity of its education system, it must demand not just technical competence but also human-centered leadership from those at the helm of its critical public institutions.
Public service, in addition to administrative competence, requires emotional intelligence, humility, and a genuine commitment to inclusive governance. In dismissing the valid concerns of parents and stakeholders as the rantings of an “uninformed mob,” the Registrar of JAMB squandered a critical opportunity to build public trust, engage constructively, and reinforce the principle that public institutions exist to serve, not to scorn the people.
Yes, organizing a national examination like the UTME is a complex logistical undertaking. Yes, biometric verification and scheduling require structure and time. And yes, there are occasionally cases where candidates err. But these realities do not absolve leadership of its core responsibility: to listen, adapt, and respond with respect and transparency. When widespread reports emerge of candidates being posted to unfamiliar distant locations, despite the presence of nearby CBT centres, the burden of proof should not be shifted onto the public. In a system as centralized and opaque as JAMB’s, accountability begins with those who manage the process.
Furthermore, the comparison between an 8:00 a.m. UTME and a typical school day is deeply flawed. Most students attend schools near their homes, with adequate parental or institutional supervision. In contrast, UTME candidates, many of them teenagers, are compelled to travel across cities or to distant towns in the early hours of the morning, often in conditions fraught with security and logistical risks. These are not exaggerated fears. They are legitimate public safety concerns. Fatigue, road hazards, and exposure to insecurity are serious risks, not mere inconveniences.
It is important to acknowledge that under Professor Oloyede’s leadership, JAMB has introduced several innovations. The gains from improved computer-based testing, data-driven registration processes, and significant financial remittances to the national treasury should not be dismissed.
However, true reform does not end with digitization or revenue targets. A genuinely modern examination body must adopt human-centered policies that prioritize candidate welfare, uphold dignity, and guarantee inclusivity. Mandating children to report at exam venues as early as 6:30 a.m., particularly for candidates in remote or underserved areas, imposes unreasonable hardship. The primary implication of this is that some of the candidates must set out at 5 a.m., or even earlier. Teenagers navigating dark, unfamiliar routes to reach distant centres should not be considered an acceptable norm. There have been troubling instances of absentee candidates, accidents, and even fatalities. These grim outcomes should prompt serious introspection, not bureaucratic defensiveness.
Despite JAMB’s assertion that candidates are not posted outside their selected locations, patterns of mismatched postings persist, especially in less-served regions where the limited number of approved CBT centres forces spillover assignments. Rather than respond to parental concerns with sarcasm, challenges, or offers of monetary rewards for “proof,” JAMB should treat such feedback as a window into systemic failures requiring attention and reform.
Leadership in public education must be rooted in compassion and accountability. When legitimate concerns about the safety, well-being, and dignity of young Nigerians are raised, the appropriate response is not to ridicule but to reform. It is time for JAMB to demonstrate that institutional efficiency and human empathy are not mutually exclusive, but essential partners in building an education system worthy of the nation’s aspirations.
Globally, university admission processes are designed with student welfare and accessibility at the core. In the United Kingdom, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) offers a centralized platform where students apply directly to universities based on their performance in national examinations like A-levels, conducted locally at familiar schools without needless travel stress. In the United States however, unlike UCAS, applications to each university are made separately. While over 900 US institutions use the Common Application platform, an online portal that help to manage each application, each university has its own application deadline, fee and requirements. The two most widely recognised standardized test primarily used for admissions in US are the ACT (American College Test.) and SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test), while the UCAS (Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) handles applications in UK.
JAMB’s frequent comparison of its examination schedules to practices such as arriving two hours before flights, or to global standardized tests like the SAT and ACT, reflects a significant misunderstanding. Typically, the SAT examination begins between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., with candidates expected to arrive no later than 7:45 a.m. The SAT itself usually concludes between 10:45 a.m. and 11:15 a.m., lasting just over two hours. The ACT, depending on whether it is conducted online or on paper, generally finishes between 11:15 a.m. and 1:35 p.m.
A key distinction that is often overlooked is that both the SAT and ACT are typically administered in a single session per day, unlike JAMB, which conducts multiple sessions daily and requires candidates to arrive at centres as early as 6:30 a.m. Moreover, the SAT is offered on select dates spread throughout the year, with each session lasting approximately 2 hours and 14 minutes, while the ACT runs for about 2 hours and 55 minutes. These schedules prioritize candidate welfare by avoiding unnecessary stress and logistical risks. The tests are administered at conveniently located schools or centers, with flexible scheduling options and multiple test dates throughout the year. Students are not forced into logistically dangerous situations to prove their eligibility for higher education. In contrast, JAMB compresses its entire examination schedule into a period of less than two weeks.
