Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Education has warned that examination malpractice is undermining assessment across the country’s education system, affecting learners from primary school through higher education and extending to parents, teachers and examination officials. The warning came in a keynote address delivered at a National Examinations Council sensitization workshop in Minna.
Key facts
- The ministry says examinations remain a primary method of assessing learners’ skills and knowledge.
- The warning was delivered at a National Sensitization Workshop on Examination Malpractice in Nigeria organized by the National Examinations Council in Minna.
- Andrew David Adejo, the ministry’s permanent secretary, said malpractice is becoming commonplace and involves students, parents, teachers and examination officials.
- The address defines malpractice as improper or illegal conduct intended to help a candidate pass an exam, including deliberate changes to exam procedures.
What does this mean for students and universities?
For students and universities, the message is straightforward: the ministry is treating exam malpractice as a system-wide problem that threatens the credibility of assessment. The address links the issue to the wider quality of education, arguing that examinations still matter because they are used to measure whether knowledge and skills have been acquired, adapted and used.
The warning also points to the practical pressure points in the exam chain. The ministry says malpractice can involve candidates, examiners, parents, relations, friends and even exam administrators, and that some students may seek an unfair advantage by waiting for leaked answers or by paying officials involved in the process. That means institutions and candidates are being pushed toward stricter compliance and stronger vigilance around exams.
- Students are being cautioned against seeking “expo” or illegal help during exams.
- Teachers, supervisors and invigilators are among those identified as part of the problem.
- Higher education institutions are included in the ministry’s concern, not just primary and secondary schools.
Why the ministry says examinations still matter
The keynote address argues that examinations remain essential because they help determine whether a learner has a good understanding of what was taught. It says no better universal alternative has displaced exams as a way to assess knowledge and skills, whether in formal education or in other testing contexts such as job placement and competitive selection.
That is why the ministry frames malpractice as more than a discipline issue. In its view, cheating weakens the purpose of exams themselves, which is to test acquired knowledge and competence. The address also says education is vital to a nation’s socio-economic development and to producing responsible citizens with the manpower needed by the country.
How does the ministry define examination malpractice?
Examination malpractice is defined in the address as improper or illegal conduct by a candidate aimed at passing an exam, improper conduct by other people to help a candidate pass, or deliberate changes to exam procedures that favor a candidate or group of candidates. In practical terms, the ministry describes it as any deliberate action that gives someone an undue advantage before, during or after an examination.
The address says the sensitization workshop was designed to confront the broad range of people involved in malpractice, not just candidates. It argues that the problem has become normalized in society and within the education sector, where some students may avoid preparation and instead wait for illegal assistance.
What happens next?
The immediate next step is greater awareness and prevention. By using a sensitization workshop, the ministry and the examinations council are signaling that the response is not only punitive but also educational, aimed at changing behavior across the exam chain.
For institutions, the practical takeaway is that exam integrity is being treated as a shared responsibility. The ministry’s position suggests that schools, universities, parents and exam personnel all have a role in reducing opportunities for cheating and preserving the value of examination results.
