Opinion

Should NECO, UTME Be Scrapped?

Published

13 years ago

April 22, 2013

Two weeks ago, there were reports that the Federal Government was considering scrapping the National Examination Council (NECO) and the Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination. Although the Federal Government is yet to make direct pronouncement on it, and has not given reasons for its proposed action, the reports have since kept many Nigerians in unconfortable suspense. In line with our policy to feel the pulse of Nigerians on contentious issues of national importance, our correspondent, Calista Ezeaku and photographer, Dele Obinna, went out to get people’s reactions on the proposed scrapping.

Excerpts.

Mr. Amadi Charles – School Principal.

In talking about the scrapping of NECO, we first of all have to look at the importance of that body, vis-à-vis the impact on the education of the masses. We are talking about bringing to the barest minimum illiteracy in this country and here is thinking about scrapping a body like NECO.

I think that the detrimental effect of such action on education of this country will be so grievous.

So, I’m thinking that WAEC as a body is popular, it’s known for the effectiveness, and efficiency in our educational system. But time has come that Nigeria should also look like other advanced or advancing countries that have most of these bodies assisting each other to improve the education system in their countries. So, if the Federal Government decides today to scrap NECO as a policy, who am I to say no. we are the implementers. We will only implement. But if you ask for my candid opinion, I would suggest that they should allow it and improve on the policies that established NECO.

Some people claim that NECO certificate has been bastardised and for that reason NECO should be scrapped. How on earth will somebody think of NECO certificate as being bastardised? WAEC has been in existence for many years, GCE London started even before the WAEC and it is still in existence. Now NECO came in just as a support to improve our system. So, I have not experienced the certificate of NECO being bastardized.

The only problem NECO has is that it is not internationally recognised. And so the certificate end up within Nigeria. The Federal Government would have tried their best to improve on NECO and also the standard so it could compete with other certificates which make candidates eligible to go for further studies abroad.

On the issue of UTME, before the establishment of UTME, there was a system that existed, people were going to universities. And the question is this, how were these people evaluated. What made them eligible? How were they examined, qualified to enter the universities? Yes, in the past, eligible candidates applied to the universities of their choice, then the universities set their exams and if you succeeded you would be admitted into these universities, until, may be they discovered some errors in that method, may be the universities bastardised the idea. And so the Federal Government came up with another body, having x-rayed the ideas and then set up the UTME and I don’t think that UTME has failed Nigerians. But one thing about Nigeria is that once a thing is established and a set of people feel they are not benefiting from it, they will start criticizing, they will start kicking against it and by the time you know it, once they are in power, they will scrap it, not minding the usefulness of that organisation.

So, I think the scrapping of UTME would have been a gradual thing if at-all the Federal Government needs to do that, because in scrapping UTME, it means that you would have set up a standard for the universities to follow for admissions. And the only body that has been doing it is the UTME and if you scrap it, what do you think will happen? Universities will bastardise admissions. You will begin to see people pay huge amount of money to gain admissions, enrich some pockets and possibly enrich some universities. That is the truth.

So, in my opinion, government should study the policies that brought up UTME. They should also properly supervise the activities of UTME so that the standard which is already set will be achieved and not just scrapping, scrapping, scrapping. Scrapping itself is also a way of dwindling the economy of this country. When you set up one thing today, invest on it, tomorrow you pull it out, that money is gone. Again, it is also going to create a lot of problem for the employees. Where will you put all the employees of the scrapped agencies or organs? That will increase the unemployment rate in the country and reduce the educational standard in the country.

Mr. Idagogo Ida Annie – Teacher.

In my opinion, I think there is no need to scrap UTME because it is an entrance examination into the universities. I feel that it gives a kind of uniformity in terms of the yardstick for the entrance examinations.