JAMB’s persistent comparison of its operations to those of international examination bodies rings hollow when it fails to adopt their candidate-centered philosophies and practices. What these global systems prioritize, above all, is the experience, convenience, and psychological well-being of the examinee. In stark contrast, JAMB’s approach continues to reflect a bureaucratic rigidity that disregards the lived realities of Nigerian candidates.
It is particularly disingenuous to draw parallels without acknowledging the structural and infrastructural advantages those regions possess. In countries where these examinations are administered, state-of-the-art facilities are the norm, not the exception. Public transportation systems are efficient, affordable, and highly regulated, thus allowing candidates to schedule their travel well in advance with minimal stress. More importantly, the security landscape in those environments ensures that students can focus solely on their examinations without fearing for their safety.
To overlook these contextual differences while asserting comparability is not only misleading but fundamentally flawed. Until JAMB adopts a holistic, student-first operational model that factors in both the systemic limitations of its environment and the real challenges faced by candidates, such comparisons remain not only illogical but irresponsible.
Moreover, many foreign institutions are increasingly moving toward test-optional or test-flexible admission policies, focusing more on cumulative academic performance, extracurricular activities, and personal essays. This modern approach not only reduces pressure but also recognizes that education is about holistic development rather than merely passing a standardized test under extreme conditions. JAMB must take serious lessons from these models and modernize its examination conduct accordingly.
It is no longer tenable for JAMB to cling to rigid operational frameworks while the rest of the world moves forward with student-centered approaches. One immediate solution is the adoption of secure online testing platforms such as the Google Exam App or other proctored digital solutions. Such platforms can democratize access, allowing candidates to take exams from familiar, safer environments under supervised conditions. This move would also drastically cut operational costs, reduce the burden on candidates and families, and minimize the risks associated with mass mobilization. It will also cut down drastically the ever increasing capital expenditure on IT Infrastructure, including the Computer-Based Test (CBT) Centers.
JAMB frequently compares the requirement for early arrival at examination centers to the standard practice of arriving at airports two hours before a flight. This comparison is entirely inappropriate and regrettable as air travellers are predominantly adults, fully capable of managing the complexities and risks of early travel. In contrast, UTME candidates are largely adolescents, many of whom have never travelled independently or navigated inter-state journeys on their own. Comparing a family-controlled, elective activity like air travel to a compulsory public examination that impacts a teenager’s future reflects a troubling lack of sensitivity to the realities of Nigerian families.
Moreover, the financial burden placed on candidates and their families is tremendous. After paying the ₦7,200 registration fee, parents must often spend considerably more on transportation, accommodation, feeding, and in many cases, security arrangements, particularly when children are posted outside their immediate communities. These hidden costs sometimes double or triple the initial registration expense, thereby marginalizing candidates from lower-income backgrounds. This financial strain not only worsens educational inequality but also deepens the cycle of poverty that education is meant to break.
It is also important to spotlight the plight of JAMB staff who are forced to work under extremely demanding conditions. Conducting examinations in four to five daily sessions strains human capacity to the limit. Exhaustion, errors, and diminished service quality inevitably follow. Under previous administrations, there was more flexibility in examination scheduling, spreading the process over a longer period to ensure a humane workload for staff and a more relaxed, candidate-friendly atmosphere. JAMB, at its core, is a service-oriented institution, and its operational model must reflect that ethos. Regrettably, the overriding obsession with maximizing revenue remittance to the government seems to have eclipsed the fundamental duty of care owed to the very staff whose relentless effort sustains the entire system.
There is also the concern that the rush to complete examinations within the shortest possible time is less about efficiency or sectoral consideration but more about proving a point against previous administrations. Under the current leadership, there is an observable tendency to treat the management of JAMB as a contest, with the rush to “conclude UTME and release the result faster” seen as a badge of honour. This approach is both misplaced and counterproductive, as it diverts attention from what truly matters which include the wellbeing of the candidates, service quality, candidate safety, and educational integrity.
Leadership should never be about besting predecessors or setting personal records but about building sustainable systems that serve the people better. Public institutions must always prioritise the public good over personal legacies.
Another significant issue is the culture of silence and sycophancy that seems to pervade JAMB’s leadership circle. Constructive criticism, essential for institutional growth, appears stifled in favour of unquestioning loyalty. This lack of critical feedback leads to policy missteps, such as the controversial age restriction policy introduced in 2024. Rolled out without proper consultation or consideration of public sentiment, the policy faced nationwide condemnation and had to be reversed following intervention by the federal government. This episode highlights a worrying trend where leadership operates in an echo chamber, disconnected from the realities of those it serves, while subordinates and advisers seem unwilling or unable to speak truth to power, affirming decisions regardless of their consequences.
