The 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) might have come and gone but the aftermath is still a subject of debate. It was expected to be a landmark in Nigeria’s shift towards digital education.
However, technical failures during the exam exposed significant flaws in the country’s computer-based testing infrastructure. The disruptions have shaken public confidence and raised serious questions about the readiness of Nigeria’s digital examination system.
This is not the first time JAMB has faced such challenges. In past years, the board has grappled with system crashes, biometric verification failures, and network outages that disrupted exams and delayed results. For instance, during the 2019 UTME, numerous candidates experienced power outages and software glitches that forced rescheduling in several centres.
Legally, the JAMB Registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, is liable for breach of statutory duty in the 2025 UTME collapse due to admitted negligence and failure to properly oversee examination processes, with penalties prescribed under Nigerian law including the Examination Malpractice Act (EMA), the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act (CCBTA), and the Federal Government Public Service Rules (PSR).
This article examines what went wrong, the public’s reaction, and the legal frameworks that hold exam officials accountable when they fail in their duties. It also highlights key lessons Nigeria must learn to prevent a repeat.
Legal Framework: Anatomy of Breach
The legal framework addressing examination irregularities in Nigeria, including the recent JAMB 2025 technical glitches saga, is primarily anchored in the Examination Malpractice Act (EMA) 33 of 1999, as amended and consolidated in the 2004 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria.
- Section 9 of the EMA Act holds that any person responsible for the conduct of an examination who fraudulently, negligently, perversely, or recklessly fails in their duties before, during, or after the exam commits an offence, with penalties including fines and imprisonment up to 5 years without option of fine for tampering with results or scores.
- Section 6 criminalizes misconduct or failure by exam officials or agents to obey lawful instructions during the examination. If JAMB staff or technical providers ignored protocols or failed to follow procedures that could have prevented or mitigated the glitches, they would be liable under this section.
Also, Nigerian law provides clear provisions to address such breaches, primarily through the Code of Conduct Bureau and Tribunal Act (CCBTA), which establishes accountability mechanisms for public officers.
- Section 16 of the CCBTA mandates that any complaint alleging a public officer has breached or failed to comply with the Code of Conduct must be reported to the Code of Conduct Bureau. This provision creates the legal basis for investigating the negligence admitted by JAMB officials and their technical service providers who failed to update servers, causing widespread disruption properly.
- Further, Section 17 holds public officers personally liable for misconduct committed through agents or nominees. Since the technical service provider acted as an agent for JAMB in managing the examination servers, this section ensures that JAMB officials cannot evade responsibility for the provider’s failures. The Code of Conduct Tribunal to impose strict punishments. These include vacation of office, disqualification from holding any public office for up to ten years, and seizure and forfeiture of property acquired through abuse or corruption of office.
Complementing the CCBTA are the Federal Government Public Service Rules (PSR), which define “serious misconduct” to include negligence, falsification of records, and failure to perform official duties properly.
- Section PSR 030302 – 030306 outlines the formal process for investigating and sanctioning serious misconduct by public officers. The procedure typically begins with a query issued to the officer suspected of wrongdoing, followed by a hearing where the officer can present a defense. If found guilty, sanctions ranging from warnings to dismissal may be imposed. This process ensures fairness and due process in handling breaches of duty, such as negligence or failure to supervise technical operations that led to the JAMB glitches.
- Section 030401 of the PSR covers acts that damage the reputation or functioning of the public service, such as the negligence that led to the massive disruption of the 2025 UTME. The procedural safeguards in the PSR ensure that responsible officials are held accountable fairly and transparently.
The Scale of the Crisis
On May 14, 2025, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) admitted to a major technical glitch that affected results from 157 out of 887 CBT centres across Nigeria, impacting nearly 380,000 candidates, mostly in Lagos and the South-East zones. The problem was traced to a failure by the technical service providers to update delivery servers properly, an error that went unnoticed until after results were released.
The fallout was severe. Of the 1.95 million candidates who sat for the exam, over 1.5 million scored below 200 marks, marking a 78.5% failure rate, the highest in the history of the UTME. Candidates reported numerous technical problems.