But if you allow individual universities to conduct entrance examination, there will be no uniformity and the standard may vary. Some schools may have high standard, some may have low standard, but with UTME, all the universities have equal entrance examination standard. We should also appreciate the effort being made by this body to ensure high standard. Before now, when candidates wrote UTME exams it took up to three or four weeks before the result would come out. But if you observe, in recent times, its no longer like that, under one week or a few days, the results are out. So there is a lot if improvement.

As for NECO, it is just a national examination conducted by Nigerian government, which is not accepted in other countries. So, there is no need for it if it is not accepted. You may have a child here who has NECO certificate and as a parent you may like the child to go to another country for further studies, and if the country does not accept NECO, it’s of no use. So, I think NECO should be scrapped and WAEC should be improved upon.

Chidi ThankGod – Student

I think NECO makes things easy for students. Before NECO was established, students were sitting for WAEC for several years without success. That made some people to abandon their academic pursuit. But with the establishment of NECO, things became easy for student. They now have the opportunity of sitting for two exams instead of only WAEC. If you sit for WAEC and you cannot make it, you try NECO. That does not mean that NECO exams are easier or the standard lower than WAEC but peoples’ luck are different. Some may find it difficult to make it in NECO, they may succeed in WAEC while it will be the other way for others. So, NECO should not be scrapped because it serves as an alternative to WAEC and makes things easier for students.

Again, the level of corruption in this country is so high that it is messing up a lot of things in this country. The negative impunities being injected into the academic sector increases day by day, starting from the top. So I think JAMB, UTME or whatever you call them are not really helping matters. A situation where students will be preparing to write JAMB exams and may be two or three weeks before the exams, the papers are leaked, tells a lot of story about that examination body. JAMB officials use these papers to make money. And that’s why some people who cannot even write their names score very high in UTME and would probably be offered admission in the universities while the best brains who wrote the JAMB exam without expo and could not score as high are denied admission.

So, I think the idea of allowing individual universities to conduct own entrance examinations is a welcome development. It will reduce the stress of writing JAMB and failing it every year. It will also minimize the number of exams that students are subjected to WAEC, NECO, JAMB, Post-UTME and others just to enable one gain admission into the university.

But I think a standard should be set for all the universities which must be adhered to. If other universities and tertiary institutions can key into the vision of Prof. Fakae of Rivers State University of Science and Technology of using computer for exams, it will reduce exam malpractices, raise the standard of education and ensure that the best are admitted into these institution irrespective of whether the person is from a poor or rich background.

If other higher institutions can adopt the method of using computers for exams without hacking into the code (which is what I was saying about the rate of corruption), it will really make things easy.

Mr. Godbless Nwala – Student

I’m of the opinion that NECO should be scraped. Any body that is not able to make his papers in WAEC will also not be able to make it in NECO. Again, scraping NECO will make students to actually sit up and study very well to pass WAEC exams since they know there is no other alternative.

On the issue of entrance examination into the universities, I think number of examinations that students are forced to take should be reduced. And if scrapping UTME and empowering individual universities to conduct entrance examinations will help us achieve that, then so be it.

Really, the idea of students writing UTME or JAMB and going to the universities to write Post-UME exams is frustrating, uneconomical, and stressful. And the way the post UME exams are conducted in some universities is not encouraging at all, only children of the rich who can pay some stipulated amount of money are given admission while the children of the poor are left out.

Let me also point out that because of level of corruption going on in JAMB, students don’t study for the exams because the papers will be in circulation weeks or days before the exams, so there is no need losing one’s sleep over it. But for post-UME exams, students take it more serious because there are no micro chips. You write the exam on your own.

So I’m of the opinion that NECO and UTME should be scrapped while WAEC and universities should take over the conduct of these exams. It will make the students to be more serious and raise our academic standard.

Miss Anabel Elvis – UTME Candidate.

The stress involved in writing UTME is much but I still prefer it to allowing universities to conduct their entrance examinations. If universities take over the responsibility of conducting admission examinations, admission would be for the highest bidder and not on merit.