[
The safety, welfare, and dignity of candidates must always be the central focus of JAMB’s operations. Candidates are not mere statistics or operational variables; they are human beings, teenagers filled with dreams, aspirations, and the desire to better their lives through education. Their safety, mental health, financial stability, and academic success should be the foremost considerations in every policy decision. The need for reform is undeniable, and any system that endangers its primary stakeholders risks forfeiting its moral right to continue in its current form. JAMB must always remember that it exists to serve, nurture, and empower young Nigerians, not to treat them as expendable elements in bureaucratic processes.
The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), in a recent release, strongly echoed the concerns of Nigerian parents with a call on JAMB to review and adjust examination schedule that compel students to travel long distances and navigate unsafe routes in the early hours of the morning just to meet 6 a.m. or 8.a.m. examination appointments. NANS’ demand that no student should sit for any UTME examination before 9 a.m. underscores the calls for JAMB to be more sensitive towards the candidates given the prevailing security challenges. The association’s call on the Honourable Minister of Education, Dr. Olatunji Alausa, to intervene urgently is germane as the policy is inconsiderate and exposes candidates to unnecessary risks.
The criticism of JAMB’s early examination schedule is also echoed by prominent national figures. A former Governor of Anambra State and former Presidential Candidate of the Labour Party, Mr. Peter Obi, decried the traumatic experiences suffered by young Nigerians, many of them teenagers, being compelled to travel to examination centres as early as 6:30 a.m. despite obvious security challenges. He described the situation as “reckless,” while pointing out that such development reflects deeper systemic failures in the country’s education sector, largely attributable to Nigeria’s chronic underinvestment in education.
The broader critique highlights a deeper, systemic flaw of structural deficiencies within Nigeria’s educational delivery framework, which urgently demand bold, sustained investment in educational infrastructure to ensure equitable access and long-term national development.
JAMB need to further its advancement in modern technology to meet current and future expectations. To stay ahead, JAMB must invest in more secure, scalable, and innovative solutions. As global education systems increasingly shift toward hybrid and remote examination models, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, JAMB must evolve to harness the full potential of technology-enabled learning and assessment. By advancing its technological infrastructure, it can streamline operations, reduce the financial burden on candidates, and enhance safety for all involved. The examination window must also be expanded with maximum two daily sessions to alleviate the current time constraints that place undue pressure on candidates and staff.
Likewise, the Federal Ministry of Education must demonstrate greater commitment to its oversight role, ensuring that institutions like JAMB are held accountable and operate in line with national and global expectations. There is an urgent need for a far-reaching reform of JAMB’s operational framework, one that places a premium on accessibility, safety, candidate welfare, technological advancement, inclusivity, and alignment with international best practices.
JAMB must shed its bureaucratic inertia and recommit to its foundational mandate of providing equitable, transparent, and humane access to higher education for all Nigerians. A part of this reform must address the cost burden placed on candidates. Available data strongly suggests that the current gross examination fee of ₦7,200 is unjustifiable. In reality, the cost should not exceed ₦2,000, especially in light of JAMB’s substantial annual revenue and the significant remittances it makes to the federal government. A reduction in fees is not only possible, it is morally imperative.
It is important to highlight the enormous financial outlay borne by Nigerian families during the 2025 UTME exercise. A total of 2,030,900 candidates sat for the examination. Even at the base rate of ₦3,500, as officially noted by JAMB, the agency would have grossed over ₦7 billion from registration sales alone. However, in practice, candidates paid ₦7,200 after adding other charges such as mock examination fees, reading text, and service charges. Consequently, the true financial burden on Nigerians was significantly higher, amounting to over ₦14.6 billion in total, exclusive of the post-examination costs for printing results and admission letters.
This sobering reality demands an urgent and thorough reevaluation of the UTME registration fee structure. Rather than focusing on the optics of annual surplus remittances to the Federal Government, both JAMB and the Federal Ministry of Education must prioritize policy decisions that alleviate the financial burden on candidates and their families. A concrete starting point would be to reduce the basic registration fee from ₦3,500 to ₦2,000 in the next registration cycle.
Such a move would signal a sincere commitment to expanding access to education, breaking down economic barriers, and placing the welfare of Nigerian families above institutional self-congratulation. Moreover, with JAMB’s expanding revenue streams that now include fees collected from applicants to Sandwich, Part-time, Distance Learning, and Open University programmes, the Board is well-positioned to leverage economies of scale to offset any potential loss from this reduction. A truly service-oriented institution would seize this opportunity to reinvest in its core stakeholders: the candidates it exists to serve.
The oversight visit by the House of Representatives Committee on Basic Examination Bodies further corroborates the urgent need for JAMB’s systemic reforms. The Committee identified troubling deficiencies in several examination centres, including poorly ventilated halls, lack of air conditioning, and absence of basic first aid services, even in centres accommodating up to 250 candidates. Candidates were seen physically fanning themselves in discomfort, a situation that raises serious health and safety concerns. Moreover, the absence of medical personnel on standby exposes candidates to severe risks in the event of emergencies such as fainting, dehydration, or other medical incidents.
