The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) may have succeeded in clarifying that no UTME examination was scheduled to begin at 6:30 AM, but its insistence on candidates arriving that early for biometric verification has triggered renewed criticism—and rightfully so. Must Nigerian children be subjected to pre-dawn travel in the name of verification?
The controversy began after a viral video featured a distressed mother lamenting the danger and absurdity of asking her child to write an exam by 6:30 AM. JAMB responded swiftly through its official X handle, reposting a detailed commentary by public affairs analyst Timothy Adesina, who argued that the public was reacting emotionally to a misrepresentation of facts. According to Adesina and JAMB, the actual examination was fixed for 8:00 AM, not 6:30 AM. The earlier time, they explained, was solely for biometric verification to curb impersonation and malpractice.
Adesina’s write-up, titled “The JAMB 6:30AM Controversy: A Reflection on Nigeria’s Culture of Misinformation and Selective Outrage”, accused Nigerians of indulging in habitual outrage. “The real problem is not that JAMB asked students to arrive early. The problem is our willingness to believe anything that sounds bad about Nigeria without asking basic questions,” he wrote. He further argued that Nigerians complain about local inconveniences while tolerating worse treatment from foreign institutions like embassies.
But this argument—shared and amplified by JAMB—is dangerously dismissive of the real issues at stake. First, it overlooks the core question: Can a candidate sit for an examination without biometric verification? The answer is no. This means that verification is not a side process—it is part of the examination. And scheduling that process for 6:30 AM, for children, makes the entire system unnecessarily punitive.
Adesina’s justification, citing how Nigerians queue up at embassies as early as 4:00 AM for visa appointments, is fundamentally flawed. Those visa applicants are adults, often attending by personal choice. Comparing that to a government-mandated exam for minors—many of whom live far from assigned centres, face unsafe roads, and lack reliable transportation—is both unreasonable and tone-deaf.
Indeed, the expectation that candidates must arrive at 6:30 AM often means leaving their homes by 4:30 AM or earlier, depending on where they live. Some may have to travel across towns and cities. In a country grappling with insecurity, poor transportation infrastructure, and widespread urban sprawl, how is this considered a fair or safe arrangement?
JAMB defends the policy by arguing that early verification helps fight exam malpractice. While that objective is noble, it must be balanced against students’ safety, mental preparedness, and health. Technology should simplify lives, not complicate them. If biometric systems are truly effective, then more efficient scheduling, staggered verification slots, and centre-by-centre logistics audits can be adopted without burdening children.
Adesina also accused critics of “selective outrage” and suggested that public figures criticizing JAMB were chasing online clout. While it is true that social media often fuels misinformation, it is intellectually dishonest to reduce all criticism of this policy to a quest for engagement. Many concerned parents, teachers, and child advocates are speaking not from ignorance, but from lived reality.
The notion that in the 1990s students arrived at centres as early as 5:00 AM is not a justification for maintaining outdated, burdensome practices in 2025. If anything, it underscores the need for progress. Today’s Nigeria has access to digital innovations and biometric technology that should eliminate the need for stress-inducing policies, not institutionalize them.
Moreover, the claim that candidates were “advised to choose centres close to their residences” doesn’t always hold in practice. The JAMB portal often assigns candidates to faraway centres due to availability. Thousands of students have shared stories of being sent to centres across state lines or on the outskirts of unfamiliar cities—undermining JAMB’s defence.
Rather than silence criticism, this controversy should prompt JAMB to re-evaluate its procedures. Verification is important—but it must be humane, accessible, and rational. Nigeria’s children deserve an education system that values their dignity and safety, not one that mimics the rigid bureaucracy of embassies.
If JAMB insists on defending its 6:30 AM directive, then it must also be ready to accept the consequences: public backlash, mental strain on students, and reduced confidence in its processes. This is not about misinformation or a double standard. It’s about designing systems that work for the people, especially for vulnerable groups like students.
The true reflection here is not about selective outrage, but about selective reform. JAMB and other institutions must stop comparing their failures to the worst of others and start aspiring to the best standards worldwide.
