What Went Wrong With 2025 UTME? -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 infrastructures 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 seventy – two 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 Nassarawa 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.

Another instance of the Board’s wrong footing is the approved publication for those taking Literature. The novel chosen this year is The Lekki Headmaster by Kabir Alabi Garba. No problem about the literary quality of the work. But the print format of the publication is a big issue. The 63 page book, by standard setting, would run up to 90 pages. The text however, is in font size ten, instead of the preferred twelve point, making the print – run tiny. Additionally it is rendered in single line spacing with the result that the pages are tight. The compression poses problem of readability, a big challenge in an environment where electricity supply is not often assured. Exams by their very nature task the mental and attitudinal faculties of students. Saddling candidates with barely legible texts in the context of a very competitive exam is unhealthy. The selection of a visually deficient title as The Lekki Headmaster reflects poorly on JAMB. The decision calls into question the judgment that approved a publication with potential of unduly tasking candidates. Why didn’t JAMB insist on stress – free, readable specifications for the adopted texts? What was the Board doing all year round that it could not find a suitable, eyes – friendly publication? The impression that follows this scenario is that of a conscious attempt to cut costs. Unfortunately, this would be at the expense of some candidates’ performance. Any situation that tends to put the candidate at disadvantage should be avoided.

JAMB also got it wrong on the timeline for commencement of the exam. The slip admitting candidates for the exam clearly stated that they were to report at the various centres by 6:30am. The Labour Party 2023 presidential candidate, Mr Peter Obi, was therefore right in his indictful intervention on the matter. Obi’s faulting of the time schedule was justified. An official indication that a “compulsory” public event will kick off by 6:30am is invariably a recommendation for those concerned to be on the road much earlier. Ordinarily, that would pass for insensitivity on the part of the organisers. But to prescribe such time schedules under the prevailing insecurity situation in the country and for a programme involving youths and teenagers is reckless and dangerous. What attitude could be more uncaring of responsibility to society? In suggestive admission of the scandalous time fixture, JAMB spokespersons denied the 6: 30am directive, emphasising that the exam proper started at 8am. It was difficult deciding which was more ridiculous; the barefaced lies about not having communicated 6:30am to candidates or 8am exam crap; or the bungled opportunity of candour and apology. It was a low moment for the organisation. Did it not bother the management what candidates who began accreditation by 6:30am and exams by 7.00am would think of these deceptions? What lessons would these manipulations teach them about sense of public service in their country? Again, JAMB wanted to curtail expenditure by shrinking the number of days the exams would run. And again, this was to be achieved at the detriment of quality. The exam dash embarked upon by JAMB would explain the early morning schedules and exploitation of candidates whose computer systems developed problems. There were reportedly no redress if the system hung for thirty minutes or an hour. In effect, the exams in some respect, became a crash programme focused on completing a task rather than upholding set standards.

Mercifully, JAMB’s admission of responsibility for the controversial mass failure came as this essay was about being completed. JAMB Registrar Professor Ishaq Oloyede’s press conference of Wednesday, May 14, 2025, was a display of humanity and humility so rare in Nigeria’s public affairs. His sense of accountability was in sharp contrast to the officialdom of May 9 when the candidates and Nigerians were taken for granted. The regret expressed over result analysis errors came across as sincere and I think most Nigerians would accept the apology. Although some harm has been done, the opportunity of resit for affected candidates should mitigate the extent of loss. What remains is for the JAMB authorities to internalise the lessons surrounding this chain of events in achieving better performance subsequently. And let our public officials, in high and low offices, take inspiration from this hopefully born – again experience to make themselves servants of the people dedicated to the common interest.