Beyond Making a Difference: Assessing Oloyede’s JAMB Legacy Through the Lens of Accountability

The article, “The Man Who Made a Difference,” published in the June 4, 2026 edition of The Nation, presents a glowing account of the outgoing leadership of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), highlighting reforms, digital transformation, increased remittances, and institutional visibility achieved between 2016 and 2026.

Similarly, recent commentaries, including Aliu Akoshile’s “Oloyede: Congratulations I Withheld for Ten Years,” have contributed to a growing public narrative that portrays Prof. Ishaq Olanrewaju Oloyede as the singular architect of JAMB’s transformation and a near-infallible public administrator.

The period indeed witnessed notable changes in the operations of the agency, including improvements in examination administration, and the expansion of technology-driven processes. These achievements deserve recognition. However, governance requires that institutional legacy be examined through a wider lens than operational accomplishments alone.

The true test of public sector leadership is not merely whether an institution became more visible, generated higher remittances, or attracted favourable public attention. The more enduring question is whether its systems became more transparent, more accountable, more inclusive, more humane, and more responsive to scrutiny.

As someone who served within the institution, observed the administration from close quarters, raised concerns through established channels, and experienced firsthand some of the consequences of dissent within the system, I consider it important to offer a more balanced perspective in the interest of truth, institutional memory, and responsible public discourse.

To begin with, the attempt to portray Prof. Oloyede as the singular architect of JAMB’s transformation is historically incomplete. Long before his appointment in August 2016, JAMB had already undergone significant structural and technological reforms.

Examination digitisation and biometric verification, frequently cited among the defining achievements of the outgoing administration, were initiated under former Registrar Prof. Dibu Ojerinde, the man who conceived and substantially developed the Computer-Based Test system that today serves as the operational backbone of JAMB before the change in leadership.

While the outgoing administration undoubtedly expanded and consolidated these initiatives, institutional history requires that credit be fairly allocated across successive leaderships.

Public discussions surrounding JAMB’s financial performance have similarly focused on increased remittances to government coffers as evidence of exceptional leadership. While compliance with statutory remittance obligations is commendable, such figures should not automatically be interpreted as conclusive proof of extraordinary resource management or the complete elimination of leakages.

JAMB is fundamentally a service-oriented institution established to facilitate access to tertiary education, not a revenue-generating enterprise.

A significant proportion of the increased remittances recorded during the period coincided with the expansion of the agency’s revenue base, growth in candidate enrolment, and the monetisation of services that previously attracted little or no charges.

Admissions processing for programmes such as Part-Time, Distance Learning, Sandwich Programmes, and the National Open University came within the revenue framework of the Board under the outgoing leadership.

Services such as admission regularisation, correction processes, condonement of admissions, and inter-university transfers also attracted revised or expanded charges. Retrieval of registration numbers, a service that previously attracted no levy, became monetized under the outgoing leadership.

These developments inevitably increased revenue inflows and operating surpluses. A balanced assessment must therefore distinguish between revenue growth arising from expanded fee structures and policy decisions and that resulting from demonstrable efficiency gains.

It is therefore misleading to compare remittance figures across administrations without acknowledging the fundamentally altered revenue architecture that existed during the period under review.

The Centre for Fiscal Transparency and Public Integrity (CFTPI), in its 2025 assessment of transparency, accountability, and corruption risks within JAMB, acknowledged many of the reforms recorded during the period while simultaneously identifying concerns relating to procurement transparency, expenditure disclosure, audit reporting, inclusivity, and unresolved governance vulnerabilities.

The significance of that study lies not in whether one agrees with every finding but in its recognition that institutional performance cannot be measured solely through outputs. Governance quality matters equally.

Perhaps the greatest limitation of many public narratives surrounding the outgoing administration is the tendency to evaluate institutional success primarily through records generated by the institution itself. Transparency is not simply the publication of figures or weekly financial reports. True transparency requires independent auditability, procedural compliance, adherence to financial regulations, procurement integrity, lawful approvals, and the ability of external stakeholders to verify claims independently.

A system may appear transparent while still generating legitimate questions regarding procurement practices, personnel administration, expenditure decisions, compliance with regulations, and accountability mechanisms. The recurring public celebration of financial disclosures should therefore not substitute for rigorous institutional scrutiny.

Indeed, the period between 2016 and 2026 was not free from controversy. Numerous petitions, complaints, whistleblower disclosures, and requests for investigation emerged concerning various aspects of the agency’s operations. Some reportedly attracted the attention of oversight and anti-corruption institutions. While the existence of such petitions does not establish wrongdoing, their existence should not be dismissed when evaluating the overall governance environment of the agency. Accountability requires that difficult questions be addressed rather than avoided.

Equally important is the human dimension of governance. Leadership in public institutions should not be assessed solely through financial indicators, media narratives, or public relations successes. Public service accountability also requires an examination of whether authority was exercised fairly, lawfully, transparently, and consistently with established regulations.

The experience of many public institutions demonstrates that operational efficiency and governance excellence are not always synonymous. An institution may achieve impressive administrative outcomes while still facing legitimate concerns regarding transparency, due process, staff welfare, procurement compliance, labour relations, and institutional accountability. Mature democracies recognise this distinction and evaluate public agencies accordingly.

Public trust is built not merely on achievements but on confidence in the fairness and integrity of the systems that produced them. Where significant questions remain unanswered, where stakeholders continue to raise concerns, or where whistleblower allegations persist without transparent resolution, governance assessments must remain open to continued scrutiny.

No public institution should become so personality-driven to the point that legitimate criticism is dismissed as envy, disloyalty, or bitterness. Institutions grow stronger when accountability is encouraged rather than suppressed. The objective of governance discourse should not be the creation of heroes or villains but the strengthening of institutions.

As the nation prepares for a new chapter in JAMB under the leadership of Prof. Segun Aina, there is an opportunity to move beyond personality-driven narratives and deepen institutional accountability. The incoming administration inherits both the achievements and the unresolved questions of the past decade. The challenge is not simply to preserve reforms but to strengthen transparency, improve access to verifiable records, reinforce procurement and audit systems, enhance staff confidence, and build trust across all stakeholder groups.

History should remember leaders fairly. Achievements should be acknowledged. Reforms should be celebrated. Yet institutional legacy should never be assessed through praise alone. The most enduring legacy of public leadership is not the number of accolades received during office but the strength of the accountability systems left behind after departure.

Only through that broader governance lens can Nigerians truly determine whether a leader merely made a difference or strengthened the enduring foundations of public trust, institutional integrity, and accountable governance.

Yisa Usman is a Governance, Procurement and Accountability Professional with experience in public sector administration, procurement, financial management and institutional accountability. He is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nigeria (ICAN), Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria (CITN), Fellow Procurement Professional (BPP/World Bank), and Closest Runner-Up in the 2026 Ellsberg Whistleblower Award, Germany. Email: topusman@gmail.com