The public apprehension and anxiety occasioned by the recent system error recorded by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) in its 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) signposts a major test to the board and the credibility of Nigeria’s examinations processes. The fact that a whole lot of nuances and insinuations have been attributed to the incident also reveals just how sensitive the issue of school admissions can be to parents, guardians as well as students, more so in a society in which work progress is governed more by certificates than actual competence. Certainly, the trauma inflicted by this technological failure demands sober reflection, decisive action and a renewed commitment to safeguarding the credibility of Nigeria’s examination system.
It is hardly surprising that the revelation by JAMB of a system error that affected the results of 379,997 candidates across 157 centres, primarily in Lagos and the South-East sent shockwaves across Nigeria’s educational landscape. This came as stakeholders contend with unusually low scores, which even the glitch has not explained fully: Out of 1.9 million candidates who sat the exam, 1.5 million, or 78.9 per cent scored below 200, a benchmark that many universities use as the cut-off for admission.
For many candidates and their families, what should have been a hopeful gateway to tertiary education turned into a distressing ordeal marked by uncertainty, frustration and anxiety. And as the dust settles, this crisis demands a profound reckoning; and calls for accountability, systemic reform, a renewed commitment to fairness and technological resilience because of the human cost. The trauma was beyond scores, and trust was shaken. In fact, JAMB’s UTME glitch could be described as Nigeria’s crucible for exam integrity, innovation and national unity.
At the heart of this debacle are the candidates; young Nigerians whose hopes, dreams and futures were imperilled by a glitch beyond their control. For these nearly 380,000 students, what should have been a milestone of achievement turned into an ordeal of confusion and heartbreak. Parents and guardians, too, were caught in despair; and have been grappling with the shock of inexplicable low scores and the uncertainty of what lay ahead.
The trauma is touching, and the toll is undeniable. JAMB Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, visibly emotional during a press briefing, acknowledged the pain caused by the error, stating poignantly, “What should have been a moment of joy has changed due to one or two errors.” Oloyede, moved by the situation, publicly apologised and took full responsibility for the error. His apology, while heartfelt, also underscored the gravity of the crisis; the board’s commitment to rectification; and the board’s responsibility to the nation’s teeming youth.
Notwithstanding, this incident raises critical questions about the robustness of JAMB’s technological infrastructure and the preparedness of the Board to manage high-stake, computer-based examination involving millions of candidates. The delay in acknowledging the systemic error, extent of the failure and the initial slow response to the mass failure were matters of deep concern.
Also, the Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa’s initial comments, suggesting that the poor results reflected “good measurement and checks against cheating,” were viewed as insensitive and dismissive of candidates’ distress and plight. The fallout was immediate and intense. Thousands of candidates took to social media to share harrowing accounts of system freezes, incomplete questions and scores that did not reflect their actual performance. Some even threatened legal action against JAMB while others demanded the resignation of JAMB’s Registrar.
In response to the public uproar, JAMB moved to retest the affected candidates starting May 16, 2025 and promised to communicate directly with them via text messages, emails and phone calls. The House of Representatives and various stakeholders have called for an independent audit to investigate the causes and ensure accountability. This is recommended to prevent a repeat of such ugly incidents.
Most unfortunate but predictable is that in the heat of the controversies, some voices sought to ethnicise or politicise the issue, unfairly attributing blame along regional or religious lines. Such divisiveness is detrimental to national cohesion and distracts from the real task of addressing systemic weaknesses and restoring confidence in the examination process. Nigerians must transcend such narrow perspectives and rally around the shared goal of educational excellence and fairness. Essentially, this crisis demands a united Nigerian response focused on systemic improvement and fairness rather than scapegoating.
Furthermore, while the scale of the UTME disruption is unprecedented in Nigeria, it underscores that any system based on technology and human input is not perfect. The JAMB’s experience is not unique globally. Advanced countries with sophisticated examination systems have encountered similar technical failures, underscoring that no system is infallible.
In the United States, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) experienced a glitch, in March this year, that caused premature submission of answers, leading to unfairly low scores for many students. The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) also faced technical problems when transitioning to tablet-based testing, resulting in free retakes for affected candidates. The United Kingdom’s Oxford University admission tests in 2023 were marred by severe technical and administrative issues following a change in test providers, forcing a re-evaluation of their testing platforms.
India, despite being technologically advanced and sharing demographic challenges similar to Nigeria, has faced significant disruptions in national entrance exams. The Common Admission Test (CAT) in 2009 suffered malware attacks and software crashes affecting thousands of candidates. More recently, the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) in January 2025 encountered technical glitches that necessitated rescheduling exams for affected centres.
While these examples demonstrate the global challenge of technological glitches in examinations (not necessarily a symptom of Nigerian incompetence or corruption), JAMB and other major examination bodies must learn from them, first to respond appropriately when systems derail; and more importantly to work assiduously to prevent such glitches because of huge collateral damages. The importance of preparedness, transparency and swift remediation cannot be overemphasised.
Clearly, the incident raises questions recommending it to catalyse deeper reforms. The reflective posers for the country’s educational stakeholders include: What systemic weaknesses allowed such a significant glitch to affect so many candidates? How can JAMB balance technological innovation with risk management to avoid future failures? How can JAMB ensure that technological upgrades are fully tested and uniformly deployed across all centres? What governance structures can be put in place to provide real-time monitoring and rapid response during exams? How can Nigeria learn from global best practices while addressing local realities to build a resilient, transparent and credible examination system? What role should government oversight, independent audits, and civil society play in safeguarding exam integrity?
Beyond blame, this unfortunate crisis presents an opportunity for JAMB and Nigeria’s education sector to re-appraise examination credibility and integrity. It is a national call for unity and progress; and a moment to reaffirm the commitment to fair assessment that truly reflects candidates’ abilities and potential. Also, parents and educators must play a role in counselling candidates to develop resilience not just for exams but for life’s vicissitudes. The trauma from this incident, though severe, should not define the futures of these young Nigerians.
The 2025 UTME glitch is a painful but crucial moment for Nigeria’s education sector; it exposes systemic gaps but also offers an opportunity for transformation. JAMB’s action in duly acknowledging its failure and taking corrective measures is instructive. It should go beyond that to systematically embark on steps to restore public confidence in its examination machinery. These will include sanctioning culprits, balancing logistical needs with candidates’ psychological well-being; and strengthening internal result verification processes before public release, to detect anomalies early and prevent the premature publication of flawed results.
