The reported incident at the Esther Oshikoya CBT Centre in Ibadan, where Muslim female UTME candidates were obliged to remove their hijab before being allowed to sit for the Unified Tertiary Admission Evaluation (UTME), is not an isolated case. It belongs to a disturbing and repeating pattern that has actually tracked examination conduct in Nigeria for many years– despite existing constitutional securities and assessment standards that allow religious dress, including the hijab.
Recorded video footage flowing online has heightened public concern, with Muslim authorities describing the advancement as prejudiced, unlawful, and efficient in undermining the mental readiness and scholastic performance of impacted candidates.
This is not the first time hijab-wearing candidates have actually dealt with restrictions during national evaluations.
In 2019, at New Ocean School in Lagos State, a number of female prospects wearing hijab were supposedly denied entry into a JAMB assessment hall. The situation intensified till veteran broadcaster Sulaiman Aledeh stepped in after discovering that his daughter was amongst those impacted. The occurrence sparked nationwide outrage and restored require rigorous adherence to JAMB’s gown neutrality policy. The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) reported this along with other events, objecting that female prospects were being harassed.
Similarly, there have actually been several reports throughout the years from numerous parts of the nation where school officials or invigilators demanded hijab removal before entry into evaluation halls. In much of these cases, the reason given was “security screening,” however critics argue that such claims are frequently inconsistently used and disproportionately targeted at Muslim girls.
Beyond JAMB, similar debates have actually also emerged in other institutions. The Nigerian Law School when faced legal and public scrutiny after a prospect, Firdausa Amasa, challenged limitations connected to wearing the hijab. Her case became a landmark moment in defending religious rights in expert scholastic settings, ultimately strengthening the legitimacy of hijab use in regulated organizations.
These repeated occurrences have actually added to a growing understanding amongst stakeholders that hijab-wearing trainees are regularly subjected to unneeded examination and embarrassment in public assessment spaces.
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended) warranties flexibility of thought, conscience, and faith. This consists of the right to manifest one’s religious beliefs in worship, practice, and observance. Assessment bodies such as JAMB are likewise expected to align their operational standards with these constitutional arrangements.
Human rights supporters argue that engaging candidates to remove spiritual outfit without clear, constant, and lawful justification total up to an offense of these rights– particularly when such instructions are not uniformly used throughout all centres.
Reacting to the current event, AbdulRasheed Abubakar, Publisher of Muslim News Nigeria, expressed strong disapproval, firmly insisting that evidence is now visible and demands accountability: “Where is the proof?” Now there is clear proof against Esther Oshikoya CBT Centre in Ibadan and the official who forced students to eliminate their hijab, thus violating their essential rights. They should not go scot complimentary without facing the law. Muslims in the South West require to seriously take this up and pursue it to a logical conclusion. Or has any female trainee been forced to get rid of hijab in the North? Apologies alone are insufficient. They need to be brought to justice. As long as Muslims do not take the law into their own hands, we require justice.”
His remarks reflect growing frustration amongst spiritual and civil rights groups who think that verbal guarantees and apologies alone are insufficient to prevent repeat infractions.
Beyond legal arguments, education stakeholders warn that such incidents have direct mental repercussions on students. UTME candidates already operate under significant pressure, and any type of public embarrassment or forced compliance at assessment centres can affect focus, confidence, and general efficiency.
In the Ibadan case, affected candidates were supposedly distressed after being advised to eliminate their hijab before getting to the evaluation hall.
Stakeholders are getting in touch with the Joint Admissions and Admission Board (JAMB) to urgently take definitive action to address the controversy surrounding alleged discrimination against candidates wearing the hijab. They are demanding that the assessment body concern a formal public statement plainly describing its official policy on using hijab in Computer-Based Test (CBT) centres, to remove uncertainty and prevent future events.
In addition, they are prompting JAMB to right away release a comprehensive investigation into the incident reported at the Esther Oshikoya CBT Centre, with a view to establishing the facts and identifying any breaches of authorized standards. The stakeholders likewise demand a public apology to any affected prospects who might have been subjected to humiliation or denied their rights during the evaluation process. Moreover, they are requiring appropriate disciplinary action versus any authorities or centre administrators discovered culpable after the investigation.
Finally, they suggest the intro of necessary compliance and level of sensitivity training for all certified CBT centres nationwide to ensure strict adherence to examination principles, inclusivity requirements, and respect for candidates’ spiritual rights.
Without such steps, similar occurrences will continue to repeat annually.
The Ibadan incident is yet another reminder that religious tolerance in examination spaces stays delicate. While Nigeria’s laws are clear on freedom of religion, enforcement at institutional levels appears irregular.
If left unaddressed, this pattern threats normalising discrimination under administrative excuses. For many observers, the issue is no longer about isolated misconduct however about systemic oversight failure.
Definitive action from JAMB is now seen not simply as required– however immediate.