Thousands of candidates who sat for the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) are gearing up to take legal action against the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB). They allege that widespread technical glitches and incomplete questions during the exam severely hampered their performance. The lawsuit is scheduled to kick off today, Monday, May 12, 2025, at the Federal High Court, following more than 8,000 formal complaints from students. These candidates claim that JAMB’s faulty system not only caused them significant mental distress but also put their academic futures at risk.
Last week, JAMB released the UTME results, showing that over 1.5 million of the 1.9 million candidates scored below 200 out of a possible 400. This outcome stunned the nation. The Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, suggested that the low scores were a result of JAMB’s enhanced anti-malpractice measures. However, candidates and their parents have dismissed this explanation, insisting that technical failures during the exam are to blame for the disappointing results.
Leading the charge is education advocate Alex Onyia, who is representing the affected candidates. The group is demanding that JAMB provide detailed mark sheets that include individual scores, correct answers, and a clear process for disputing results. Onyia emphasized, “There is ample evidence that JAMB’s system was inefficient, causing serious harm to these students’ mental health.” Should the court side with the candidates, JAMB might be compelled to either re-conduct the exam or undertake a major overhaul of its examination system. On the other hand, a win for JAMB would bolster their argument that the low scores reflect the effectiveness of their anti-cheating measures.
This legal showdown carries significant consequences for Nigeria’s education landscape. The UTME serves as the primary pathway to university admission, and any flaws in the system erode public confidence in its fairness and reliability. JAMB has faced recurring technical challenges in the past, and this case could force the board to finally tackle these persistent issues.