Connect with us

Opinion

Should NECO, UTME Be Scrapped?

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Opinion

One Attack Too Many 

Published

on

Quote: “Ogoniland does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create more opportunities, empower youths and build a better future.”

The latest attack by Chief Gani Topba on the President of KAGOTE and Chief Executive Officer of Giolee Global Resources Ltd, Chief Lesi Maol, appears to have opened another troubling chapter in the politics of leadership and influence in Ogoniland. While disagreements are inevitable, the frequency and manner of attacks directed at individuals or organisations contributing to Ogoni development should concern every stakeholder. The concluded extraordinary meeting of Ogoni stakeholders in Bori was convened to deliberate on challenges confronting the people, including insecurity, farmers-herders clashes, youth disunity, education and development. It also considered harmonising the numerous youth organisations operating across Ogoniland under a strong and representative umbrella capable of giving Ogoni youths a more coordinated voice. One would have expected such an initiative to attract constructive contributions, especially from those with reservations about it.

Instead, the gathering and its organisers have come under criticism, raising a fundamental question: what exactly is wrong with Ogoni stakeholders coming together to discuss problems affecting their people? If there are legitimate concerns about the meeting, its organisers or resolutions, such concerns should be supported by facts and subjected to constructive engagement rather than personalised attacks. Leadership is demonstrated through service, sacrifice, participation and results. If Chief Gani Topba believes the stakeholders’ meeting was unnecessary or lacked legitimacy, nothing prevents him from convening another meeting and demonstrating that he can attract traditional rulers, professionals, academics, clergy and youths. Different approaches to development should therefore be allowed to compete on their merits.

The proposal for a unified youth platform should equally not be presented as an attempt to silence Ogoni youths. Rather, it should be examined against the reality of numerous organisations claiming to represent different segments of Ogoni youths. Too many competing organisations can create confusion, weaken collective bargaining power and make it difficult for genuine concerns affecting young people to receive coordinated attention. A credible umbrella body, if properly constituted and broadly accepted, could strengthen the voice of Ogoni youths and provide an organised platform for employment, education, skills acquisition, security and governance. Ogoniland has experienced enough institutional fragmentation. Its history contains painful lessons about divisions that allow personal interests, leadership struggles and competing platforms to overshadow collective objectives. The present generation should learn that destroying institutions one does not control damages society.

The question should be: who benefits when Ogoni youths remain divided and every attempt at unity is interpreted as rivalry? Against this background, KAGOTE deserves objective scrutiny rather than blanket condemnation. Any organisation with influence must be accountable, but accountability is different from a campaign aimed at delegitimising initiatives associated with its leadership. Chief Lesi Maol’s activities through KAGOTE and Giolee Global Resources Ltd have attracted attention in areas including skills development, education, youth empowerment and community support. Such interventions should be assessed on their impact and encouraged where they serve the public good. Those who believe Chief Maol is not doing enough should not stop at criticism. They should show Ogoni what they can do better. Where are the alternative skills programmes? Where are the educational interventions? Where are the youth empowerment schemes? Where are the community development initiatives?

It is easy to criticise someone who is building; it is harder to mobilise resources and sustain programmes that benefit ordinary people. This is not to suggest that Chief Maol or KAGOTE should be immune from criticism. No leader or institution should be beyond scrutiny, and legitimate questions about accountability must be welcomed. But responsible criticism should be based on facts, evidence and alternative ideas. Personal attacks and attempts to destroy initiatives simply because their leadership is not controlled by particular interests cannot provide the solutions Ogoniland needs. What is unfolding is bigger than one meeting, one statement or even two individuals. It reflects a broader contest over influence and leadership. If anyone believes KAGOTE is taking Ogoni in the wrong direction, the response is to present a better direction. If anyone believes Lesi Maol is not doing enough, the answer is to demonstrate what more can be done. Ogoni does not need leaders competing over who can destroy another’s platform; it needs leaders competing over who can create opportunities, improve education, promote security, empower youths and contribute to development.