As I said earlier, JAMB is really stressful, for instance, since morning, I’ve been moving round this campus (RSUST) looking for the exam centre without success. Nobody is even ready to direct you to the right place to go or provide answers to your questions but JAMB is still a preferred option.

It gives everybody a level playing ground. The intimidation and discrimination that will be associated with empowering the universities to admit students will be too much. They may end up admitting only indigenes and leave out the non-indigenes and all that.

Opinion

Bazia EXCO @ One: NUJ Rivers Reawakened

Published

9 hours ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote: “For the first time in years, Rivers journalists are not just hearing promises—they are seeing a union that works.”

The first year in office of the Paul Bazia-led executive of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), has offered something many had almost given up on—renewed confidence in union leadership. For a body as critical as the NUJ, whose responsibility goes beyond professional coordination to include the welfare, protection, and continuous development of journalists, expectations are always high. Unfortunately, past experiences had conditioned many members to expect less—less action, less visibility, and less impact.This is why the past twelve months stand out. Within a relatively short period, the Bazia-led administration has demonstrated a level of drive that distinguishes it from its predecessors. There is a noticeable shift from inertia to activity, from routine administration to purposeful leadership. Initiatives captured in the one-year report point to an executive that understands both the urgency of its mandate and the frustrations of its members.

Particularly commendable is the renewed attention to journalists’ welfare. For too long, welfare issues have lingered without meaningful resolution, leaving many practitioners feeling unsupported. The current leadership’s efforts—through engagement, structured support, and timely interventions—signal a welcome change in priorities. Equally important is the push toward professional development. In an era where journalism is rapidly evolving, capacity building is no longer optional. The administration’s commitment to training and skill enhancement reflects an understanding that a stronger union must be built on more competent and competitive professionals. There is also something to be said about visibility and voice. A vibrant NUJ must not only serve its members internally but also stand as a credible voice in the public space—defending press freedom, promoting ethical standards, and constructively engaging critical issues.

Encouragingly, the current executive appears more present and responsive, giving the union a renewed sense of relevance. Perhaps what resonates most, however, is the sense of movement. For many members, the difference between the present and the immediate past is not subtle—it is clear. Where there was once stagnation, there is now direction. Where there was doubt, there is growing belief. Beyond the visible strides recorded within this first year, what perhaps deserves even greater applause is the restoration of institutional confidence within the Nigeria Union of Journalists. For a long time, many members had grown disenchanted, viewing the union more as a ceremonial body than an active force capable of defending their interests and advancing their welfare. That narrative, however, is gradually changing. The Bazia-led executive has not only initiated programs but has also rekindled a sense of belonging among members.

Meetings appear more purposeful, engagements more intentional, and decisions more reflective of collective interest. This psychological shift—subtle as it may seem—is one of the most critical achievements of the past year, because a union that its members believe in is already halfway to effectiveness. It is also important to underscore the contrast with the immediate past, not as an exercise in criticism, but as a necessary context for measuring progress. Where previous administrations struggled to translate plans into action, the current leadership has shown a greater bias for execution. Projects that once lingered in discussion stages are now seeing tangible movement, and issues that were previously deferred are receiving attention. This difference in approach—moving from prolonged deliberation to decisive action—has helped reposition the union as a more responsive and relevant institution.

While no administration is without its shortcomings, the willingness to act, even in the face of constraints, marks a significant departure from what members were accustomed to. Looking ahead, the expectations of members—and indeed the wider public—will only grow stronger. With a solid first year behind it, the Bazia-led executive now carries the burden of consistency. Members will expect deeper welfare interventions that go beyond immediate relief to more sustainable support systems. They will look for expanded training opportunities that prepare journalists for the rapidly changing media landscape. They will also expect a firmer, more courageous voice on issues affecting press freedom and professional integrity. Above all, they will demand continuity—assurance that the progress recorded so far is not a fleeting phase but the beginning of a sustained transformation.

