One must experience firsthand the crucible of conducting the so-called “junior WAEC” at the state level to fully appreciate the monumental complexity of administering a nationwide CBT examination like the UTME in Nigeria. Inadequate infrastructure, systemic inefficiencies, deliberate sabotage, and entrenched corruption often collude surreptitiously to undermine the noble efforts and intentions of any Nigerian examination authority.
Many Nigerians are quick to capitalize on such moments, pointing accusatory fingers and proclaiming triumph when JAMB concedes its shortcomings, with some even clamoring for the Board’s abolition as a laurel for their relentless criticism of its leadership’s humility. One wonders why similar fervor has not been directed at dismantling INEC, despite its more egregious failings. The inescapable reality is that, as a developing nation, we are still finding our footing in the digital age.
It is highly commendable that JAMB responded with alacrity and announced that 379,997 candidates would resit the examination. Genuine cases of industrious students who were disenfranchised by systemic failures will now have an opportunity for redress. This constitutes a watershed moment in the annals of examination administration in Nigeria. In the past, affected candidates were simply abandoned, left either to retake the exam the following year or to bear the lifelong burden of pursuing courses far beneath their aspirations.
Beyond the Glitches
While individual candidates may vindicate their academic potential through the resit and attain more commensurate results, the aggregate statistics will likely remain unchanged. Historically, no more than 25% of candidates surpass the 200 mark: 12.6% in 2021; 21.5% in 2022; 21.3% in 2023; 24% in 2024; and 21.5% in 2025.
Indeed, if we examine the average admission cut-off mark of 160, this year represents the most impressive performance on record—75.3% of candidates attained scores of 160 and above, compared to 64.5% in 2024 and 67.7% in 2022.
These figures unequivocally demonstrate that the challenges afflicting JAMB examinations and their candidates are far more deep-seated than surface-level technical failures suggest. I identify two principal issues that transcend the oft-cited administrative and logistical concerns.
Abolish JAMB Syllabus
There is an urgent imperative to jettison the JAMB syllabus and harmonize all UTME questions strictly with the SSCE curriculum—without deviation or inflation. The SSCE remains the official benchmark for secondary school students and the recognized standard for university admissions. If UTME questions inadvertently raise the academic bar beyond this scope, SS3 students will inevitably lose valuable marks. A matriculation examination must not impose a more formidable hurdle than the terminal certificate examination for the same academic cohort.
JAMB should dispense with unnecessary complexities and fully adopt the SSCE ordinary-level syllabus. Our students will, without question, perform more creditably under such a standardized regime. This is particularly germane, given that the 9-3-4 education system currently provides no curricular framework at the ordinary level beyond the SSCE.
The Problem of Accelerated Students
Another glaring anomaly is the enrollment of underage and underprepared students from lower classes—below SS3—into both the SSCE and JAMB examinations. This pernicious fast-tracking culture has become entrenched in many schools, where Primary V pupils prematurely advance to JSS1, and SS2 students are ill-advisedly presented for critical terminal examinations. Such premature exposure deprives them of the academic maturity and intellectual refinement that a full year of study would afford. An SS2 student who scores 160 this year would almost certainly exceed that threshold and achieve 200 or more if afforded the additional year of preparation in SS3.
This acceleration trend constitutes a double-edged sword; while ostensibly showcasing precocity, it ultimately becomes a formidable impediment to academic excellence and a solid intellectual foundation for tertiary education. It must be curtailed by nipping it in the bud through a robust system of student indexing and the establishment of a centralized national database from the point of initial (Primary I, JSS1, or SS1) school enrollment. Such a mechanism would regulate future examination eligibility and ensure that only candidates who have met the requisite training thresholds participate in both SSCE and UTME. Without doubt, this reform would pave the way for improved outcomes and better academic readiness.
Computer Literacy: The Missing Link
Lastly, the pervasive deficiency in computer literacy among secondary school candidates remains a critical bottleneck, particularly within public schools. State governments, private school proprietors, and parents must rise to the occasion and take decisive steps to endow their students with essential digital competencies, especially in preparation for CBT examinations like JAMB.
There are many paths to the same destination—approaches may differ depending on financial resources, institutional capacities, and logistical challenges—but once effectively implemented, we shall undoubtedly witness a quantum leap in UTME performance.
Conclusion
Over the years, JAMB has demonstrated commendable resilience and reform in the administration of the UTME. The setback experienced during the 2025 examinations, affecting some 157 centers, should be regarded as a temporary aberration—a challenge to surmount rather than a reason for institutional despair. The Board must remain a steadfast gatekeeper of academic integrity, continuing to moderate the proliferation of tainted, corruption-laden results at the SSCE level. With our constructive criticism and the Board’s unwavering diligence, I am confident that this matriculation institution will continue to serve the nation admirably.
It is my sincere hope that the three policy interventions proposed herein, which address the root causes of underperformance, will receive the earnest attention of the Board’s capable leadership. That said, we must hammer home the irrefutable truth that no policy framework, no matter how meticulously crafted, can substitute for the hard work, discipline, and intellectual rigor of the candidates themselves.
