THE CONTEXT AND CONTRADICTIONS OF NIGERIA’S MINIMUM AGE POLICY FOR UNIVERSITY ADMISSION
Let me today discuss an issue that is at once emotive as it is controversial: minimum age to enroll into a tertiary institution. My dissertation is therefore, understandably lengthy. I will try my best to explore them.
Education is for the well-being of every person regardless of age. It is a continuum and a necessity in this fast developing society of ours. Education is of two types. There is the formal education which is structured and regulated by the government, with the assistance of all the stake-holders in the education sector. The second, though not the focus of this writeup is the informal education. This form of education has no definite structure and operates at the whim and caprice of the proprietor. At the completion of the education, the attendees are given Certificates of Participation.
In the whirlwind of educational reforms across Nigeria, one policy has drawn more attention than others – the minimum age for university admission, recently mandated to be 18. This policy has triggered a nationwide debate, invoking questions about readiness, maturity, educational flexibility and perhaps more importantly, the future of Nigeria’s youth.
The broader implications of such a policy – socially, legally and educationally – compel us to dig deeper. How did we arrive here? Does age truly reflect emotional maturity? Does this policy help or hinder Nigeria’s educational aspirations? And, more crucially, how does it sit in a country where other societal norms push young Nigerians into adulthood earlier than this policy anticipates?
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S POSITION
The Federal government of Nigeria, through the Minister of Education, Professor Tahir Mamman, has argued that this policy is designed to ensure that students are emotionally and intellectually mature before entering university. According to Professor Mamman, “It is not just a matter of academic readiness; it’s about emotional and psychological maturity. We have seen cases where students who entered university too early struggled to cope with the demands of higher education.” This rationale has however been met with significant opposition from various stakeholders in the educational sector who view the policy as an unnecessary and regressive barrier to academic achievement.
Contradictions in Nigerian Society
The crux of the criticism lies in the paradoxical nature of the policy when juxtaposed with other societal practices in Nigeria. While the government insists that students under 18 are not mature enough to handle the rigors of university life, it simultaneously turns a blind eye to practices that thrust children into adult roles at much younger ages. This includes the widespread issue of child marriage, particularly in the northern parts of Nigeria, where girls as young as 12 or 13 are married off. According to UNICEF, Nigeria has one of the highest rates of child marriage in the world, with 43% of girls married before their 18th birthday.
Furthermore, the legal system in Nigeria also reflects these contradictions. Children as young as 13 have been incarcerated in adult prisons for various offences, raising serious concerns about the country’s juvenile justice system. This practice therefore starkly contrasts with the government’s stance that students must be 18 to be deemed mature enough for higher education. As noted by journalist Oseni Rufai, “They say pupils can’t go to university before 18, but they can get married at 12. Is this alliance with the other side of the country really benefiting us? Their way of reasoning is becoming increasingly frustrating.”
These contradictions expose the inconsistencies in Nigeria’s approach to child development and highlight the need for a more cohesive and comprehensive policy framework that aligns educational standards with the broader societal context.
The Legal and Educational Framework in Nigeria
Nigeria’s educational framework operates within the 6-3-3-4 system, which ideally sees students completing secondary education by the age of 17 or 18. However, various factors, including accelerated learning programs and early school enrollment, mean that many students complete secondary school before they turn 18. Under the new policy, these students would be forced to delay their progression to higher education, regardless of their academic readiness.
JAMB The Dictator
Admission into tertiary institutions in Nigeria is regulated by a body that appears to be an unhinged dictator. It is known as the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB). Pursuant to the provisions of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board Act, 1989 (JAMB ACT), JAMB as a monopoly of tertiary education, is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may sue and be sued in its corporate name. JAMB is responsible for the general control of the conduct of matriculation examinations for admissions into all Universities, Polytechnics (by whatever name called) and Colleges of Education (by whatever name called) in Nigeria. Under Section 6 of the JAMB ACT, the Minister of Education has the power to give JAMB “directives of a general character or relating generally to particular matters with regard to the exercise by the Board of its functions under this Act and it shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directives.”
The Nigerian Constitution Speaks
The Nigerian Constitution of 1999 (as amended), particularly the Concurrent Legislative List, grants both the National Assembly and State Assemblies the power to legislate on matters of education. Section 4 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Part II, items 27-30 of the Concurrent Legislative List, spelt out modalities for the establishment of formal education across all the sections of Nigeria. For ease of reference, Items 27-30 of the Concurrent Legislative List read thus:
“27. The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to university education, technological education or such professional education as may from time to time be designated by the National Assembly.
