Oloyede’s Miracle Remittances (I): Examining the Facts Behind the Figures

The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) was prominent in the past decade over a recurring narrative of financial remittances to the Federal Government. As the tenure of the outgoing Registrar Prof. Ishaq Oloyede gradually come to end, this two-part governance article examines the appropriateness of operating surplus as a stand-alone measure of institutional performance, with the consciousness that transparency, accountability, affordability and citizen-centred service delivery defines the enduring value of a public institution.

Yisa Usman, MSc, FCA, FCTI
Following the appointment of Professor Ishaq Oloyede as Registrar in August 2016, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), for much of his tenure, became the golden agency recognised for the billions of naira it reportedly remitted to the Government coffer. This portrayed the agency repeatedly via publications and media reports as an exemplary institution coveted for financial discipline, with the remittances used as testimony of waste control and blocked leakages. As expected, the development gradually defines public perception of his administration.

This development raises the question of how the success of a public institution be judged? Should the amount of money returned to the Federation now be used as the principal Key Performance Indicator (KPI), or should emphasis also be placed on the quality and accessibility of the services provided to citizens?
The answer to these questions has implications that extend far beyond JAMB. It influences how public institutions define their priorities, how future public officials pursue performance targets and, ultimately, how leadership legacies are constructed in Nigeria’s public sector.

This discourse is of particular relevance at the close of Oloyede’s tenure. Upon assuming office, he publicly described the Board as an institution burdened by corruption and financial leakages. Those disclosures became central to the reform narrative that followed and helped shape public perception of the administration. Over the years, however, several petitions and public allegations also emerged challenging aspects of the governance narrative and calling for independent scrutiny of the Board’s financial and administrative practices. Whether those competing claims withstand objective examination is ultimately a matter for the appropriate authorities.

From a governance perspective, however, their existence underscores the importance of evaluating institutional performance through verifiable evidence rather than public narratives alone.

As the years progressed, the Board’s operating surplus increasingly became the most visible indicator cited in support of claims of institutional transformation. Now that the administration is drawing to a close, it is appropriate to step back from the prevailing narrative and ask a more enduring governance question: what should constitute the true measure of institutional success?
While citizens expect prudent management of public resources, they also expect public office holders to be transparent, accountable and open in their stewardship. Public administration relies on both financial and non-financial outcomes in determining institutional excellence.

Policy practitioners, scholars in governance, researchers and stakeholders benchmark public institutions with compliance indicators. These include regulatory standards, governance measures, institutional integrity and adherence to statutory mandate. Financial prudence is only one of several indicators that determine an institution’s fidelity in fulfilling its purpose of establishment.

This distinction is especially significant in JAMB’s case because the agency was not established to generate revenue but principally to provide an essential educational service, unlike agencies such as the Federal Inland Revenue Service, whose core responsibility is tax collection, or the Nigeria Customs Service, which performs substantial revenue-generating functions alongside trade facilitation.

Over time, however, public discussion gradually shifted away from that foundational principle. The Board’s performance came to be viewed from financial remittances with headlines that highlighted billions transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF) in each of the years from 2017 to present.

In this period, JAMB reportedly remitted between N2bn and N7.8bn annually. No official year-by-year schedule of its operating surplus has, however, been publicly released to enable comparison between the computed surplus and the amounts actually remitted to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

A development that arguably illustrates JAMB’s increasing emphasis on revenue generation over its core statutory mandate was the presentation of its 2026 budget proposal before the Senate Committee on Tertiary Institutions and TETFund on Wednesday, 25 February 2026. During the budget defence, Muftau Bello, a Director in the Office of the Registrar, disclosed that the Board projected N23.8 billion in internally generated revenue (IGR) for the 2026 fiscal year and expected to remit N6 billion as operating surplus to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Mr. Bello had previously served as Director of Finance and Accounts until July 2025, when he was reassigned, following petitions challenging his continued occupancy of the position despite attaining the mandatory retirement age of 60 years in May 2022.

The budget presentation reinforced the growing public narrative that JAMB’s financial remittances have become a central measure of its institutional performance. This raises a legitimate governance question as to whether institutional policy increasingly prioritised the generation of operating surplus over the broader objective of reducing the cumulative financial burden borne by candidates and their families.

Even more disturbing is the important distinction that is often overlooked in public discourse. The amount remitted by JAMB to the CRF is not necessarily synonymous with the institution’s operating surplus. The operating surplus is first expected to be computed in accordance with the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA-2007) and applicable guidelines, after which the prescribed remittance is determined. Thus, the use of remittance figures alone as evidence of institutional financial performance presents an incomplete picture.

One observable limitation of the public narrative surrounding JAMB’s celebrated remittances is that the detailed computation of the operating surplus has not been presented in a manner that enables independent public verification. The publication of the financial summary of the agency in its weekly bulletin always indicates an auto-deduction by the Federal Treasury as interim remittance to the CRF.