Affected centres were mainly in two zones: 65 centres in Lagos with 206,610 candidates and 92 centres in the Owerri zone covering South-East states with 173,387 candidates.
Alex Onyia, CEO of Educare and a leading education technology expert invited by JAMB to investigate the crisis, used his verified X (formerly Twitter) account to raise alarms about the scale of the problem. Onyia tweeted on May 14, 2025, promising to share a detailed technical report on the glitches and highlighting the unprecedented number of complaints he had received from affected students. He described the situation as a major disaster and called for urgent transparency and action from JAMB. Onyia also revealed that many students’ scores did not match their academic records.
Public Outcry and JAMB’s Response
Members of the public were angry as the glitch has to do with the future of the students affected which led to the social media hashtag #ThisIsNotMyResult, used by students and parents to demand answers.Also, More than 8,000 complaints were officially recorded.
In response, JAMB’s registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, publicly apologized, took responsibility, and promised a resit for affected candidates.
Historical Problems That Have Disturbed JAMB Since Its Inception
For years, JAMB has struggled to deliver a seamless examination experience, with technical and administrative challenges frequently marring its efforts.
- Technical Problems at Exam Centres: When JAMB moved to computer-based tests (CBT), many thought it would make exams better. But technical problems have been common. For example, in 2019, students in some centres could not finish their exams because of power failures and poor internet. The group that runs many of these centres, called the Computer-Based Test Centre Proprietors’ Association of Nigeria (CPAN), has often asked JAMB and the government to invest more in technology and stable electricity to avoid these problems.
- Biometric Verification Issues:JAMB uses fingerprint scanners to stop cheating and impersonation. But sometimes, these machines do not work well. In 2023, about 80,000 students had to retake their exams because the scanners could not read their fingerprints or because of other technical errors. Some students were turned away from the exam hall even though they had registered properly.
- Examination Malpractice: Despite technological advancements aimed at curbing examination malpractice, JAMB has continued to grapple with issues such as impersonation, question leakage, and result manipulation. In the 2022/2023 UTME cycle, the board reported 178 confirmed cases of malpractice, underscoring the persistence of fraudulent activities.
- Result Management Issues: JAMB’s history with result management has been fraught with delays, withheld results, and scoring discrepancies. In 2018, the board withheld over 111,000 candidates’ results due to suspected malpractice or technical irregularities.
- Loss of Trust: Because of these repeated problems, many students and parents have lost trust in JAMB. In 2015, there were protests in Abuja and Lagos, with people calling for the resignation of the JAMB boss at the time. Some lawmakers even suggested going back to paper exams because of the complaints.
Key Exposures from the 2025 JAMB Technical Glitches
According to a detailed technical review compiled by Alex Onyia, CEO of Educare, who was invited by JAMB to investigate the 2025 UTME glitches, following an in-depth audit of JAMB’s examination systems, his report highlights the following critical issues:
- Software Update Not Done on Time: An important software update needed for new exam features, like mixing up questions and answers, was only done on time in the Kaduna zone. In Lagos and the South-East, the update was not applied until the 17th exam session. This caused problems sending exam data from 157 centres, affecting almost 380,000 students.
- Problems Sending Exam Answers: At the start of the exam, the system did not send the students’ answers correctly. Some students were logged into the wrong accounts, the system shut down suddenly, and many could not finish their exams on time.
- New Security Features Caused Problems: The 2025 exam added new rules to stop cheating, like shuffling questions and checking answers differently. But these changes were not done the same way in all centres, causing confusion and errors.
- Poor Checking Before the Exam: Even though there was a practice test the day before, the missing software update in Lagos was not found until the second day of the exam (April 25, 2025). The technical team did not notice this mistake before releasing the results.
The 2025 UTME collapse has laid bare critical weaknesses in Nigeria’s digital examination infrastructure and oversight. The legal frameworks clearly establish the JAMB Registrar’s liability for the failures that disrupted the exams and undermined public trust. It is essential for JAMB and the government to strengthen technical systems, enforce accountability, and restore confidence in the nation’s education assessment processes.
