 |
| Enugu State University of Science & Technology |
Students enrolled in the Joint Universities Preliminary Examinations Board (JUPEB) programme at Enugu State University of Science and Technology (ESUT) have levelled serious allegations against the programme’s director, Professor Oby (also referred to as Obiageli or Obiagali) Okafor. They claim she required each of more than 400 affected students to pay ₦10,000 before they could access their results following what they describe as widespread failure in the examination cycle linked to the 2026/2027 academic pathway.
According to the students, who spoke to SaharaReporters, the results were not displayed on notice boards in the conventional manner. Instead, Professor Okafor allegedly chose to “pronounce” the outcomes orally—only after payment had been made. One affected student described the situation as “professional extortion and criminal deception.”
The students further alleged that the director presented the fee as a “dual order” originating from both the ESUT Vice-Chancellor and the JUPEB head office in Lagos.
The timing has amplified the sense of grievance. Many students say the mass failure already cost them university admissions via the Direct Entry route into 200-level programmes. Having to pay an additional ₦10,000 simply to learn their scores, they argue, amounts to double jeopardy: lost academic opportunities compounded by the loss of scarce family resources. “How can they suffer double jeopardy? They not only lost university admissions but also lost their hard-earned money,” the students lamented.
RECOMMENDED
When contacted, ESUT’s Director of Public Relations, Ikechukwu Ezekiel, neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. He referred inquiries to Professor Okafor, stating she was “in a better position to explain the reasons for the collection,” while adding that students “should not have rushed to the media without exhausting the internal mechanism.” Efforts to reach Professor Okafor were unsuccessful at the time of the original report; she did not answer calls or respond to a text message.
Understanding JUPEB & Why These Allegations Matter
JUPEB is a national Advanced Level examinations body that runs an approved nine-to-ten-month intensive programme. Successful candidates earn a certificate that qualifies them for Direct Entry admission into the 200 level of participating Nigerian universities, bypassing the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME) conducted by JAMB. It was designed as a structured alternative pathway, particularly valuable for students who miss out on competitive UTME cut-offs or prefer a more focused preparatory route into fields such as Medicine, Law, Engineering, and the sciences.
At ESUT, the programme has been positioned as a legitimate bridge into the university. In early 2026 orientation exercises for the 2025/2026 cohort, Professor Okafor herself publicly rejected claims that ESUT JUPEB was a “scam.” She urged students to take their studies seriously, assuring them that strong performance would lead to Direct Entry admission into their preferred courses on merit.
University admissions officials reinforced that offers are based on performance, not automatic placement. The director’s reappointment in September 2026 for another term underscored institutional confidence in her leadership of the programme at that time.
Against this backdrop, allegations of restricted result access and mandatory fees strike at the core of trust in the system. Transparent result publication—traditionally via notice boards or official portals—serves as a basic accountability mechanism. When results are withheld or delivered only after payment, it inevitably fuels suspicion of foul play, especially amid reports of widespread failure. Students who believe their scripts may have been mishandled or graded unfairly have little immediate recourse if the only path to seeing their scores is through a fee.
Result Fees, Malpractice Concerns, and Institutional Pressures
Charges for statements of result or related administrative processing are not entirely unknown in the JUPEB ecosystem. Older reports from various centres have documented fees ranging from a few thousand naira to ₦15,000–₦20,000 or higher, with some private centres facing accusations of outright extortion because candidates urgently need the documents for JAMB Direct Entry registration and university screening. Official JUPEB guidance generally directs candidates to collect statements from their affiliated centres, and online checking via the national portal becomes available later. The existence of variable centre-level charges creates fertile ground for disputes over what constitutes a legitimate administrative fee versus opportunistic extraction.
The 2026 examination cycle has already seen public frustration elsewhere. Social media and student commentary reflected anger over perceived mass failures at other institutions, with some groups demanding the release of original scripts and explanations. Separately, in early October 2026, a joint DSS and ICPC operation targeted irregularities in JUPEB examinations across multiple states. The raids focused on tutorial schools and centres accused of leaking questions, facilitating malpractice via social media groups, and charging candidates hundreds of thousands of naira for compromised assistance. These enforcement actions highlight longstanding integrity challenges within the broader A-Level preparatory space.
ESUT itself is not immune to past controversies involving staff and academic integrity. In recent years the university has suspended lecturers and a student over allegations of grade manipulation and extortion, and separately suspended engineering staff over similar claims. While these cases are distinct from the current JUPEB complaint, they form part of a pattern that heightens student and public sensitivity to any suggestion of financial gatekeeping around academic outcomes.
The Human and Systemic Stakes
For the affected ESUT JUPEB students, the stakes are intensely personal. Many come from families that have already invested significantly in the programme’s tuition, materials, and living costs—often as a calculated alternative after UTME setbacks. A mass failure closes doors to preferred courses and institutions for at least one admission cycle. An additional ₦10,000 fee, multiplied across hundreds of students, represents a substantial collective sum extracted at a moment of maximum vulnerability and disappointment.
From an institutional perspective, universities and examination bodies face genuine administrative costs related to result processing, verification, and certification. Clear, publicly communicated fee schedules and alternative free or low-cost access methods (such as physical notice boards alongside digital portals) would reduce the perception of arbitrariness. Requiring payment before any disclosure of results, particularly when failure rates are high, risks appearing punitive rather than procedural.
The university’s call for students to exhaust internal mechanisms before approaching the media is a standard institutional preference. Yet when students experience the process as opaque or coercive, external reporting becomes one of the few available pressure valves. Media attention can prompt official clarification, internal reviews, or policy adjustments that quieter complaints sometimes fail to achieve.
RELATED
◼︎▶︎ ASUU-UNIBEN Declares Indefinite Strike Over Underpayment of September 2026 Salaries
Questions That Remain and the Path Forward
Key questions persist. What, precisely, was the stated purpose of the ₦10,000 collection? Was it a standard statement-of-result fee applied uniformly, or was access to the scores themselves conditioned on payment? Were results eventually made available through any free official channel? Has the JUPEB national office in Lagos issued any guidance or confirmation regarding centre-level practices at ESUT? And what internal processes exist for students who wish to query individual results or request script reviews?
Professor Okafor’s prior public messaging emphasised merit, opportunity, and the legitimacy of the ESUT JUPEB pathway. Addressing these allegations transparently—through a clear public statement on the fee’s basis, the result-release process, and any avenues for redress—would help restore confidence among current and prospective students. ESUT management could also usefully clarify the relationship between university directives and JUPEB national policy on result access.
More broadly, this episode underscores the need for greater standardisation and transparency across JUPEB centres nationwide. Candidates invest time, money, and hope in the programme precisely because it promises a structured route into higher education. When the final step—learning one’s results—becomes entangled in disputed payments and restricted disclosure, that promise is undermined.
For the more than 400 students currently caught in the middle, the immediate priorities are clarity on their actual scores, fair processes for any legitimate queries, and protection from further financial demands that feel disconnected from educational value. For the institutions involved, the episode is a reminder that procedural decisions around high-stakes academic information carry significant weight for young people whose futures hang in the balance. How ESUT and the JUPEB directorate respond in the coming days and weeks will determine whether this remains an unresolved grievance or becomes an opportunity to strengthen accountability and trust in one of Nigeria’s important alternative admission pathways.
Samuel O. Sulaimon is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Naijapiz. He covers News, Sports, Finance, Faiths, Education, Technology.
Post a Comment