- The Power conferred on the National Assembly under paragraph 27 of this item shall include power to establish an institution for the purposes of university, post-primary, technological or professional education.
- Subject as herein provided, a House of Assembly shall have power to make laws for the state with respect to the establishment of an institution for purposes of university, technological or professional education.
30. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs of this item shall be construed so as to limit the powers of a House of Assembly to make laws for the State with respect to technical, vocational, post-primary, primary or other forms of education, including the establishment of institutions for the pursuit of such education.”
However, the imposition of an age limit for university admission through a mere policy directive, rather than an enacted law, raises questions about the legitimacy of this approach. As highlighted by legal experts, the Constitution should be interpreted liberally and not restrictively, meaning that while the National Assembly may have the authority to prescribe a minimum age for university students, such a policy should be implemented through proper legislative processes, not through mere executive fiat.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, a vocal critic of the policy, described it as a “disincentive to scholarship” and a step backward for Nigeria’s educational advancement. “This policy belongs in the stone ages,” Atiku remarked, emphasizing that such a rigid age limit stifles the academic potential of young Nigerians who are intellectually ready to pursue higher education. I agree with the Waziri.
The Societal Impact of the Minimum Age Policy
The societal implications of this policy are far-reaching. By imposing an arbitrary age limit on university admissions, the government risks creating a significant backlog in the education system. Students who complete secondary education before the age of 18 will be left in a state of limbo, unable to advance to higher education. This could lead to increased idleness among youths, a factor that has historically contributed to social unrest and higher crime rates.
Educational stakeholders have also expressed concern that the policy does not take into account the varying levels of maturity and intellectual development among students. Some students may be emotionally and intellectually ready for university at 16 or 17, while others may not be prepared even at 18. The one-size-fits-all approach of the policy fails to accommodate these peculiar differences and could have detrimental effects on the academic and personal development of young Nigerians.
The Chancellor of Afe Babalola University and foremost legal luminary, Aare Afe Babalola, OFR, CON, SAN, LL.D, in his article: “Admission: Age Limit and the discretionary powers of universities”, published on the 15th day of August, 2024, stated emphatically that “age is not maturity.” He described maturity as a function of the mindset, emotional intelligence and the ability to understand oneself and the world. He identified quite a number of children who have defied all the odds identified by the proponents of age limit for admission and achieved “even the seemingly impossible”. They are Soborno Isaac Bari, an 11-year-old genius christened as the Einstein of our time. There are also Yasha Asley, Alia Sabur, Colin Maclaurin, Erik Demaine, Charles Homer Haskins, Terence Tao. He also identified some notable Nigerians who would have made their marks in Nigeria if it weren’t for our retrogressive educational policies. They are Ekele Frankli, the overall best candidate in the 2020 UTME with a score of 347. He was denied admission into the tertiary institution because he was 15 years old. Another student, David Okorogheye, scored 332 in the UTME in 2021. Regrettably, he was denied admission on the ground that he was not yet 16 years. The list is endless. The learned silk noted that having a minimum age admission without any exception will affect the dreams and aspiration of the younger generation. I wholly share the views of this sage who should know, being the founder of one of the 300 leading universities in the world. Thank your Aare sir, for your constant illuminating national interventions even at 96.
Proponents of the 18 years university admission age
Many scholars have thrown their weight behind this directive of the Honourable Minister of Education. Farooq Kperogi, a great writer for example, said that the Honourable Minister did not create a new law and was merely implementing an existing law regarding admission into the tertiary institution, which had been serially violated by overeager parents who want their children to get ahead by any means. He referred to the 1982 Education Policy, also called the 6:3:3:4 system, which requires children to be at least 6 years before they start primary school. Three years is for Junior Secondary School and another 3 years is for Senior Secondary School. Going by this system, anybody contemplating applying for an admission into the tertiary institution must be at least 18 years.
The courageous writer, Kperogi, in his article: “The 18-year-old age limit for School Certificate” published on the 31st day of August, 2024, submitted that students entering tertiary institutions at 18 are generally more mature, both emotionally and intellectually. They are more likely to handle the academic rigours, social pressures, and responsibilities that come with university life. At 18, he submits, students are legally considered adults in many jurisdictions, aligning with the legal age for various rights and responsibilities, such as voting, entering contracts, or being liable under the law. This consistency reduces complications around guardianship, consent, and legal obligations. He noted, further, that in the United States like in most countries, save exceptionally gifted students, students don’t begin their undergraduate education until they are 18. He concluded that the directive of the Honourable Minister is the extant law which is rooted and backed by psychology, neuroscience and social science.