The people are looking beyond rhetoric. They are examining records, observing programmes and measuring results. No individual owns the permanent right to speak for Ogoni or determine which organisation must survive or collapse. Ogoni must replace the politics of personal control with a culture of ideas, service, accountability and measurable achievement. Differences should produce better alternatives, not destruction. Every Ogoni leader and stakeholder should ask whether his actions are strengthening the region or deepening divisions. Ogoni needs people who can build bridges, institutions, opportunities and hope. Those who genuinely love Ogoni should support what is good, correct what is wrong and offer better alternatives. The future of Ogoni will not be secured by destroying its builders, but by encouraging more people to build.

onest people can reach different conclusions based on different experiences and information. Public debate should therefore remain respectful, evidence-based and open to correction. Truth is strengthened by honest examination, not insults, suspicion or personal attacks. The phrase “Truth has no agenda” carries a powerful message. Truth does not belong to any political party, ethnic group, religion or ideology. It cannot be permanently owned or manipulated by those in power. Governments change, institutions rise and fall, and public opinion shifts, but truth remains indifferent to popularity.The real test of character comes when speaking honestly threatens influence, privilege or personal advantage. It is easy to defend justice when there is nothing to lose. It is far more difficult when the truth may cost us something. That is when conscience must rise above convenience.

Society must therefore cultivate a culture where integrity is valued more than comfort and accountability is welcomed rather than feared. Leaders should learn to accept criticism without hostility, while citizens should express disagreement responsibly. Progress becomes difficult when honest questions are treated as acts of disloyalty. Ultimately, every society must choose the future it desires. A nation built on silence cannot sustain justice, while a community where comfort consistently outweighs conscience risks making injustice ordinary. But people committed to truth, even when inconvenient, lay the foundation for stronger institutions, trustworthy leadership and lasting progress. The call is not to condemn those who succeed or to glorify perpetual criticism. It is to remember that privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good. Truth has no hidden agenda. It seeks neither applause nor favour. It simply asks to be spoken, defended and lived. When truth is silenced by comfort, everyone eventually pays the price.

By:  King Onunwor
Continue Reading

Opinion

When Comfort Silences The Truth  

Published

on

Quote: “Privilege should never silence principle, influence should never replace integrity, and personal gain should never outweigh the public good.”

There is an old saying that truth does not fear investigation. Genuine truth neither depends on applause nor seeks permission to exist. It remains constant whether celebrated or rejected, defended or ignored. Yet, in today’s society, truth often competes with comfort, convenience, loyalty and personal interest. This raises an important question: Can a person remain objective after beginning to benefit from the very system he once criticised? Throughout history, reform movements have been driven by courageous individuals willing to challenge injustice despite personal risks. Their commitment to truth sometimes cost them popularity, comfort, freedom and even their lives. History has also recorded instances where influential voices became quieter after receiving appointments, promotions, contracts, political favours or other advantages.

While motivations cannot always be known, such patterns remind us that personal benefit can sometimes influence public conviction. Human beings naturally seek security, stability and opportunities for themselves and their families. There is nothing wrong with success or advancement. The concern arises when personal comfort replaces public responsibility, or privilege becomes a reason to ignore problems affecting others. One of the greatest dangers facing society is not only corruption or poor governance but the normalisation of silence. Systems rarely collapse overnight. They deteriorate gradually when people who know better decide that speaking the truth is no longer worth the personal cost. Every society therefore depends on citizens willing to ask difficult questions, demand accountability and defend justice, regardless of who benefits or feels uncomfortable.

A person who benefits from a broken system may become less inclined to challenge it. This is not true of everyone, and individuals should not be judged without evidence. Many principled people continue to advocate reform while working within imperfect institutions. Nevertheless, personal interests can sometimes soften criticism, dilute conviction or redirect attention from uncomfortable realities.Perhaps the greatest threat to truth is not open opposition but quiet compromise. Censorship is easy to recognise; silence purchased through convenience is harder to detect. When people gradually stop asking questions, demanding transparency or defending principles they once considered important, society should ask whether something has changed. Perspectives may genuinely evolve with new information, but incentives can also influence what people say—or choose not to say.

This is why citizens should not place blind trust in personalities. Ideas, principles and actions should be examined independently. Loyalty to individuals must never exceed loyalty to truth. Political affiliation, professional status, financial success or social influence should not exempt anyone from accountability. A healthy democracy depends on independent thinking, not unquestioning allegiance.The responsibility to speak truth does not belong only to journalists, activists, judges, religious leaders or opposition politicians. It belongs to every citizen. The teacher who refuses to manipulate facts, the public servant who rejects corruption, the business owner who acts with integrity, the parent who teaches honesty and the young person who chooses principle over popularity all contribute to a more just society. However, defending truth also requires humility.

We must not assume that everyone who disagrees with us has been compromised.

