JAMB’s spending on staff feeding demands probe across government

The revelation that the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) allocated N1.1 billion for staff feeding in its 2025 budget raises serious concerns about spending practices across government Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs). This line of expenditure demands a comprehensive investigation, not only into JAMB but also into other government bodies. Although the National Assembly […]

The revelation that the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) allocated N1.1 billion for staff feeding in its 2025 budget raises serious concerns about spending practices across government Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs). This line of expenditure demands a comprehensive investigation, not only into JAMB but also into other government bodies.

Although the National Assembly Joint Committee on Finance hastily cleared JAMB of allegations regarding excessive spending, the committee’s earlier concerns about the board’s spending on meals, refreshments, mosquito control, and other items in 2024 and the proposal for 2025 warrant further investigation. This followed the presentation of JAMB’s 2025 budget proposal by its registrar, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, who disclosed that while the board remitted N4 billion to the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 2024, it also received N6 billion in grants from the federal government.

Former Edo State governor, Senator Adams Oshiomhole (APC, Edo North), was particularly vocal in his criticism of JAMB’s expenditure, questioning why public funds should be used to feed staff. “You spent N1.1 billion on meals and refreshments. Are you being freely fed by the government? What this means is that you are spending the money you generate from poor students, many of them orphans,” he said.

In its defence, JAMB explained there was a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of facts when its registrar faced the lawmakers. It reiterated that what it “presented was not the 2024 expenditure but solely the 2025 budget proposal, which meant that claims regarding humongous spending in 2024 on meals or fumigation, security, and cleaning are totally unfounded.”

The board further explained that the N1.1 billion allocation in the 2025 budget proposal was meant to feed its 2,300 staff members across the country at N2, 200 per day, including taxes. This was an increase from the N1, 200 per staff member at the headquarters spent previously over the past two years. The board justified the allocation by claiming it aimed to minimise staff exposure. Moreover, JAMB argued that providing meals would help protect sensitive ICT infrastructure, which could be damaged by eating in the office. The board also explained that staff in regional offices had requested similar provisions, prompting plans for nationwide implementation.

We believe, however, that this justification does not fully address the broader concerns raised about fairness, transparency, and financial propriety.

This defence raises serious concerns and leaves many fundamental questions unanswered. Do JAMB staff members not receive salaries to cover such expenses? If they do, does this not result in a double payment for meals? Also, what makes JAMB employees more deserving of this privilege than other civil servants, who manage similar responsibilities without such perks? These are legitimate concerns that the public deserves answers to.

The fact that no general policy allows for meal allowances across the civil service suggests that JAMB’s decision to spend such a large amount on feeding its staff is an arbitrary one.

It is unsurprising that two major unions at JAMB, the National Association of Non-Academic Staff Union (NASU) and the Association of Senior Civil Servants of Nigeria (ASCSN), have supported the board’s decision to allocate N1.1 billion for staff feeding in the 2025 budget. Unfortunately, these unions failed to acknowledge that their colleagues in other MDAs do not enjoy this benefit. This preferential treatment not only undermines the concept of equality among civil servants but also sets a dangerous precedent where an individual agency can unilaterally introduce perks that others do not have access to.

It is also worrisome that after initially raising concerns, the National Assembly Joint Committee on Finance cleared JAMB without adequately addressing the issues raised. While the committee may have its reasons for reversing its stance, this decision undermines transparency and accountability in government spending and the lawmakers’ oversight function.

The National Assembly must reject this provision in JAMB’s budget and conduct a thorough review of the spending of all MDAs because the public, especially students (in the case of JAMB), who bear the brunt of these expenses, will question the priorities of an institution that seems more concerned with feeding its staff than with serving the broader interests of the Nigerian people. A comprehensive audit is therefore essential to prevent further misuse of public funds.

In the light of the foregoing, revenue-generating agencies in particular must be impressed upon to constantly exercise restraint in their expenditures.

The government must take this opportunity to establish clear policies and guidelines regarding the use of public funds, ensuring that every naira spent is accounted for and directed towards initiatives that genuinely benefit the public. It should also use this opportunity to address the disparities in the treatment of civil servants across MDAs.