The President of the Academic Staff Union of Universities, Prof. Emmanuel Osodeke, has also surprisingly thrown his weight behind the proposition of the Federal Government describing it as a welcome development. He noted in particular that the Union is in full support of the proposition and added that the issue of age benchmark was not a new thing.
THE LEGAL AND LEGISLATIVE DIMENSIONS
The debate over the Federal Government’s policy on minimum age for university admission extends beyond educational circles into the realm of legal interpretation and legislative authority. The policy raises significant questions about the extent of the government’s power to regulate educational practices and the potential infringement on individual rights and academic freedom.
Constitutional and Legislative Framework
The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, outlines the division of powers between the federal and state governments, including matters related to education. Education is listed under the Concurrent Legislative List, which means both the National Assembly and State Assemblies have authority to make laws on educational matters. Specifically, Item 27 of the Concurrent Legislative List empowers the National Assembly to “make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect to university education.”
However, the imposition of a minimum age for university admission through an executive policy directive, rather than a formal legislative process, raises concerns about the proper exercise of this power. Legal scholars argue that while the National Assembly may have the authority to set educational standards, including age requirements, such regulations must be enacted through a law passed by the legislative body (NASS), not through a mere policy diktat from the executive branch. This is crucial to ensure that any such policy has the necessary legal backing and is subject to the checks and balances inherent in the legislative process.
Furthermore, the Child Rights Act, 2003, which has been domesticated in several states in Nigeria, emphasises the right to education for every child. This Act, along with the Universal Basic Education (UBE) Act, 2004, mandates the provision of free, compulsory and universal basic education for every Nigerian child. The imposition of an age limit on university admission could therefore be seen as a potential infringement on these rights, particularly for students who are academically qualified to advance to higher education before the age of 18.
The Role of the Judiciary in Protecting Educational Rights
The Judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting the Constitution and other laws to ensure that the rights of citizens are protected against arbitrary government actions. In the context of the minimum age policy, the judiciary could be called upon to determine the constitutionality of the policy and whether or not it infringes on the rights of young Nigerians to access education.
Legal challenges to the policy will likely focus on whether government’s directive aligns with the provisions of the Constitution and other relevant legislation. For instance, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to which Nigeria is a signatory, asserts the right to education as a fundamental human right. Article 26 of the UDHR states that “everyone has the right to education” and that “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality.” It did not place any age limit.
In this light, the policy could be challenged on grounds that it restricts access to education for younger students who are otherwise qualified, thereby limiting their opportunities for personal and intellectual development. The judiciary’s interpretation of these legal provisions will be crucial in determining the future of the policy and its impact on Nigeria’s educational landscape.
Educational Autonomy and the Rights of Institutions to Administer Their Affairs
Another critical aspect of the debate is the issue of educational autonomy. Universities in Nigeria, particularly private institutions, have historically enjoyed a degree of autonomy in setting their admission standards, including age requirements. This autonomy is essential for maintaining the academic integrity and independence of these institutions.
The Chancellor of Afe Babalola University, Afe Babalola, SAN, has argued that the government’s policy infringes on this autonomy by imposing a blanket age restriction on all universities. He noted that university autonomy includes the discretion to admit students based on their academic qualifications and potential, regardless of age. Babalola’s stance highlights the importance of preserving the independence of educational institutions to make decisions that are in the best interests of their students and the broader academic community.
This view is supported by international best practices, where universities often have the flexibility to admit younger students who demonstrate exceptional academic abilities. For example, in the United States and the United Kingdom, students who excel academically are often allowed to enter university at a younger age, provided they meet the necessary qualifications. This approach recognizes that academic readiness and intellectual maturity are not solely determined by age and that students should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I am a witness to this as all my children who schooled in tertiary institutions abroad did so at ages 16 or 17. They invariably graduated at 19 or 20. Some of them made First Class and others Second Class Upper. Thanks be to God.
IMPLICATIONS AND THE PATH FORWARD
The Federal Government’s policy on minimum age for university admission thus has far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s educational system, its legal framework, and the broader society. As the debate continues, it is essential to consider the potential consequences of the policy and explore alternative approaches that can better serve the interests of Nigerian students.
The Potential Impact on Nigeria’s Education System
One of the most significant concerns about the potential impact of the minimum age policy is its effect on the overall efficiency and accessibility of the Nigerian education system. The imposition of an arbitrary age limit risks creating a bottleneck in the academic progression of students, particularly those who have demonstrated the intellectual capacity to advance to higher education before reaching the age of 18.
