THE Delta State High Court in Warri has issued an order restraining the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board from implementing its recent policy requiring a minimum admissible age of 16 years for university admissions in the country pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice filed against the board.
Recall that JAMB, in a statement on October 16, stated that only candidates who will be 16 years old by August 2025 would be admitted to tertiary institutions.
This directive was a follow up to the new policy that the ministry of education introduced which states the adoption of 18 years as the minimum age for admission into tertiary institutions.
JAMB, however, made an exception for students seeking admission in the 2024/2025 session.
Dissatisfied with JAMB’s directive, John Aikpokpo-Martins, a former Nigerian Bar Association chairman, Warri branch, dragged the admission board to court.
The sole applicant, Aikpokpo-Martins (for and on behalf of all candidates born on the 1st of September 2009 to the 31st December, 2009, who wrote and passed JAMB exams in 2024), in a suit marked W/311/FHR/2021, sued JAMB and Edwin Clark University as first and second respondents respectively.
In a ruling, Justice Anthony Akpovi granted all the reliefs sought by the applicant, as confirmed by a Certified True Copy (CTC).
The applicant had sought an order of the court restraining the respondents from taking further action on and/or giving effect to the directives contained in the circular of the 1st respondent dated the 16thOctober, 2024 and captioned “Admission of candidates with minimum Admissible age of 16 years” as signed by Mohammed A. Babaji to all Nigerian Universities pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion.
The applicant also prayed the court to issue “An order of interim injunction restraining the respondents from withdrawing the admission given to Angel Aikpokpo Martins and/or restricting her rights and privileges and/or preventing her access to school and all educational facilities of the 2nd respondent institution as a student pending the hearing and determination of the originating motion.”
