Headlines
JAMB Releases UTME Results, Says More Students Scored Above 300
The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) has disclosed that no fewer than 17,025 candidates, representing 0.88 per cent of the total 1,931,467, scored 300 and above in the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME).
The body made the disclosure on Sunday in its report while releasing the results of candidates who wrote the resit examination.
The report signals a significant improvement in performance compared with previous years since the adoption of the CBT format in 2013.
The released figure exceeds the 1,842,364 results released in 2024 and indicates a steady increase in UTME participation over the years.In comparison, 8,401 candidates (0.46 per cent) achieved similar scores in 2024, while 5,318 (0.35 per cent) did so in 2023.
Earlier figures were generally lower, with only 724 candidates (0.06 per cent) scoring 300 and above in 2021, and none in both 2014 and 2013.In the 250 and above category, 117,373 candidates (6.08 per cent) attained this range in 2025.
Of the 336,845 candidates rescheduled for the examination, the board said 21,082 others were absent.“Of the 336,845 who were eventually scheduled after isolated good sessions of the affected centres were excluded and their previously unverified candidates were added, 21,082 were absent,” JAMB said.
It also announced the release of withheld results of under-age candidates (except where litigation is involved), who performed below the established standards and those involved in ‘WhatsApp Runs’ and other misdemeanours.“
After the conduct of the resit examination, a meeting of the Board’s Chief External Examiners (CEEs) in all states of the federation was held to consider the results. In attendance at the meeting were a few notables.
“After consideration of the report of the resit examination, and extensive deliberations thereon, a sub-committee, chaired by the Vice-Chancellor of the National Open University, Prof. Olufemi Peters, who is also the CEE FCT, was constituted to confirm that the results are in order.
“The CEEs reviewed the exercise and directed that an expert in psychometrics, Prof. Boniface Nworgu, be invited to analyse and endorse the results for subsequent release.
“As part of the healing process, the meeting resolved that the withheld results of under-age candidates (except where litigation is involved), who performed below the established standards, be released.
“Such result does not however qualify them for admission, as they had previously signed an undertaking during the registration process acknowledging that only those who meet the prescribed standards would be considered for under-age special admission.
“Release of Result of Candidates involved in ‘WhatsApp Runs’ and other Misdemeanours: This category of candidates were found to have been involved in illicit solicitation of assistance. The meeting emphasised that its decision is not an endorsement of candidates’ unacceptable acts, rather a once and for all waiver.
“Candidates were thus advised to refrain from joining questionable ‘WhatsApp and other anti-social groups.’“
“All results are now released except those of candidates who committed examination infractions and those slated for mop-up examinations. While releasing the results, it should be emphasised that recent discoveries particularly by the security agencies have necessitated the withdrawal of some of the results of implicated candidates across the country whose results have been previously released.
“Candidates with earlier released results need not recheck their results as candidates affected by the withdrawal are being notified through text messages on their registered lines, their profiles and emails.
“It should be emphasised that the charges for shortcode of 55019/66019 (text messages) does not generate revenue to JAMB as being ignorantly peddled. The shortcode approach is to protect the critical data of the candidates and to curtail their cybercafé-extortion during their desperate check for results.”
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
