“No More Excuses!” — Public Reacts as JAMB’s Justification Sparks Outrage

The performance on this year’s Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), which was held in April, was noticeably poor. Just 24% of applicants received a score higher than 200 out of 400, according to data published by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB). The public’s response has been immediate and harsh, with the great majority failing to meet the minimum cut-off points required by most institutions.

Instead of providing a clear explanation of what went wrong, JAMB blamed a “technical glitch” for the disaster. To put it mildly, that explanation is inappropriate and disappointing.

To be clear, a technical issue of this magnitude is not a small accident. It is a disgrace to the country. It calls into question the competence of the board tasked with overseeing the examination process as well as its integrity. These aren’t just figures. Futures are what these are. These young Nigerians studied late into the night because their parents borrowed money to cover their registration fees and had the misguided belief that they would be rewarded by the system if they put in enough effort.

Rather, after weeks of waiting, several of them entered their portals to see scores that could not be explained. Some people who were sure of their abilities claimed to have received zeros in subjects they finished without any problems. Others asserted that there was never a technical malfunction at their facilities. However, JAMB maintains that the primary cause was an unidentified and unaccountable technology glitch.

There are more questions than answers in this story. Why wasn’t a system problem detected and fixed right away if one existed? Why weren’t applicants notified right away and given the opportunity to retake the test? If the board was aware of the results’ unreliability, why were they released at all? In times like this, transparency is a necessity rather than a luxury.

We must acknowledge that JAMB’s technology infrastructure is either out-of-date, badly maintained, or both. The board can no longer claim to be a digital pioneer while attributing widespread failures to “technical issues.” It might be time to decentralize the examination structure or completely revamp the procedure if the system is so brittle that it cannot consistently deliver a nationwide exam.

The issue of policy is another. Are we cramming too many applicants into one testing period? Does the board have enough personnel and training to manage the volume? Are CBT centers run by outside contractors who are not subject to accountability?

The harm has already been done. But there must be repercussions moving forward. If incompetence or neglect is found, the Minister of Education must hold someone accountable and conduct an independent investigation into what happened.

Furthermore, impacted students are entitled to more than a press statement and another exam. Justice is due to them.

It might be time to reevaluate JAMB’s crucial role in the university admissions process if it is unable to administer an exam that is both reliable and error-free. Because the system itself is the one that has failed at the moment, not simply the pupils.