The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has launched an urgent review of the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) following a surge of complaints from candidates and parents alleging technical glitches, incomplete questions, and unusually low scores.
In a statement issued on Monday by its Public Communication Advisor, Fabian Benjamin, the Board acknowledged receiving an “unusual volume of complaints” since the release of UTME results last Friday.
“The Board is particularly concerned about the concentration of complaints from specific states,” the statement said. “We are fast-tracking our post-examination review, which typically occurs months after the exams, to determine the root of these issues.”
Benjamin said the review would cover all phases of the UTME—registration, examination, and result processing. He added that JAMB had enlisted independent experts, including computer professionals, assessment bodies, vice-chancellors, and measurement specialists, to ensure a thorough evaluation.
“If glitches are confirmed, JAMB will implement the appropriate remedial measures, as is our standard practice,” he assured.
Legal threats loom
The move comes as discontent grows among candidates, with reports suggesting thousands are preparing to file a class-action lawsuit against the Board. Many allege that the exam was marred by technical failures and inconsistencies in question delivery.
The uproar intensified after JAMB disclosed that over 1.5 million out of the 1.9 million candidates scored below 200 out of 400—sparking widespread concern and a social media storm under the hashtag #ThisIsNotMyResult.
Government response
Reacting to the controversy, Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, attributed the poor performance to the enhanced integrity of JAMB’s computer-based testing system, which he said has made exam malpractice nearly impossible.
He suggested that similar technology be adopted by other national examination bodies like WAEC and NECO.
JAMB Registrar, Prof. Is-haq Oloyede, also downplayed the backlash, saying that comparable performance trends had been observed in previous years.
Despite these explanations, public pressure continues to mount, with growing calls for greater transparency and fairness in how results are graded and released.
