Pat Stevens/
The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has come under fire for a recent statement regarding logistical issues in its examination processes.
Shared by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) via X, the statement, signed by JAMB’s Public Communication Advisor, has drawn widespread criticism for its perceived insensitivity and lack of accountability.
JAMB’s statement sought to address complaints about examination scheduling and centre allocation. It claimed that candidates had selected their preferred towns for examination during the registration process and justified the center placements on that basis.
Furthermore, it downplayed grievances, implying that the system was working as designed and that candidates were responsible for their selections.
The statement concluded with an attempt at humour, noting on a “lighter note” that candidates who successfully navigated the process would be rewarded.
This closing remark, however, sparked outrage, particularly in the context of reports detailing the hardships candidates faced, including accidents, long-distance travel risks, and even a kidnapping incident.
The public’s reaction has been swift and scathing. Wemimo (@wemimospot) condemned the statement as “disingenuous,” “insensitive,” and “condescending.” She pointed out that JAMB’s response had conveniently ignored serious incidents, including a reported accident involving students and a kidnapping.
Highlighting the scheduling disputes, she drew attention to allegations that some exams were scheduled as early as 6.30am, posing significant logistical challenges for candidates who lived far from their assigned centres.
She questioned whether students were expected to sleep at the examination centres and demanded accountability for the risks this policy exposed them to, including potential kidnapping and rape.
Wemimo also criticised JAMB for failing to address these complaints adequately, stating that no one opposed the need for a verification process but that the procedure should not jeopardise the safety of millions.
She raised concerns about transparency, urging the FCCPC to investigate and demand that JAMB provide backend data to verify if candidates were genuinely assigned centres based on their selections.
She further challenged the practicality of parents or candidates having access to this information and criticised the FCCPC for appearing to act as a “broadcast partner” for JAMB rather than a watchdog.
Her statement emphasised the need for respectful and sensitive public communication, calling the concluding “lame joke” in JAMB’s statement tone-deaf and offensive.
Other reactions echoed Wemimo’s sentiments, amplifying the public’s outrage. Jide Taiwo (@thejidetaiwo) remarked on the tragedy of candidates losing their lives in Oyo State while trying to get to their centres, condemning the tone of the statement as irresponsible and shameful.
Territorial God (@territorial_god) critiqued JAMB’s justification that candidates selected their examination towns, arguing that many localities were unavailable during registration, forcing candidates to choose centres based on proximity rather than residence.
He described this defence as a form of “evil genius” manipulation that ignored the lived realities of candidates.
These voices underscored the broader failures of JAMB’s communication and planning. Wemimo’s detailed critique, however, served as the most comprehensive indictment, addressing both the human cost and the systemic shortcomings that underpinned the situation.
In a subsequent post, FCCPC addressed the concerns, expressing a commitment to ensuring justice and consumer protection. The commission assured the public of its intent to investigate and provide redress for candidates affected by JAMB’s processes.
“Transparency is key,” the FCCPC stated, agreeing that backend verification is a critical component of addressing these complaints.
The agency also emphasised the importance of respectful and sensitive communication in public service.
0
