The Federal High Court has struck down the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board’s (JAMB) circular dated October 16, 2024, which restricted university admissions to candidates who would be 16 years old by August 31, 2025.
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/NBBSPIDEL.png")
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026-Summer-IDRI-Masterclass.jpg")
The court declared the policy unconstitutional, null, and void, citing a violation of the fundamental right to freedom from discrimination under Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). The judgment, delivered by Justice Anthony Olotu Akpovi, addressed a suit brought by John Aikpokpo-Martins on behalf of candidates born between September 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, who passed the 2024 JAMB examinations.
Background of the Case
The suit, filed against JAMB, Edwin Clark University, Delta State University, University of Delta, and Admiralty University, challenged JAMB’s directive (Exhibit JAMB 4) that barred candidates not reaching age 16 by August 31, 2025, from gaining admission, despite their success in the 2024 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination (UTME). The applicant argued that the policy discriminated against candidates born later in 2009, particularly those born between September and December, compared to their peers born earlier in the same year, who were deemed eligible.
The case centered on Angel Abisola Aikpokpo-Martins, the applicant’s daughter, born on September 27, 2009, who was offered admission by Edwin Clark University but faced withdrawal of her admission due to JAMB’s directive. The applicant contended that the policy infringed on the rights of an entire class of candidates under Sections 18(1) and 42 of the Constitution, which ensure equal educational opportunities and freedom from discrimination, respectively.
Court’s Ruling on Preliminary Objection
JAMB and Edwin Clark University raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicant lacked locus standi, that admission to tertiary institutions is not a fundamental right under Section 42, and that the circular was not discriminatory. They further contended that Edwin Clark University lacked the authority to issue admission letters, rendering the offer to Angel Abisola Aikpokpo-Martins null.
The court dismissed the preliminary objection, affirming the applicant’s locus standi under Paragraph 3(e) of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, which encourages public interest litigation in human rights cases. Citing Human Rights & Empowerment Project Ltd/GTE v. President of FRN & Ors (2022), the court held that the traditional requirement of locus standi does not apply in fundamental rights enforcement proceedings. The court also found that the suit disclosed a reasonable cause of action, as the applicant’s claim of discrimination based on age fell within the ambit of Chapter IV of the Constitution.
On the issue of Edwin Clark University’s authority to issue admissions, the court ruled that this was irrelevant to the fundamental rights claim and should not be addressed at the preliminary stage. The court emphasized that only the applicant’s originating motion and affidavit, not the respondents’ counter-affidavits, were relevant in determining jurisdiction.
Ruling on Amendment of Originating Motion
The applicant sought to amend the originating motion to include a claim under Section 18(1) of the Constitution, which mandates equal educational opportunities. JAMB and Edwin Clark University opposed the amendment, arguing that Section 18(1), under Chapter II, is non-justiciable and that the amendment introduced a new suit. They further contended that granting the amendment would necessitate vacating prior interim orders and restarting the case.
The court granted the amendment, finding that it did not alter the case’s core issue of discrimination. The court held that Section 18(1) was justiciable when combined with Section 42, citing Olafisoye v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2005) and Legal Defence and Assistance Project (LEDAP) GTE & Ltd v. Federal Ministry of Education & Anor (2015). These precedents established that Chapter II provisions become enforceable when linked to fundamental rights or supported by specific legislation, such as the JAMB Act, which derives from Section 315(b) of the Constitution.
Judgment on the Main Application
In the substantive judgment, the court addressed whether JAMB’s circular violated the applicants’ rights. The court examined Exhibit JAMB 4, which extended the minimum admission age to 16 by August 31, 2025, and found it inconsistent with Sections 18(1) and 42(2) of the Constitution. Section 18(1) requires equal educational opportunities at all levels, while Section 42(2) prohibits discrimination based on circumstances of birth, including age.
The court held that JAMB’s policy discriminated against candidates born between September 1 and December 31, 2009, by denying them admission while allowing those born earlier in the same year to proceed. This, the court ruled, constituted a breach of their fundamental right to freedom from discrimination. The court further noted that JAMB’s authority under Section 5 of the JAMB Act to set admission criteria did not supersede constitutional protections, as Section 1(3) of the Constitution voids any law inconsistent with its provisions.
