The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has released the results of the 2025 UTME resit examinations while exposing an alarming network of high-tech cheating syndicates involving school owners, tutorial centres, and university undergraduates. The Board’s latest findings shed light on the rising sophistication of examination malpractice and underscore the need for nationwide reform.
The resit exercise was conducted for candidates affected by disruptions in earlier sessions. Out of 336,845 candidates rescheduled, 21,082 were absent. Performance trends remained within historic ranges, between 11% and 34%, but what shook the Board and its examiners was the scale and digital sophistication of malpractice uncovered.
According to Dr. Fabian Benjamin, Public Communication Advisor for JAMB, over 3,000 candidates have been identified as either accomplices or beneficiaries of a web of fraud involving AI-enabled impersonation, biometric manipulation, and network intrusions at compromised CBT centres.
Sophisticated Fraud Tactics Unveiled
Among the disturbing revelations were:
• AI-assisted impersonation: Candidates used artificial intelligence tools to blend their photos with impersonators’.
• Biometric collusion: Some registrations involved fingerprints from multiple people to bypass identity verification.
• Network hacks: Fraud rings illegally extended LAN connections to “strong rooms” where hired mercenaries controlled CBT systems remotely.
• Mercenary access: In some cases, registered mercenaries gained hall access after deliberately disrupting sitting arrangements.
The Board confirmed that each CBT centre operates on its own local server, and while some of these were compromised, JAMB’s central server remains secure.
Misinformation and Fake Scores
In an effort to combat misinformation, JAMB cited the case of one Mr. Olisa Gabriel Chukwuemeka, a first-year Public Health student at Adekunle Ajasin University, who falsely claimed a UTME score of 326 on social media. Investigations revealed he doctored his actual 2024 result of 203 to mislead the public. His 2025 resit score was in fact 180 before the result was withdrawn. Following public backlash, he deactivated his account.
Key Resolutions and Waivers
A meeting of Chief External Examiners (CEEs), chaired by Prof. Olufemi Peters of the National Open University, reviewed the resit results and issued several directives:
• Under-aged Candidates: Results of candidates below the minimum age, previously withheld, were released for transparency, though they remain ineligible for admission.
• “WhatsApp Runs” Offenders: A one-time waiver was granted to candidates who engaged in illicit online exam help, with stern warnings issued.
• Mop-up Opportunity: All absent candidates will be allowed to write the exam during the forthcoming mop-up round.
• Crackdown on CBT Centres: Complicit centres and individuals will face blacklisting and prosecution.
• Tutorial Centre Oversight: Governments were urged to regulate and monitor tutorial centres fueling dishonest practices.
Preserving the Integrity of CBT
Despite the challenges, the Board reaffirmed its commitment to Computer-Based Testing (CBT), praising its role in reducing malpractice and supporting Nigeria’s digital transformation. However, it also called for enhanced accreditation processes through third-party management consultants to further safeguard the system.
Appeal Against Division
JAMB cautioned against attempts to frame the situation in tribal or sectional terms, noting that the problem is systemic and national. “The unfortunate incident is not targeted at any group,” the statement emphasized, “and such narratives only deepen national division.”
Appreciation and Assurance
The Board expressed gratitude to the security agencies, WAEC, Ahmadu Bello University, TRCN, and NECO for their cooperation during the resit exercise. It also thanked the Nigerian public for their understanding and pledged to maintain transparency, fairness, and diligence in managing the UTME process.
As investigations continue, JAMB warned that more results may be withdrawn where clear evidence of wrongdoing is established—underscoring its zero-tolerance stance toward examination fraud in the digital age.
