The deep commitment by JAMB to uphold education standards

The recent decision by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) to delist 23 computer-based test (CBT) centres across 11 states and the Federal Capital Territory has once again drawn national attention to the integrity and technical preparedness of Nigeria’s tertiary admissions process. The action followed technical shortcomings observed during the 2026 mock Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), a preparatory exercise designed to test systems, familiarize candidates with the CBT environment, and expose operational gaps ahead of the main examination. While the move has generated concern among affected candidates and their families, it also underscores a deeper commitment by the examination body to uphold standards in a system that directly shapes the academic futures of millions of young Nigerians.

The mock UTME itself is not merely a rehearsal, it is a critical quality assurance mechanism. Conducted prior to the main UTME, it allows JAMB to evaluate the readiness of accredited CBT centres, assess the reliability of hardware and software infrastructure, and identify logistical inefficiencies that could disrupt the actual examination. In a country where digital infrastructure varies widely across regions, such testing will definitely become indispensable. The delisting of centres, therefore, is not punitive in isolation but corrective in intention. It reflects findings from an internal audit where certain centres failed to meet required benchmarks in such areas as system stability, connectivity, power supply, and general operational competence.

The necessity of this action becomes clearer when one considers the scale and stakes of the UTME. Each year, well over a million candidates sit for the examination, competing for limited spaces in universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education. Any systemic failure, whether it is caused by server downtime, faulty computers, or poor supervision, can jeopardize fairness and erode public confidence. In previous years, complaints about technical glitches, incomplete questions, and abrupt shutdowns have occasionally marred the process, leading to rescheduled exams and widespread frustration. Against this backdrop, JAMB’s proactive removal of underperforming centres signals an attempt to prevent a recurrence of such disruptions during the main examination.

For the affected centres, the delisting carries both immediate and long-term implications. In the short term, they lose the opportunity to participate in the main UTME, which also translates into financial loss and reputational damage. More importantly, it places them under scrutiny, compelling them to upgrade their facilities, retrain personnel, and meet compliance standards before they can be reconsidered for future accreditation. This corrective pressure is essential in a system where private and public operators alike must adhere to uniform standards. If properly enforced, it can lead to a gradual improvement in the overall quality of CBT centres nationwide.

Students, however, remain the most directly impacted. Those who participated in the mock examination at the affected centres may have experienced disruptions ranging from delayed start times to system failures. While the mock exam itself does not determine admission outcomes, it plays a vital role in boosting candidates’ confidence and preparedness. For many first-time candidates, especially those from rural or under-resourced backgrounds, it is their first exposure to a computer-based examination environment. Experiencing technical issues at this stage can heighten anxiety and reduce confidence ahead of the main UTME.

JAMB is therefore expected to take deliberate steps to cushion the impact on these candidates. Clear communication is essential. Students must be promptly informed of alternative arrangements, including reassignment to fully accredited centres for the main examination. In cases where the mock experience was severely compromised, the board may consider offering additional familiarization opportunities through practice platforms or tutorials. Transparency in this process will be critical in maintaining trust, as uncertainty often compounds the stress already associated with high-stakes examinations. Beyond immediate remedial measures, the situation invites a broader assessment of JAMB’s performance as an organization.

Over the past decade, the board has undergone significant transformation, particularly with the introduction of CBT, which replaced the traditional paper-based system. This transition has reduced examination malpractice, improved efficiency in result processing, and enhanced the credibility of the admissions process. JAMB has also been commended for increasing its revenue remittances to the federal government, a reflection of improved financial management and operational transparency.

However, the persistence of technical challenges at some centres indicates that the system is still evolving. While JAMB sets accreditation standards, the actual implementation often depends on third-party operators whose capacities vary. This creates structural vulnerability: the integrity of the entire examination process can be compromised by the weakest link in the chain. The recent delisting exercise, therefore, highlights both the strengths and limitations of JAMB’s decentralized operational model.

To avoid similar anomalies in the future, a multi-layered approach will be required. First, the accreditation process must become even more rigorous, with real-time stress testing of CBT centres under simulated examination conditions before approval is granted. This should go beyond documentation and physical inspection to include performance benchmarking using live data scenarios. Second, there should be continuous monitoring, not just pre-examination certification. Centres that initially meet standards may deteriorate over time due to poor maintenance or increased load, making periodic audits essential. Third, investment in capacity building is crucial. Many CBT centre operators may lack the technical expertise required to manage large-scale digital examinations. JAMB can address this by organising mandatory training programmes for centre administrators and technical staff, focusing on system management, troubleshooting, and candidate support. Fourth, infrastructure challenges, particularly power supply and internet connectivity, must be addressed through redundancy planning. Centres should be required to have backup power sources and multiple internet service options to minimize disruptions.

Additionally, the board could explore greater centralization of critical components of the examination process. For instance, cloud-based systems with robust failover mechanisms can reduce dependence on local infrastructure. While this may involve higher initial investment, it could significantly enhance reliability in the long run. Collaboration with technology partners, including telecommunications providers and software developers, will also be key in building a more resilient system.

It is equally important to consider the human dimension. Examination anxiety is already high among candidates, and technical failures only exacerbate the pressure on both students and their parents. The financial and emotional investments made by families in preparing for the UTME cannot be overstated. Any disruption, even at the mock stage, carries psychological consequences. JAMB must therefore integrate candidate welfare into its operational planning, ensuring that technological efficiency is matched by empathy and responsiveness.

In wishing the board well, it is important to acknowledge that the challenges it faces are not unique but are characteristic of large-scale digital transitions in developing contexts. What distinguishes effective institutions is not the absence of problems but the speed and sincerity with which they are addressed. The delisting of the 23 centres, though disruptive, reflects a willingness to confront shortcomings rather than overlook them. If followed by sustained reforms and improved stakeholder engagement, it could mark another step in the ongoing evolution of Nigeria’s examination system.

Ultimately, the credibility of the UTME depends on consistency, fairness, and reliability. Every candidate, regardless of location, deserves an equal opportunity to demonstrate their academic ability under optimal conditions. By tightening its oversight mechanisms, investing in infrastructure and training, and prioritizing the experience of candidates, JAMB can reduce the likelihood of future anomalies. In doing so, it will not only protect the integrity of the examination but also reinforce public confidence in one of the country’s most critical educational institutions