Meeting these expectations will not be easy, but it is precisely this challenge that defines enduring leadership. That said, this moment of applause must also serve as a moment of reflection. A strong first year inevitably raises expectations. Journalists in Rivers State will now look beyond initial achievements toward consolidation. Welfare interventions must become more structured and far-reaching. Training programs must be sustained and expanded. Advocacy must become more consistent and impactful. Most importantly, the unity of the union must be strengthened, ensuring that all members feel included and carried along. Transparency will also be key. Continued open communication about finances, decisions, and challenges will deepen trust and set a standard for accountable union leadership. The task ahead is clear: to convert early momentum into lasting institutional progress.

For the Bazia-led executive, the opportunity is significant. It has, within one year, reawakened belief in what the NUJ Rivers State Council can be. The next step is to ensure that this renewed energy does not fade, but instead becomes the foundation of a stronger, more responsive, and more respected union. For the members, the message is equally clear—expect more, demand more, and support what works because in the end, a vibrant union is not built by leadership alone, but by a collective commitment to progress. And for now, under Bazia, that progress has truly begun.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Opinion

As Service Chiefs Relocate To Borno

Published

9 hours ago

March 23, 2026

The Tide

Quote:”Relocation may signal urgency, but without structural reforms, it risks becoming a cycle of temporary relief and recurring crisis.”

Here we go again. We have seen this script play out before. Under the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, service chiefs were directed to relocate to security hotspots as a demonstration of urgency and resolve. Today, under Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the same approach is being repeated. Following the recent suicide bombing in Maiduguri, Borno State, which claimed scores of lives, the President ordered the immediate relocation of service chiefs to take charge of the situation. On paper, the directive appears logical and commendable. It suggests a hands-on approach aimed at enhancing coordination among security agencies, improving response time, and restoring public confidence. However, the critical question remains: has this strategy ever truly worked? Experience suggests otherwise. While such relocations often create a temporary sense of calm, the effect is usually short-lived.

The presence of high command tends to produce what may be described as “cosmetic stability”—a brief period of intensified operations and visibility. Yet, once the service chiefs return to Abuja, the underlying problems resurface. A clear example can be drawn from January 2018, when President Buhari ordered the then Inspector General of Police, Ibrahim Idris, to relocate to Benue State in response to escalating violence. At the time, the directive was widely praised. Yet years later, killings, displacement, and destruction of livelihoods persist, raising doubts about the long-term effectiveness of such measures. This recurring pattern has led many observers to describe relocation orders as political theatre—a performative gesture designed to project action rather than deliver sustainable results. While this may seem harsh, it is difficult to ignore the structural deficiencies that continue to undermine the nation’s security framework.

First is the issue of intelligence. Effective security operations depend not just on troop deployment but on timely, accurate, and actionable intelligence. Yet the nation’s intelligence-gathering mechanisms, particularly at the grassroots level, remain weak and poorly coordinated. Relocating service chiefs does little to address this fundamental gap. There is also the challenge of resources. Many security personnel on the frontlines continue to grapple with inadequate equipment, insufficient logistics, and poor welfare conditions. In such circumstances, the physical presence of top commanders cannot substitute for the systematic investment needed to strengthen operational capacity. Equally important is the issue of sustainability. Security is not achieved through sporadic interventions but through consistent, long-term strategies.

The relocation of service chiefs is, by its nature, temporary and does not build enduring institutions capable of sustained response. Beyond these concerns lies a pressing question: what criteria determine which states receive such high-level attention? While Borno has long been an epicentre of insurgency, other states such as Plateau and Benue have also experienced alarming levels of violence, including banditry and communal clashes. Why were similar measures not applied there? The truth is that the nation’s current approach to tackling insecurity is insufficient. One alternative that has gained traction is the establishment of state police. Nigeria’s policing system remains highly centralised, with command structures controlled from Abuja—a model that has proven increasingly inadequate in addressing localised security challenges.

