By Tony Onyima

The 2025 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME), conducted by the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), sparked public outcry over widespread failures, leading to a rare press conference by the Registrar, Professor Is-haq Oloyede. His statement is notable for its candour and rhetorical flourish. However, in light of best practices in crisis communication, the address reveals commendable efforts alongside critical shortcomings.

One of the core tenets of crisis communication is the prompt and transparent acknowledgement of the issue. JAMB’s press statement scores highly on this front. The Registrar admits, unequivocally, that technical glitches occurred and that candidates were affected. This stands in contrast to the typical deflection or denial often seen in Nigerian public sector communication. “There are grounds for the complaints about our 2025 UTME results… This press conference is convened to unveil the bitter truth of our findings,” he said. This openness lends credibility and helps contain reputational damage.

However, the initial delay between the release of the results (May 9) and the press conference (May 14) allowed public distrust to fester, which reduced the effectiveness of the eventual admission. While transparency is commendable, the Registrar’s tone at times veers into the overly rhetorical and self-congratulatory. Phrases like “we burn the midnight oil” or referencing spiritual maxims like “Man proposes, God disposes” dilute the severity of the situation. Rather than focusing on the affected candidates, the statement meanders through lengthy descriptions of quality assurance processes and organisational philosophy. Best practices suggest using clear, concise, and empathetic language during crises. Overusing metaphors and anecdotes may come across as deflective or insincere.

Audiences seek reassurance, not poetry.
JAMB earns praise for the Registrar’s assumption of responsibility: “As Registrar of JAMB, I hold myself personally responsible… and I unreservedly apologise for it.”
This is a textbook move in crisis communication: own the failure, don’t blame others. It helps maintain public trust. However, the apology is somewhat undermined by attempts to shift focus to the robustness of the system and the incompetence of unnamed service providers. The emphasis on “just one of the two service providers” feels like a hedging tactic rather than full accountability.

Another best practice is to provide a factual and comprehensible explanation of what went wrong. Here, the Registrar offers significant technical detail: issues with shuffling options, patch errors, server misconfigurations, and distinctions between “LAG” and “KAD” operational zones.

However, while thorough, the explanation is not sufficiently user-centred. Many stakeholders, including students, parents, and the general public, may struggle to understand this technical jargon. The core message could have been simplified: What went wrong? Where did it happen? How many were affected? What are you doing about it?
Excessive focus on internal systems and structure detracts from the human cost of the crisis and obstructs clarity. JAMB took decisive remedial steps: affected candidates will retake the exam; WAEC was contacted to address scheduling conflicts; affected parties will be notified through multiple channels.
This is a strong and practical response, demonstrating both empathy and action, which are key pillars of effective crisis resolution. The Registrar’s statement that JAMB will reschedule exams for 157 affected centres reflects a responsive approach.

However, the solution would have resonated more if it had been presented earlier and more clearly in the speech. It appears near the end, following many paragraphs of justification.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether the Board will compensate or support the candidates beyond merely rescheduling. For a proper restorative approach, some gesture of support (e.g., transportation assistance, exam fee waiver, or psychosocial support) would demonstrate deeper care.
Involving respected stakeholders—educators, parents’ associations, tech experts, and former officials—adds legitimacy to the investigation. It shows that JAMB is not acting unilaterally and values transparency. Still, the Registrar misses the opportunity to mention whether any candidates themselves, or their guardians, were part of this review. Their voices, being the most directly affected, should have had a space in the resolution process.

In closing, the Registrar leans into a heartfelt apology and uses phrases like: “I AM SORRY to all Nigerians.” This statement, although made late in the address, strikes a powerful emotional note. The triad of “please,” “thank you,” and “I am sorry” adds a human touch to the message. It indicates that JAMB acknowledges the public’s dissatisfaction.
However, the apology would have carried more weight if placed earlier in the statement, rather than buried after technical justifications. Best crisis responses end with concrete commitments to prevent recurrence. The Registrar fails to outline clear steps for future reform. While the speech highlights existing quality assurance processes, it does not promise new oversight mechanisms, third-party audits, or changes to provider contracts.

A future-facing statement such as “We will implement X, Y, Z to ensure this never happens again” is notably absent. JAMB’s crisis communication during the 2025 UTME controversy was commendable in its openness but flawed in its delivery. By focusing more on public clarity and actionable commitments—and less on internal glorification—it could have strengthened trust during a time of institutional vulnerability. For future incidents, JAMB must prioritise speed, simplicity, and support over storytelling.

Dr Onyima, a former Commissioner for Information in Anambra State, teaches at Paul University, Awka.

Contact us on +2349127374577, +2347036621678, for Advert Placement, News Coverage, Script Writing, Translations, Jingle packaging and other Media Services.