Bottlenecks in Academic Progression
By requiring students to wait until they are 18 before taking crucial examinations such as the SSCE and JAMB, the policy will inadvertently create a backlog of students who are ready to move forward but are forced to delay their educational journey. This could lead to overcrowding in secondary schools, as students who would otherwise have progressed to tertiary institutions remain in the system longer than necessary to while away the time. Such overcrowding could strain already limited resources, including classroom space, teaching staff and educational materials.
Furthermore, the policy may discourage academic excellence among younger students, as the incentive to excel and move on to university as soon as they are ready is diminished. Gifted students who are capable of completing their secondary education at a younger age may feel demotivated if they are forced to wait until they reach an arbitrary age threshold, regardless of their academic preparedness.
Impact on Student Motivation and Mental Health
The enforced delay in progression to higher education could also have significant psychological effects on students. Being held back solely due to age, despite having the academic qualifications to advance, could lead to feelings of frustration and demotivation. For students who are particularly driven and focused on their academic goals, this policy could undermine their enthusiasm for learning and result in a decline in academic performance.
Moreover, the policy could have a broader impact on the mental health of students. Adolescence is already a challenging period for many young people, and adding an additional barrier to their educational progression could exacerbate stress, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy. The policy may lead to a sense of stagnation among students who are forced to repeat courses or remain in an environment that no longer challenges them intellectually.
Potential Increase in Dropout Rates
Another significant concern is the potential for an increase in dropout rates as a result of the policy. Students who are ready to advance but are forced to wait may become disillusioned with the education system and choose to leave school altogether. This is particularly woorrisome in a country like Nigeria, where dropout rates are already a pressing issue, particularly in regions where access to quality education is limited.
For students in rural or underserved areas where economic pressures often compel young people to seek employment or take on adult responsibilities at an early age, the delay in advancing to higher education could result in more students leaving the education system entirely. This would undermine efforts to improve educational attainment and reduce poverty in these communities.
Widening Educational Inequality
The policy could also exacerbate existing inequalities within the Nigerian education system. Students from affluent backgrounds who attend private schools may be better equipped to cope with the enforced delay, as they have access to more resources, including extracurricular activities and specialized programs that can keep them engaged during the waiting period. In contrast, students from less privileged backgrounds may find it harder to remain motivated and engaged without the prospect of advancing to university.
This disparity could widen the educational gap between rich and poor students, further entrenching social inequalities. As former Nigerian Vice President Atiku Abubakar noted, “This policy belongs in the stone ages. It is a disincentive to scholarship and will only serve to deepen the divide between the haves and the have-nots in our society.”
THE PATH FORWARD: A CALL FOR HOLISTIC EDUCATIONAL REFORM
Repealing the Minimum Age Policy and Its Implications
Repealing the minimum age policy is a crucial first step in addressing the concerns raised by educational stakeholders, legal experts, and the public. This policy, while obviously well-intentioned, fails to account for the diversity of student backgrounds, experiences and capabilities. By removing this arbitrary age barrier, government can prevent the potential stagnation of academic progress and ensure that students who are ready for higher education can advance without needless delays.
The implications of repealing the policy extend beyond the immediate benefit to students. It would signal a commitment by the government to prioritize educational equity and meritocracy, ensuring that all students, regardless of their age, are evaluated based on their abilities and readiness for the next stage of their academic journey.
Repeal would also restore a degree of autonomy to universities, allowing them to make admission decisions that reflect the unique needs and potential of each student. This autonomy is essential for maintaining the integrity and diversity of the higher education system in Nigeria, enabling institutions to develop specialized programs for gifted students and those who may need additional support.
Implementing a Merit-Based Admission System
A merit-based admission system offers a fairer and more effective approach to university admissions in Nigeria. By focusing on students’ academic performance and readiness for university, rather than their age, this system would encourage excellence and allow students to progress based on their abilities.
Such a system would require clear and transparent criteria for assessing students’ qualifications, including their performance in secondary school, standardized test scores, and other relevant factors such as extracurricular achievements and personal statements. Universities could also consider implementing interviews or entrance exams to further assess students’ readiness for higher education.
The implementation of a merit-based system would likely necessitate changes to the current admission processes, including the development of new guidelines and training for admission officers. However, these changes would ultimately benefit students by creating a more inclusive and supportive educational environment.
Special Provisions for Gifted Students
Gifted students represent a unique group within the educational system, and their needs must be addressed to ensure they reach their full potential. Special provisions for these students could include early admission to university, access to advanced courses, or participation in accelerated learning programs.