State police would allow for more community-based policing, enabling officers familiar with local terrain and dynamics to respond more effectively. It would also improve intelligence gathering, as local officers are more likely to build trust with residents. However, the idea is not without its critics. Concerns have been raised about the potential for abuse by state governments, particularly in using the police to intimidate opponents or suppress dissent. Funding is another major challenge, as many states already struggle to meet basic financial obligations.These concerns are legitimate but not insurmountable. They can be mitigated through robust legal frameworks, effective oversight mechanisms, and a clear delineation of powers between federal and state authorities. Establishing independent State Police Service Commissions to handle recruitment, discipline, and promotions could help safeguard institutional integrity.

In addition to decentralising policing, there must be a renewed focus on intelligence reform. Investing in modern surveillance technologies, data analysis, and inter-agency coordination is essential. Security agencies must move beyond reactive strategies and adopt proactive approaches that anticipate threats. Equally important is addressing the socio-economic drivers of insecurity. Poverty, unemployment, and lack of education continue to create fertile ground for criminality and extremism. Any meaningful security strategy must therefore include efforts to improve livelihoods, expand access to education, and promote inclusive development. Furthermore, there is a need for greater accountability within the security sector. Transparent evaluation of strategies, clear performance benchmarks, and consequences for failure are necessary to ensure that policies are not just announced but effectively implemented.

Ultimately, the fight against insecurity requires more than symbolic gestures. It demands bold, innovative, and sustained reforms that address both immediate threats and their root causes. The relocation of service chiefs may offer temporary visibility, but it cannot substitute for a comprehensive national security strategy. The nation stands at a critical juncture. Continuing to rely on approaches that have yielded limited results in the past is unlikely to produce different outcomes. It is time to rethink, recalibrate, and rebuild a security architecture that is responsive, resilient, and grounded in the realities of our society.

By: Calista Ezeaku

Opinion

Beyond the Adichie Tragedy

Published

1 week ago

March 16, 2026

The Tide

Quote:: “Justice must never depend on fame, wealth, or connections. The child of a roadside trader deserves the same standard of care as the child of a globally celebrated writer. When accountability works only for the prominent, public trust in institutions quietly erodes.”

Public reaction to the suspension of doctors by the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) following the death of the son of celebrated Nigerian writer Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie reveals something deeper than outrage over a single tragedy. Across social media and public commentary, a recurring sentiment stands out: many Nigerians believe justice was served only because of the prominence of the family involved. Comments such as “The doctors were punished because Chimamanda is well known,” or “If it was a poor man’s child, the case would have been swept under the carpet,” capture a troubling lack of faith in the system.

Whether these perceptions are always accurate is not the most important issue. What should concern the nation is that so many citizens instinctively believe that justice in Nigeria often depends on status, wealth, or influence.The tragedy that befell the Adichie family is heartbreaking. No parent should have to bury a child, particularly under circumstances that raise questions about professional responsibility. But beyond the grief lies a larger national concern: medical negligence in Nigeria is far more widespread than the few cases that attract public attention. Across the country, families quietly lose loved ones in hospitals and clinics under troubling circumstances. Patients are sometimes misdiagnosed. Emergency cases may be delayed. Surgical procedures may be mishandled, while basic standards of care can be compromised due to negligence, poor supervision, or systemic pressure on medical staff.

In many situations, grieving families simply accept their loss and move on, believing there is little they can do. The result is what can only be described as a silent epidemic of unreported medical negligence.In more developed healthcare systems, such incidents rarely go unexamined. Independent regulatory bodies investigate complaints, enforce professional standards, and sanction erring practitioners. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Care Quality Commission inspects hospitals, clinics, and care providers to ensure strict compliance with safety and quality standards.Nigeria does have oversight institutions, notably the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria. However, enforcement often appears inconsistent, and many cases of negligence never reach the stage where regulators can intervene. Sometimes victims are unaware of the complaint process. In other cases, fear, cost, or bureaucracy discourage families from seeking justice.

