The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board has strongly refuted claims that it suspended a candidate’s profile in defiance of a court order, accusing what it described as “conflict entrepreneurs” of peddling deliberate falsehoods to mislead the public.
JAMB, in a statement released on Sunday by its Public Communication Advisor, Fabian Benjamin, said reports suggesting the board disobeyed a court directive ordering parties to maintain the status quo in a dispute involving candidate Monsuru Aduragbemi and two universities were entirely false.
The examination body clarified that the candidate had voluntarily severed ties with both Obafemi Awolowo University and the University of Lagos before the suit was filed on 25th September 2025 and before the court order was granted on 30th September.
Benjamin explained that the so-called suspension message was merely an automated system alert that appears whenever a candidate’s profile is locked to prevent unauthorised changes.
“The suspension message being mischievously misrepresented is a usual programmed default message that pops up on any profile on which any alteration by the Board officials, institutions or candidate had been restricted,” the statement read.
He stressed that the restriction applied equally to both OAU and UNILAG, preventing either institution from completing its admission list whilst the court order remains active.
“It was when the fraudulent effort to tamper with the status quo became unsuccessful that those sponsoring her apparently became frustrated and resorted to media blackmail in a bid to pressurise the Board into violating the court order,” Benjamin said.
The board emphasised its commitment to upholding judicial directives, saying it would not be swayed by media pressure or allow any breach of court orders.
“As a law-abiding government agency, JAMB remains fully committed to upholding the rule of law and complying strictly with judicial directives,” the statement added.
JAMB urged Nigerians to disregard the misleading reports and cautioned those spreading misinformation against using candidates as pawns for personal gain and mischief-making.
The board maintained that its actions were in full compliance with the court’s directive and warned against attempts to drag it into what it termed “media drama” over the matter.