Contractual and Equity Considerations
The court also analyzed the issue from a contractual perspective, noting that JAMB’s 2024 brochure (Exhibit B) allowed candidates to write the UTME if they would be 16 by October 1, 2024. By permitting candidates to register, pay fees, and sit for the exam, JAMB impliedly waived stricter age requirements. The subsequent issuance of Exhibit JAMB 4, after candidates had completed these steps and some had received admissions, was deemed a retrospective breach of contract. The court applied the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), ruling that JAMB could not unilaterally alter the terms to the detriment of candidates who relied on the initial waiver.
The court emphasized equity, arguing that excluding candidates for a four-month age difference was unjust, especially given their merit-based qualifications. The court highlighted the emotional and psychological toll on affected candidates, such as Angel Abisola Aikpokpo-Martins, who had begun their academic journeys only to face withdrawal of admissions.
Child’s Rights and International Standards
Invoking the Child’s Rights Act 2003, the court underscored that the best interests of the child, defined as persons under 18, must be paramount. Section 1 of the Act prioritizes the child’s welfare, while Section 4 guarantees the right to survival and development. The court found that withdrawing admissions from qualified candidates undermined their development and was not in their best interests.
The court also considered international human rights frameworks, as mandated by Section 3 of the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009. Article 17 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirm the right to education, with higher education accessible based on merit. The court held that JAMB’s age restriction violated these principles by imposing arbitrary barriers unrelated to academic merit.
Comparative Perspective
Drawing on international practices, the court noted that the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom allows admissions for candidates under 16, subject to legislative compliance, without rigid age barriers. This contrasted with JAMB’s policy, which the court deemed overly restrictive and out of step with global standards encouraging early academic advancement.
Reliefs Granted
The court granted the following reliefs:
- Declared the minimum admissible age of 16 years discriminatory against candidates born between September 1 and December 31, 2009.
- Declared JAMB’s October 16, 2024, circular a breach of the fundamental rights of the affected candidates.
- Set aside the circular as unconstitutional and discriminatory.
- Upheld the validity of admissions granted to the affected candidates, including Angel Abisola Aikpokpo-Martins.
- Ordered JAMB and tertiary institutions to restore or maintain admissions for the affected candidates.
- Refused to award damages, deeming the restoration of admissions sufficient remedy.
- Declared the policy void for violating equity, good conscience, and natural justice.
The court ordered parties to bear their respective costs, emphasizing that the restoration of admissions was the primary remedy sought.
[pdf-embedder url=”https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/JAMBs-16-Year-Age-Restriction-Unconstitutional.pdf” title=”JAMB’s 16-Year Age Restriction Unconstitutional”]
Implications and Reactions
Legal analysts hail the ruling as a significant victory for educational equity, reinforcing the supremacy of constitutional rights over administrative policies. The decision compels JAMB to reconsider its age-based admission criteria and aligns Nigeria’s tertiary admission process with international human rights standards. It also underscores the judiciary’s role in protecting vulnerable groups, particularly minors, from arbitrary administrative actions.
Education stakeholders have called for the National Assembly to legislate clear, non-discriminatory admission criteria to prevent future disputes. Meanwhile, candidates affected by the circular, including Angel Abisola Aikpokpo-Martins, can now proceed with their tertiary education without further hindrance.
The ruling has sparked discussions on social media platforms, with many praising the court’s emphasis on merit and fairness. However, some critics argue that JAMB’s age limit aimed to ensure maturity among university students, a concern the court dismissed as secondary to constitutional protections.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
The book also examines Nigeria's legal ecosystem, focusing on the LPELR and NBA AI Guidelines. As a bonus, every purchase comes with a FREE eBook titled: How to Use the AI Features in LegalPedia and LawPavilion.
Ohio Books Ltd praises the publication, stating:
"....this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic."
How to Order:
📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878
📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com
🌎 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access it directly online at https://selar.com/prv626
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe Esq., ACIarb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director at the Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
_______________________________________________________________________