However, while the remittance figures themselves have been widely publicised, the underlying basis upon which those figures were derived has remained largely outside public scrutiny. The weekly publication for instance, lack disclosure of the underlying financial metrics necessary for independent verification of the operating surplus computation. From a governance perspective, transparency requires not merely the publication of the amount remitted but also sufficient disclosure of the methodology and financial information supporting the computation.

During the consideration of JAMB’s 2025 budget proposal before the Joint Committee on Finance of the National Assembly, Senator Adams Oshiomhole questioned the policy rationale of celebrating the Board’s substantial operating surplus while the agency continued to receive Federal Government budgetary support, arguing that the remittances were derived largely from examination-related fees paid by candidates, many of whom came from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. His observation reflected a broader governance concern that financial remittances, though important, should never eclipse an institution’s statutory purpose.
The debate also highlights one of the assumptions frequently made in public discourse that JAMB’s operating surplus represents an extraordinary administrative achievement. From the standpoint of Nigeria’s fiscal governance framework, remittance of operating surplus is fundamentally a legal obligation rather than an optional act of institutional generosity.

By Section 22 of the FRA-2007, qualifying government-owned entities are to determine their operating surplus and remit the prescribed proportion to the CRF after satisfying the conditions laid down by law. The objective is to promote fiscal discipline, accountability and prudent management of public resources across the public sector.

The policy issue here however, is whether examination and placement bodies such as JAMB should continue to be treated, for fiscal purposes, in substantially the same manner as government enterprises that exist for commercial activities. This calls for an examination on whether the present policy framework strikes the appropriate balance between financial accountability and the statutory purpose of service-oriented institutions.

To understand JAMB’s financial performance, one needs to look beyond the headline remittance figures to examine the structural changes that occurred within the institution during the period under review. Opinions often attributed the substantial increase in operating surplus almost entirely to tighter financial controls and the elimination of leakages but public finance demands a more nuanced assessment, though improved financial discipline may have contributed to the outcome.
Higher remittances however do not automatically signify greater efficiency in government finance. Revenue increase for a service organization may be due to expansion of the revenue base, introduction of additional services, revisions to user charges, increased patronage, technological improvements, demographic growth or changes in institutional policy.

A sound governance assessment therefore distinguishes between gains arising from managerial efficiency and those resulting from changes in the institution’s operational and financial architecture.

During Oloyede’s tenure, JAMB broadened its range of services with the integration of admission-related processes that had traditionally and independently been handled by tertiary institutions. These included the programmes for Part-Time, Distance Learning, Sandwich and the National Open University of Nigeria, among others. This development widened the agency’s revenue base with cumulative effect of revenue surplus.

Following their integration into JAMB’s admission framework, candidates seeking admission through Part-Time, Distance Learning, Sandwich Programmes and the National Open University of Nigeria were required to regularise admissions retrospectively, in many cases covering periods of up to five years. The prescribed charges were broadly comparable to those applicable to the regular UTME admission process. Given the large volume of affected candidates nationwide, the exercise generated substantial additional revenue that materially expanded the Board’s internally generated revenue during the period.

Notably, many of these additional services are considerably less resource-intensive than the annual Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME). Unlike the nationwide conduct of the UTME, which demands extensive investment in computer-based testing infrastructure, logistics, security, technology support and operational coordination, many of the newly integrated services require comparatively modest administrative expenditure.
Accordingly, the significant increase in operating surplus cannot reasonably be attributed to anti-corruption measures alone. The expansion of JAMB’s revenue base through the integration of additional admission services, retrospective regularisation exercises and related administrative charges constituted an important structural driver of the higher remittances recorded during the period.

Clearly, addition of relatively low-cost services naturally increases aggregate revenue with increased operating surplus. Such outcomes should therefore be understood within the context of institutional restructuring rather than being attributed exclusively to improvements in financial management.

The steady expansion of chargeable administrative services represents another significant contributor to JAMB’s changing financial profile. Services that previously attracted little or no financial obligation gradually became important sources of revenue.

In some instances, the applicable charges were revised substantially upward. The fee for correction of date of birth, for instance, reportedly increased by 600% from N2,500 to N15,000. The discriminatory charges on some services also resulted in increased inflow. For instance, while regularization of the admission for those with previous registration number attracted ₦5,000, the fee for those without the number was pegged at ₦8,500.

This broader context is particularly relevant when considering one of the most frequently celebrated aspects of the outgoing administration, the reduction in the headline UTME registration fee.

That reduction was widely presented as evidence that the Board had simultaneously lowered the financial burden on candidates while increasing remittances to the Federal Government. At first glance, this appeared to represent an exceptional achievement. A closer examination however suggests that the issue is considerably more complex.
For candidates seeking admission into tertiary institutions, the cost extends beyond the UTME registration fee to include payments for ancillary administrative services, internet access, transportation, biometric verification, documentation, correction of records and other incidental expenses incurred throughout the admissions process.

Aside the regular and well-known annual UTME and DE services, the other major revenue lines of JAMB include corrections of personal data, changes of course or institution, retrieval of registration numbers, admission regularisation, condonement of admissions, printing of admission letters, inter-institutional transfers and several other post-registration services. From a public policy perspective, affordability should not focus on a single fee item alone but the composite burden on service users.

