Admission: JAMB warns parents against heaping denial accusations on universities

The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has warned parents against publicly accusing universities of denying their children admission without investigating the veracity of the claim.

In a statement made available to Blueprint in Abuja, Sunday, JAMB spokesman, Dr Fabian Benjamin, said the high scores in the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) wasn’t tantamount to meriting an admission as different institutions have benchmarks and other considerations for admitting students.

He cited the recent case of a parent, who publicly accused the University of Calabar of unjustly denying his child what he deemed a “rightful admission”, “whereas the score (ranking) of the child, who scored 201 in the UTME and whose aggregate score was 34%, fell below the 55%; 35% and 35, which were for Merit; Catchment and ELDS, respectively.”

The statement reads: “The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) is again compelled to refute the series of baseless allegations by some candidates and their parents, alleging denial of admission despite what, to them, were high scores of the candidates in the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME).

“A recent case involved a parent, who publicly accused the University of Calabar of unjustly denying his child what he deemed a “rightful admission”.

“One of the most recent cases was that of Mr. Godwin Nsan, who publicly accused the University of Calabar of unjust handling of his son’s admission.

“He had protested in writing to JAMB but was unwilling to provide requested details to establish his case despite pleas from the Board. When he eventually provided the details after he had unduly castigated the University in the media, it was discovered that the score (ranking) of the child who scored 201 in the UTME and whose aggregate score was 34% fell below the 55%; 35% and 35, which were for Merit; Catchment and ELDS, respectively, whereas he had unduly castigated the University.

“To help mitigate such misunderstandings, JAMB has implemented a robust communication system — the Ticketing Platform — where candidates and their guardians can seek clarification before airing grievances publicly.

“As a regulatory body, JAMB is committed to ensuring that qualified candidates are not substituted for inferior candidates, which is why we established the Central Admissions Processing System (CAPS) to transparently rank candidates for admission selection.

“Similarly, a senior public figure alleged that Modibbo Adama University, Yola, sidelined some candidates in its admission exercise. JAMB promptly investigated and found the claims to be unfounded. We communicated our findings to the individual, clarifying why his assertions of discrimination were inaccurate.

“To promote accountability among institutions and ensure adherence to admission guidelines, JAMB shared its findings with the relevant universities.

“The Board will continue to share such with institutions, where necessary, even as the Board, however, cautions institutions against disclosing such confidential information meant solely for institutional use to the public or media.

“While the Board welcomes genuine complaints, it detests public condemnation of tertiary institutions, who are merely doing their duties.

“Recently, a parent publicly claimed that his son, who scored 345, was unjustly denied admission to the University of Jos without valid reasons. JAMB participated in a radio programme to clarify the admission ranking process, advising candidates to consider the overall results rather than relying solely on personal perceptions of brilliance.

“The candidate and his father were invited to the National Headquarters, where they were shown the result with the son being ranked 86th among other candidates, while only 68 could be admitted based on merit. It is essential to note that in some universities, a score of 345 might rank a candidate as low as 300, depending on the university’s subscription capacity.

“The father was subsequently invited to view the admission platform and the ranking of his son. It was there that he saw the strenuous job being done by the Board to engender equity and fairness and he apologised and left apparently satisfied.

“In light of these circumstances, JAMB advises parents to refrain from being swayed by their subjective perceptions of their children’s exceptional abilities without considering the broader context of overall candidate performance. This perspective can help mitigate feelings of desperation and disappointment.

“A further example of this misplaced belief in exceptionalism is the misuse of the “exceptionally brilliant window” introduced for the 2025 UTME. This provision allows candidates younger than 16 to sit the examination if they can demonstrate outstanding performance through meeting the standard set by the Board.

“Surprisingly, a ridiculously high number of candidates have registered through this window, a phenomenon virtually unheard of globally, where only a small fraction typically qualifies. Parents are advised not to exaggerate the brilliance of their children without realising that there are more brilliant candidates out there.

“JAMB remains committed to protecting the rights of all candidates by ensuring fair and equitable selection through transparent ranking based on performance. We will investigate any allegations of unfair treatment and provide necessary clarifications.

“Currently, a senior university staff is being prosecuted for admission-related crimes, with four others under investigation. JAMB does not tolerate any admission infractions and will take appropriate action against any individuals involved in questionable practices regarding admissions.

“We urge parents to refrain from jumping to conclusions without considering the performance of other candidates. The UTME serves as a ranking examination by determining a candidate’s position within a cohort for the limited available spaces in our nation’s tertiary institutions.”