19-year-old candidate who sued JAMB for N1bn handed over to police

The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board said it has handed over a 19-year-old candidate in the 2021-2022 Unified Tertiary and Matriculation Examination to the police for investigation over what it described as “result tampering.”

JAMB registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede.

The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) is facing a serious controversy involving a candidate, Chinedu John, who accused the board of altering his Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) score. This issue came to light when Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, JAMB’s Registrar, addressed the media at the board's headquarters in Abuja, disclosing the details of the case and the board’s response.

Chinedu John, a candidate from Enugu State, initially claimed he scored 380 in the UTME conducted in June. However, upon receiving his official results from JAMB, he was shocked to find his score listed as 265. Convinced that his score had been altered, Chinedu and his father, John Ifenkpam, sought legal recourse. They engaged an Enugu-based lawyer, Ikeazor Akaiwe, who formally approached JAMB with demands. The lawyer's letter requested that Chinedu be allowed to retake the examination and sought N1 billion in damages for the physical and emotional distress caused by the discrepancy in scores.

According to Prof. Oloyede, the lawyer justified the demand for N1 billion as compensation for the trauma Chinedu allegedly experienced due to being presented with “two separate scores.” Chinedu further claimed that this was not the first instance of score alteration by JAMB, alleging that his UTME results had been tampered with since 2019. He argued that these alterations had consistently deprived him of the opportunity to pursue his desired course of study in Medicine.

In response to the accusations, JAMB invited Chinedu, his father, and their legal representative to Abuja for a face-to-face meeting. During this meeting, JAMB officials, led by Prof. Oloyede, provided Chinedu with an opportunity to present his case. Initially, Chinedu was given a few minutes in a closed session with his father and lawyer to “come clean” about his claims. Despite this opportunity, Chinedu maintained that his original score was indeed 380.

The board, however, was prepared with substantial evidence to counter Chinedu’s claims. During the meeting, JAMB presented documentary evidence proving that Chinedu’s actual score was 265, not 380 as he had asserted. This revelation led to accusations from Prof. Oloyede, who stated that Chinedu had altered his results and would face legal consequences. He emphasized that JAMB was committed to maintaining the integrity of the examination process and would not tolerate fraudulent activities.

Prof. Oloyede revealed that Chinedu was not an isolated case. He mentioned that Chinedu was among 11 candidates suspected of forging their results. Two of these candidates were already undergoing prosecution, and the board intended to take similar actions against the remaining nine, including Chinedu. The original results of these candidates would be withdrawn pending the conclusion of investigations.

Prof. Oloyede’s firm stance on the issue underscores JAMB’s dedication to preserving the credibility of its examinations. He stated, “We have 11 of them who tampered with their results. Two of them are already being prosecuted. The remaining ones, we are going to withdraw their results and prosecute them. The main purpose is to sanitize the system, including our own staff.”

Furthermore, Prof. Oloyede clarified that there had been no official communication from JAMB indicating that Chinedu scored 380. He explained that because Chinedu had publicly accused JAMB of wrongdoing, his result would be withheld until the investigation was complete. To ensure transparency, Prof. Oloyede suggested that their interactions with Chinedu be made public.

The gravity of Chinedu’s accusations and the subsequent investigation highlight the broader issue of examination malpractice in Nigeria. JAMB’s proactive measures in addressing these allegations demonstrate the board’s resolve to uphold the standards and integrity of its examination processes. By taking legal action against candidates who tamper with their results, JAMB aims to send a clear message that fraudulent activities will not be tolerated and will be met with strict consequences.

This incident has sparked a wider conversation about the pressures faced by students and the lengths to which some might go to achieve high scores. It also raises questions about the role of parents and legal representatives in such matters. While seeking justice is important, ensuring that the pursuit of justice is based on truth and integrity is equally crucial.

As the investigation proceeds, Chinedu and the other accused candidates will face scrutiny, and the outcome will likely influence how future cases of alleged score tampering are handled. For now, JAMB remains steadfast in its commitment to transparency and justice, reinforcing the importance of honesty and integrity in the pursuit of academic excellence.