Very recently, Professor Ishaq Oloyede, the iconic Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), appeared before the National Assembly to defend the agency’s budget for 2025. What emerged from that session—particularly from the presentation of Senator Adams Oshiomhole—raised serious concerns about alleged abuses in JAMB under Professor Oloyede’s watch. These alleged abuses include accusations of misappropriation, breach of regulations, and profligate spending. Worse still, they suggest that much of the burden of these spending habits is passed on to Nigerian parents and students, many of whom are already in financially precarious positions.
The Controversy Over Dual Funding
One key issue that has sparked public outcry is JAMB’s dual sources of funding. While the federal government provides allocations to run the agency, JAMB also charges fees from candidates seeking admission into tertiary institutions. For many, education is an essential service—a foundational instrument of social development. How, then, has a body meant to facilitate admission to institutions of higher learning seemingly turned into another federal revenue generator?
The figures disclosed during the budget defense session were striking:
- JAMB reportedly spent ₦1.1 billion on meals and refreshments in 2024.
- The Board allegedly spent ₦850 million on security, cleaning, and fumigation in the same period.
- JAMB remitted ₦4 billion to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 2024 but also received a ₦6 billion grant from the Nigerian government.
Members of the National Assembly Joint Committee on Finance found it puzzling that an agency considered “self-funding” would still receive billions in government grants. According to Hon. Abiodun Faleke, Chair of the House Committee on Finance, if JAMB can generate revenue internally, there may be no need for direct government funding. Senator Oshiomhole questioned the morality of “spending the money generated from poor students” on extravagant items, likening the massive figures on “meals and refreshments” and “security and fumigation” to a needless waste of scarce resources.
Although the National Assembly later issued a statement purporting to absolve the JAMB Registrar of any wrongdoing, the details of these expenditures have continued to spark public debate. The controversy highlights a deeper issue: JAMB’s fundamental role and purpose in Nigeria’s education sector.
Does a Central Admissions Agency Fit a Federal System?
JAMB was established to coordinate matriculation examinations and set admission guidelines into tertiary institutions. However, critics question the relevance of a federal agency overseeing admissions for universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education (including those founded and funded by states or private entities). This centralized approach appears incongruous in a federal structure, where states and private owners should ideally have the autonomy to manage their institutions according to their capacities and peculiarities.
Such centralization has contributed to the perennial crisis many parents face every year, as hundreds of thousands of candidates fail to secure admission despite multiple attempts. Some youths have remained on JAMB’s radar for over five years without gaining admission. The despair generated by these repeated failures has pushed many to seek alternatives abroad, leading to a brain drain that further weakens Nigeria’s social and economic fabric.
The JAMB Act and Its Far-Reaching Authority
The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board Act, which took effect on December 7, 1989, grants JAMB broad powers:
- General control of matriculation examinations for admission into all universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education “by whatever name called.”
- Placement of suitably qualified candidates in collaboration with these institutions, taking into account the number of available vacancies, federal character, educationally disadvantaged states, catchment areas, and so on.
Crucially, the Act stipulates that JAMB determine matriculation requirements and conduct the relevant examinations for undergraduate admissions. Over time, this legislative framework has effectively placed the destinies of millions of young Nigerians in the hands of a single federal bureaucracy.
Under Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (Paragraphs 27–30 of Part 2, Third Schedule), matters of university, technological, or professional education are on the Concurrent Legislative List, meaning states also hold power to legislate and manage their own institutions. This begs the question: Why must every institution—even those not funded by the federal government—conform to a single federal admissions process?
Funding, Statutory Mandates, and the Turn Toward Revenue Generation
Section 10 of the JAMB Act addresses the Board’s source of funding:
“(a) such sums as may be provided by the Federal Government for the running expenses of the Board; and
(b) such other sums as may be collected or received by the Board from other sources either in the execution of its functions or in respect of any property vested in the Board or otherwise howsoever.”
This provision makes clear that the primary source for JAMB’s operations should be government subventions. The Act does not mandate revenue generation at the expense of students and their parents. In practice, however, JAMB has become a cash cow for the government—routinely remitting large sums to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, then often receiving even larger grants. This paradox has rightly led the National Assembly to question whether JAMB’s role has shifted from service to commerce.
If the Board finds itself with surplus funds after fulfilling its primary responsibilities, a more humane approach would be to reduce or eliminate fees for a period—thereby easing the financial burden on students and their families. Instead, the agency has been accused of channeling significant amounts into staff welfare initiatives, capital projects, and questionable overheads, all while the cost of examinations remains disproportionately high.
Education as a Human Right
Nigeria is a signatory to various international conventions that consider education a fundamental human right. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) recommends that member states allocate at least 26% of their annual budgets to education. Articles 13 and 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights equally emphasize the obligation to provide free primary education for all, alongside equitable and progressively free access to secondary and higher education.
For a country with millions of out-of-school children and an underfunded public education system, education agencies should focus on accessibility and quality. The current arrangement, where an admission-coordinating agency doubles as a revenue generator, seems at odds with global standards and best practices in ensuring broader access to education.
The Way Forward
Professor Ishaq Oloyede and the federal government face a critical decision. JAMB’s current trajectory—where it has one foot in revenue generation and the other in government subventions—has become untenable. If its operations are too expensive for government funding alone, the agency should be restructured or scrapped. States and privately funded institutions should have the autonomy to set their own admission processes, within broad national guidelines to maintain quality and fairness. That model would reflect genuine federalism and potentially reduce the bureaucratic bottlenecks that lock many would-be undergraduates out of tertiary education.
Ultimately, JAMB must return to its original mandate: to coordinate admissions into tertiary institutions without imposing an unfair financial burden on Nigerians. If it has accumulated more funds than it needs, let it temporarily waive examination fees until those funds are exhausted. This reorientation—toward service rather than profit—would align with Nigeria’s commitment to education as a human right and as a cornerstone of sustainable development.
It is imperative to fix the structural issues that have reduced a key educational body into a lightning rod for controversy. Nigeria’s future depends on the educational advancement of its youth; the mission of JAMB should be singularly focused on making that advancement as accessible, streamlined, and affordable as possible.
Conclusion
The recent budget defense session at the National Assembly offered a telling glimpse into how JAMB’s dual-source funding model and seemingly extravagant expenditures risk undermining its noble objectives. Rather than continuing down a path that appears to prioritize revenue over service, now is the time for a fundamental overhaul of JAMB’s operations. Whether through returning to its original purpose or being scrapped in favor of more decentralized systems, the overarching goal must be to unburden students and their families, remove bureaucratic bottlenecks, and ensure that education—recognized globally as a basic human right—remains accessible and affordable for all Nigerians.