Universities could establish talent identification programs that work with Secondary schools to identify and support gifted students from an early age. These programs could offer scholarships, mentoring, and opportunities for enrichment activities, such as research projects, internships, and participation in national and international competitions.
In addition, universities could develop specialized programs or schools within their institutions that cater specifically to gifted students, offering a challenging curriculum and opportunities for intellectual growth. These programs could be modeled on existing programs in other countries, such as the Johns Hopkins Centre for Talented Youth or the UK’s National Academy for Gifted and Talented Youth.
By investing in the development of gifted students, Nigeria can cultivate a new generation of leaders, innovators, and scholars who can contribute to the country’s development and global competitiveness.
Strengthening Legislative and Judicial Oversight
Legislative and judicial oversight is essential to ensure that educational policies are fair, effective, and in line with constitutional provisions. The National Assembly should take an active role in reviewing and debating educational policies, particularly those with significant implications for access to higher education.
To enhance legislative oversight, the National Assembly could establish a dedicated committee on education that includes representatives from all levels of government, as well as stakeholders from the education sector. This committee could be responsible for reviewing proposed policies, conducting public consultations, and making recommendations for improvement.
Judicial oversight is equally important, as it provides a mechanism for challenging policies that may infringe on constitutional rights or violate international obligations. The judiciary should be prepared to hear cases related to educational policies and to issue rulings that protect the rights of students and ensure that policies are implemented fairly.
To support judicial oversight, it may be necessary to establish specialized courts or tribunals that can handle education-related cases more efficiently. These bodies could provide a forum for resolving disputes over university admissions, access to education, and other issues that arise within the educational system.
Investing in Educational Infrastructure
Investment in educational infrastructure is critical to support the reforms outlined above. This includes upgrading school facilities, providing modern learning materials, and training teachers to meet the needs of a diverse student population.
The government should prioritise investments in areas where the need is greatest, such as rural and underserved communities. This could involve building new schools, expanding existing facilities, and ensuring that all schools have access to the resources they need to provide a quality education.
In addition to physical infrastructure, investment in digital infrastructure is also important. As technology plays an increasingly central role in education, the government should work to ensure that all students have access to the tools and resources they need to succeed in a digital world. This includes providing access to computers, internet connectivity, and digital learning platforms.
Teacher training is another key area for investment. To ensure that teachers are equipped to deliver a high-quality education, the government should provide ongoing professional development opportunities, including training in new teaching methods, technology integration, and inclusive education practices.
Reforming Secondary Education
Reforming secondary education is essential to ensuring that students are better prepared for the demands of higher education. This could involve revising curricula to focus more on critical thinking, problem-solving, and other skills that are essential for success in university and beyond.
Government should also consider expanding access to vocational and technical education, which can provide students with practical skills and qualifications that are relevant to the job market. By offering a broader range of educational pathways, government can ensure that all students have the opportunity to pursue their interests and develop the skills they need for their future careers.
Reforms to secondary education should also focus on improving the quality of teaching and learning. This includes providing teachers with the support and resources they need to deliver effective instruction, as well as implementing assessment systems that accurately reflect students’ progress and achievements.
Finally, government should work to reduce the inequalities and inefficiencies that currently plague the secondary education system. By addressing issues such as overcrowding, dilapidated facilities, outdated curricula and inadequate resources, the government can create a more supportive and effective educational environment that prepares students for success in higher education and beyond.
CONCLUSION
Nigeria’s minimum age policy for university admission reflects a complex intersection of legal, societal and educational challenges. While the intention to ensure emotional and intellectual maturity among students is clear, the policy obviously overlooks the diverse and peculiar realities of Nigerian society where children are often thrust into adult responsibilities much earlier in their age. By imposing an age restriction, government risks stifling the academic potential of young and intellectually gifted individuals and widening the educational inequality gap. The policy also highlights broader inconsistencies in Nigeria’s approach to child development, particularly when compared to practices such as early child marriage and juvenile incarceration.
A more flexible, merit-based system would better serve Nigeria’s youth, allowing academically ready students to advance without unnecessary barriers. This approach, coupled with targeted reforms in secondary education and improved legislative oversight, would foster a more inclusive and supportive educational environment. In doing so, Nigeria can better align its educational framework with the aspirations and potential of its young people, ensuring that talent and intellect are not hindered by arbitrary age limits.
The future of Nigeria’s education system hinges on finding a delicate balance between structure and flexibility, and this balance will ultimately determine whether the nation’s young scholars can contribute fully to its progress and development. I do not support a blanket imposition of age limit to attainment of tertiary education.