While government institutions must improve their oversight mechanisms, citizens must also confront a difficult truth: Nigerians often fail to pursue their rights when they are violated. Too frequently, when injustice occurs, people retreat into resignation. Instead of filing complaints or seeking legal remedies, many respond with the familiar phrase: “God will judge them.” Faith is important, but it should not replace civic responsibility. A society that leaves accountability solely to divine intervention risks allowing negligence and impunity to flourish. Some commentators have suggested that the Adichie family likely pursued the matter relentlessly through petitions and formal complaints before authorities acted. If that is the case, it demonstrates a path other citizens can follow. When malpractice occurs, persistence in seeking justice can make institutions respond.

If more families reported cases of medical negligence to the appropriate authorities, regulatory bodies would have stronger grounds to investigate. Public pressure would also push healthcare institutions to improve their standards. Negligence, as defined by Nigeria’s Supreme Court in Odinaka v. Moghalu, refers to the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Within medical ethics, physicians are expected to provide competent care with compassion and respect for human dignity. These principles form the foundation of the duty of care that patients rely upon. Citizens must therefore be able to recognise signs of negligence and take appropriate steps to seek redress. Patients and families should learn to document incidents, keep medical records, ask questions about treatment decisions, and report suspicious circumstances surrounding medical care.

Where necessary, formal complaints should be lodged with regulatory authorities or pursued through the courts. Civil society organisations, advocacy groups, and the media also play a crucial role. By exposing cases of negligence and demanding accountability, they help ensure such incidents do not disappear into silence. A healthcare system shielded from scrutiny cannot improve. Nevertheless, responsibility cannot rest solely on citizens. Government must take decisive steps to strengthen healthcare regulation and reduce medical negligence. Hospitals and clinics—both public and private—should undergo regular inspections to ensure compliance with professional standards, safety protocols, and ethical guidelines. Persistent violations must attract meaningful sanctions. Legal practitioner and Senior Advocate of Nigeria Olisa Agbakoba has suggested the creation of an independent health regulatory authority and the restoration of Chief Medical Officers at federal and state levels.

In the past, these officials, alongside health inspectors, helped enforce professional standards and ensured accountability within healthcare facilities. Government must also invest more seriously in the training and continuous education of healthcare professionals. Medicine is an evolving field, and practitioners must constantly update their knowledge and skills. Mandatory professional development programmes, stricter licensing renewal requirements, and improved mentorship systems could help reduce errors arising from outdated practices or inadequate training. At the same time, systemic challenges within the healthcare system cannot be ignored. Many Nigerian doctors and nurses work under extremely difficult conditions—overcrowded hospitals, outdated equipment, staff shortages, and overwhelming patient loads. Such pressures increase the risk of mistakes and professional burnout.

Improving healthcare infrastructure, funding, and staffing is therefore not merely an administrative matter; it is a fundamental requirement for patients’ safety. Equally important is transparency when allegations of negligence arise. Investigations must be timely, credible, and accessible. Families deserve to know what happened to their loved ones and whether professional standards were breached. Regulatory bodies must ensure that findings are communicated clearly so that public confidence in the healthcare system is strengthened. The tragedy that drew national attention to medical negligence should not be treated as an isolated incident involving a prominent personality. Rather, it should serve as a wake-up call for systemic reform.

Every Nigerian life carries equal value. Justice must not depend on prominence or privilege. When citizens demand accountability and institutions respond with fairness and transparency, trust begins to grow. Nigeria’s health sector is filled with dedicated doctors, nurses, and medical workers who save lives daily despite difficult conditions. Recognising their commitment, however, should not prevent society from confronting the reality that negligence sometimes occurs—and when it does, it must be addressed firmly. If this painful moment encourages Nigerians to speak up, demand accountability, and push for stronger regulatory systems, it may yet produce meaningful reform. Citizens must refuse to accept negligence as fate, while government strengthens oversight and improves healthcare conditions. Only through this collective effort can Nigeria build a healthcare system where every patient—regardless of social status—receives safe, responsible, and dignified care.

By: Calista Ezeaku