The National Examinations Council (NECO), in 2022, appealed to the Federal Government for exclusion of examination bodies from the operating surplus requirements. It argued that the fees charged were intended primarily to finance the conduct of examinations and sustain service delivery, not targeted at operating surplus. This raised important policy question on the status and financial expectations of institutions whose primary responsibility is educational assessment.

In July 2026, reports of a proposed increase in the registration costs for the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) and the National Examinations Council (NECO), were followed by widespread public concern. According to a media report, the increase would have seen NECO SSCE internal examination fee jumping from ₦30,000 per candidate to ₦50,000, and that of WAEC to the same amount from ₦27,000. The justification advanced centred on escalating operational costs, including logistics, security, technology deployment, printing and quality assurance.

However, the Federal Government suspended the proposed increase for broader stakeholder consultations following public reactions, a position that reflects official recognition of access to education as an important social policy objective for which government must balance financial sustainability and affordability.

Interestingly, while WAEC and NECO publicly emphasised the financial pressures associated with conducting nationwide examinations, JAMB’s public narrative became one of unprecedented remittances. This is not to suggest that the institutions are identical. They however perform related educational assessment functions and operate within the same national economy with comparable inflation indices.
The resulting policy question is therefore unavoidable. If educational assessment bodies increasingly require greater financial resources simply to sustain credible examination systems, should the principal benchmark of success be the amount remitted to government, or the extent to which they continue to provide affordable, accessible and high-quality services to candidates? The question goes to the heart of public governance and calls for careful national reflection. Should educational assessment bodies continue to be treated in substantially the same manner as government enterprises established primarily for commercial or revenue-generating activities?
JAMB perform functions that are fundamentally different from those of agencies established to generate income for government. Revenue generation is incidental to its responsibility not its defining purpose.

The objective of a public institution, with the mandate to deliver an essential service, should be to achieve sustainable service delivery at the least reasonable cost to citizens without compromising standards of efficiency, integrity and accountability. Financial discipline should reinforce that purpose rather than redefine it.
When the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), in 2023, announced that it generated approximately ₦56 billion in internally generated revenue and remitted about ₦22.4 billion to the Federal Government in accordance with the FRA-2007, public discourse surrounding the Commission did not shift from its statutory mandate of protecting consumers, promoting fair competition and regulating markets. Unlike the case with the Prof. Oloyede-led JAMB, the remittance was reported as evidence of statutory compliance rather than elevated into the defining measure of institutional success.

Compliance with fiscal obligations should be expected of every qualifying public institution. It should not, by itself, become the principal criterion by which leadership legacies are constructed. The true test of institutional performance lies in the extent to which an organisation fulfils the purpose for which it was created.
The more enduring legacy of an examination body should be reflected not merely in the size of the operating surplus it remits but in the extent to which it expands educational opportunity, reduces avoidable costs, strengthens public confidence and improves the experience of those it exists to serve.

This understanding also presents an opportunity for the incoming administration under Professor Segun Aina. The next phase of JAMB’s development should emphasise service innovation, affordability and institutional governance. Technology advances should not only improve operational efficiency but also translate into lower transaction costs and more seamless experience for candidates and tertiary institutions alike. Charges for subsidiary services should be reviewed while remittance figures should not dominate public discourse.

Technology drives efficiency and lower operational costs. This should ultimately lower chargeable fees on services, consistent with the philosophy of a public institution established primarily to facilitate educational access.

And while financial remittances remain an indicator of institutional effectiveness, emphasis should be more on service fidelity and compliance with statutory responsibilities. These non-financial indicators ensure a balanced framework for evaluating public institutions than financial figures alone.

Should history celebrate public officials principally for the billions remitted to government, or for the strength of the institutions they leave behind?
The criticism of JAMB’s budgets by the Joint Committee on Finance of the National Assembly indicates that the debate on the need to expunge service agencies from the list of remittance enterprises has already moved beyond academic circles into mainstream public policy. The FRA-2007 Act seeks to strengthen accountability in the management of public resources and never intended to redefine the statutory purposes of public institutions or encourage service-oriented agencies to pursue financial surplus as their foremost institutional objective.

The lasting legacy of any public institution is found not merely in the figures contained in its financial statements but in the confidence it inspires, the opportunities it creates, the quality of its services and the strength of the governance systems it leaves behind.
Only when public institutions are evaluated against that broader standard can the facts behind the figures be fully understood.

About the Author
Yisa Usman, MSc, FCA, FCTI, FPP is a Governance, Procurement and Accountability Professional. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN), a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN), and a Fellow Procurement Professional (Tier IV) under the Bureau of Public Procurement (BPP)/World Bank Procurement Framework, the highest professional tier within the framework. He is the Closest Runner-Up for the 2026 Ellsberg Whistleblower Award (Germany) and a Doctoral Candidate in Accounting whose research focuses on Corporate Governance and Sustainability Reporting Quality. He writes from Abuja and can be reached at info@futurebridgeconsult.com | topusman@gmail.com.