Court Restrains JAMB From Enforcing 16-Year Minimum Age For University Admissions

The Delta State High Court in Warri has restrained the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) from implementing its directive setting a minimum age of 16 years for candidates seeking admission into Nigerian universities for the 2025 academic session.

The interim injunction, granted on October 24, 2024 in Suit No. W/311/FHR/2024 filed by John Aikpokpo-Martins Esq., a former 1st Vice President of the Nigerian Bar Association, puts on hold a JAMB circular dated October 16, 2024 that instructed universities to admit only candidates who will be 16 years old by August 31, 2025.

Mr. Aikpokpo-Martins instituted the fundamental human rights action on behalf of JAMB candidates born between September 1, 2009 and December 31, 2009 who passed the 2024 university entrance exam but are being denied admission based solely on age, despite meeting all other criteria.

The lawsuit contends that JAMB’s age cutoff of August 31 discriminates against candidates who will turn 16 between September 1 and December 31, 2025, violating their constitutional right to freedom from discrimination under Section 42 of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution.

In granting the interim orders, Justice A. O. Akpovi clarified that JAMB’s directive to tertiary institutions is suspended pending a hearing on the substantive suit. An accelerated hearing has been scheduled, with the case adjourned to October 31, November 8, November 21 and December 4, 2024.

Among other reliefs, the suit seeks a declaration that JAMB’s October 16 circular is unconstitutional, an order setting it aside, a directive for universities to admit candidates turning 16 through December 2025, and N50 million in damages against JAMB for the alleged violation of the affected candidates’ fundamental rights.

The reliefs claimed by John Aikpokpo-Martins, Esq in the said Suit No. W/311/FHR/2024 are as follows:

1. A DECLARATION that the circular of the 1st respondent dated the 16th day of October, 2024 captioned “Admission of Candidates With Minimum Admissible Age Of 16 Years” signed by Mohammed A. Babaji to all Nigerian Universities including the 2nd defendant directing them to admit only candidates who will be 16 years old by the 31st day of August 2025 violently violates the fundamental right to freedom from discrimination of the candidates who will be 16 years from the 1st of September, 2025 to the 31st of December, 2025 guaranteed by section 42 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and is therefore unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

2. An Order setting aside the circular of the 1st respondent dated the 16th day of October, 2024 captioned “Admission of Candidates With Minimum Admissible Age Of 16 Years” signed by Mohammed A. Babaji to all Nigerian Universities for being unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.

3. An order directing the respondents to admit and/or issue letters of admission to all those candidates who are due to be 16 years from the 1st of January, 2025 to the 31st of December, 2025 and who met all other admission criteria.

4. An order restraining the 2nd respondent from withdrawing the admission already granted to candidates who will 16 years from 1st of September, 2025 to December 2025 on the basis of the 1st respondent’s directive dated the 16th of October, 2024.

5. The sum of N50,000,000.00 (fifty Million Naira) as damages against the 1st Respondent for the violent violation of the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens born on the 1st of September, 2009 to 31st of December, 2009 freedom from discrimination as enshrined in section 42 the 1999 constitution by virtue of the unconstitutional directive dated the 16th of October, 2024.

6. An Order of perpetual injunction restraining the Respondents whether by themselves, their agents, servants, privies and officials from denying candidates admission into Nigerian Universities only on the ground of not attaining 16 years of age.

The court’s decision temporarily halts the enforcement of JAMB’s controversial age policy, pending a final determination on its constitutionality.

Spread this news

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Prove your humanity: 1   +   3   =