The oversight team also documented widespread complaints regarding multiple payments and persistent registration glitches experienced by candidates. According to Oboku Oforji, Chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Basic Examination Bodies, the UTME remains a critical platform for empowering young Nigerians in their journey of self-discovery and personal advancement. However, the prevalence of duplicate charges and technical failures has imposed significant and avoidable financial burdens on families, while exacerbating the psychological stress of candidates preparing for one of the most consequential examinations of their academic lives.
Equally troubling is the recurring practice of charging fees for services that are often not delivered. A notable example is the ₦15,000 fee imposed by JAMB for correcting dates of birth, despite widespread complaints that these corrections are seldom carried out. Similarly, applicants for Direct Entry admission were required to pay for a pre-entry test that was never conducted. In both cases, no refunds were issued to the affected candidates. These instances highlight deep-rooted administrative inefficiencies that not only erode public trust but also reveal a systemic neglect of candidates’ rights and welfare.
The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) stands at a critical juncture. The controversies surrounding the 2025 UTME have highlighted fundamental flaws in its operational model and underscored the urgent need for comprehensive reform. To regain public trust and fulfill its mandate effectively, JAMB must recalibrate its approach in three strategic areas: candidate logistics, technological innovation, and leadership accountability.
First, JAMB must adopt a truly candidate-centered approach to logistics. The persistent issue of assigning candidates to distant or unfamiliar examination centres, despite available CBT centres closer to home, points to an administrative structure that lacks fairnes. This practice imposes unnecessary hardship on candidates and their families, particularly those from underserved or rural areas. What is required is not just policy statements about decentralization, but actual systemic changes that ensure candidates can access examination centres conveniently and safely. Logistics should reflect an ethic of care, not administrative expedience.
Second, the time has come for JAMB to embrace secure and inclusive online testing alternatives. Piloting a regulated remote Computer-Based Testing (CBT) platform, especially in urban centers with adequate infrastructure, would not only reduce congestion at physical centres but also broaden access to candidates with special needs or constraints. While maintaining the integrity of the examination is non-negotiable, leveraging technology to create flexible, secure testing options is a critical step toward modernization and equity in educational assessment.
Third, leadership accountability and empathetic public engagement must become non-negotiable pillars of JAMB’s culture. The tone and demeanor of public officials in responding to criticism are as important as the policies themselves. Even when feedback is hostile or misinformed, leaders must demonstrate emotional intelligence, maturity, and a willingness to engage constructively. Respectful dialogue, transparency, and a genuine openness to reform must guide all interactions with stakeholders, be they students, parents, educators, or civil society groups.
Beyond these specific areas, JAMB must undertake a broader overhaul of its technological and operational infrastructure. Upgrades should not merely automate flawed systems but transform them into transparent, user-friendly platforms that reflect the core principle of public service: protecting the interest of the people. At the heart of every decision must be the well-being and educational aspirations of the Nigerian youth.
Ultimately, JAMB has the potential to be more than just an examination body, it can be a symbol of fairness, opportunity, and national progress. Realizing that potential, however, will require courage, empathy, and a firm commitment to systemic reform.
The growing outcry from parents, educators, students’ associations, civil society, policy and law makers must not be dismissed or trivialized. It reflects genuine pain, hardship, and fear for the safety and future of our youth. This further accentuates that the UTME’s current operational model not only disregards the safety and welfare of candidates but also increasingly alienates the critical stakeholders it is meant to serve.
This moment presents an opportunity for JAMB and other educational institutions to engage in sincere reflection and recalibration. Genuine leadership requires the willingness to listen, learn, and act decisively to eliminate the systemic inefficiencies that hinder access and equity. It is a moment for transformative reforms that place the welfare, dignity, and aspirations of Nigeria’s youth at the forefront.
A nation’s educational gatekeeping body must not only assess knowledge but also embody the values of fairness, transparency, and respect. The 2025 UTME has once again revealed that, within JAMB’s current structure, the voices of the people, especially the youth, remain marginalized.
Leadership must rise to the occasion not by defending its record, but through humility, openness, and a steadfast commitment to continuous improvement. The children, who are the very foundation of JAMB’s mandate, deserve more than procedural efficiency; they deserve a system that supports their ambitions, safeguards their well-being, and champions their success. Anything less falls short of the duty owed to them and to the future of the nation.
Yisa Usman is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria and the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria. He is a doctoral candidate of Corporate Governance and writes from Abuja. Email: topusman@gmail.com; 08037050981.
