The House of Representatives Committee on Ethics and Public Petitions has scheduled February 19, 2026, to hear a petition lodged against the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) concerning its policy that bars candidates below the age of 16 from securing admission, even if they sat for and passed the 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME).
Notification of the hearing was communicated through an electronic notice sent by the Committee’s Secretariat to the petitioners’ lawyer, Vincent Adebayo Àdòdó.
The petition was submitted by a coalition identified as the “Movement against JAMB Injustice 2025,” comprising parents, students, and other concerned individuals affected by the policy. The group is challenging JAMB’s decision to deny admission for the 2025/2026 academic session to candidates who performed excellently in the UTME but will not attain the age of 16 by August 31, 2025.
In the petition dated September 23, 2025, and addressed to the Chairman of the House Committee on Ethics and Public Petitions, the group, through its counsel Vincent Adodo, argued that the enforcement of the age restriction contravenes existing court rulings and constitutional provisions.
They maintained that JAMB’s action amounts to defiance of judgments delivered by two superior courts of record, in violation of the 1999 Constitution, which obligates all authorities and individuals to comply with court decisions. The petitioners also asserted that the policy infringes on the fundamental rights of the affected candidates, particularly their right to freedom from discrimination as guaranteed under Section 42 of the Constitution.
As part of the remedies sought, the group urged the House of Representatives to direct JAMB to remove the age limitation for all eligible candidates who passed the 2025 UTME and to reinstate admissions that were withdrawn or suspended solely on the basis of the age requirement.
The petition further highlighted what it described as a troubling pattern of disregard for judicial authority by certain government agencies, warning that such conduct undermines respect for the rule of law.
It emphasized the broader consequences of the policy, noting that thousands of young candidates who met the academic requirements for admission are now compelled to remain idle, unable to proceed with their education despite their qualifications.
The group concluded by stressing that the outcome for the affected students would largely depend on how promptly and effectively the House of Representatives addresses the petition.