By: Michael  Abraham

Continue Reading

Opinion

Poor Federal Roads: The Oshiomhole’s  Outburst

Published

on

Quote:”Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat”

The recent outburst by the lawmaker representing Edo North Senatorial District, Senator Adams Oshiomhole, over the deplorable condition of federal roads in Edo and Delta states has once again drawn national attention to one of Nigeria’s most persistent infrastructure challenges. During Senate plenary last Wednesday, Oshiomhole criticized the Minister of Works, David Umahi, accusing the Federal Ministry of Works of neglecting major federal highways in Edo and Delta while prioritizing new road projects. According to him, the government should focus on rehabilitating existing roads that have become impassable before embarking on new construction. He identified the Benin-Warri, Benin-Asaba, Benin-Auchi and Auchi-Okene highways as strategic economic corridors that have deteriorated to alarming levels, making travel difficult for commuters and motorists while increasing the cost of transporting goods and services.

The senator also alleged that road projects affecting Edo and Delta states were repeatedly omitted from budgetary provisions and that some interventions were only undertaken following directives from President Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the Federal Government has consistently reiterated its commitment to reconstructing and rehabilitating federal roads across the country. The Minister of Works has repeatedly assured Nigerians that the government is deploying reinforced concrete technology to build more durable highways capable of withstanding the country’s climatic conditions. Despite these assurances, vast sections of federal road across the country remain in deplorable condition. The consequences are enormous. Federal highways serve as the backbone of the nation’s economy, carrying more than 90 per cent of passengers and freight.

They connect ports, airports, industrial centres, state capitals and agricultural belts, facilitating the movement of food, fuel, cement and manufactured goods. When these roads fail, the entire economy suffers. Although the Federal Ministry of Works is responsible for road construction and rehabilitation while the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) oversees maintenance, road maintenance has consistently taken a back seat. The result is a recurring cycle in which newly completed roads quickly deteriorate while existing ones are left to collapse. The economic consequences are severe. Bad roads increase transportation costs, contribute to food inflation, delay the movement of goods from ports to markets, increase vehicle maintenance expenses and lead to avoidable road crashes that claim countless lives every year.

To address these challenges, the Federal Government has introduced initiatives such as the Highway Development and Management Initiative (HDMI), which seeks to attract private investment into road maintenance through concessions and tolling. While the initiative holds promise, public acceptance will depend largely on visible improvements in road quality and transparent management of toll revenues. Similarly, the Road Infrastructure Tax Credit Scheme is designed to encourage companies to finance the reconstruction of strategic highways in exchange for tax credits. While the scheme has shown promise, its ability to address road infrastructure challenges equitably across the country remains to be seen. Other countries facing similar infrastructure challenges have demonstrated that sustainable road management requires a different approach.

Rwanda and Morocco, for instance, have prioritized dedicated road maintenance funds, performance-based contracts that reward quality rather than kilometers constructed, and policies that allocate a significant proportion of road budgets to maintenance instead of new construction. Nigeria can draw useful lessons from these experiences. Maintenance funding should be increased and protected because preventive maintenance is far cheaper than complete reconstruction. Public-private partnerships should be expanded with adequate safeguards, transparent tolling policies and independent monitoring. Development finance institutions should support contractors with affordable financing to minimize disruptions caused by delayed government payments. Road designs should withstand heavier rainfall and flooding, while compensation and right-of-way issues must be resolved before projects begin to avoid unnecessary delays.

FERMA should also prioritize durable, high-quality road maintenance over the shoddy repairs that have become all too common. Ultimately, Nigerians are not asking for perfect roads; they simply want roads that are safe, durable and properly maintained. While new highways are desirable, a well-maintained five-kilometer stretch is often far more valuable to road users than a much longer road that quickly falls into disrepair. The media, civil society, the National Assembly and Nigerians must continue to hold the government accountable by monitoring road projects and demanding better results. Good roads are not a privilege but a right of every citizen. With tax credit schemes, concessions and other funding mechanisms already in place, what is now required is political will, transparency and consistent implementation. However, Senator Oshiomhole’s criticism also invites legitimate public reflection. 

Many Nigerians have asked what the condition of these same federal roads was during his eight-year tenure as Governor of Edo State. Several governors, including those of Rivers State at different times, undertook repairs on critical federal roads within their states and subsequently sought reimbursement from the Federal Government. It is therefore fair to ask whether similar interventions were pursued during Oshiomhole’s administration. Public officials, whether serving or former, should be judged by the same standard. Constructive criticism is essential in a democracy, but it carries greater weight when matched by a demonstrable record of action. Nigerians expect those entrusted with public office to address pressing challenges while they have the authority to do so, rather than becoming vocal critics only after leaving office

By:  Calista Ezeaku
Continue Reading

Trending