Table of Contents
From the University of Ilorin’s gleaming hostel to Federal Polytechnic Nekede’s broken computers, the NATAP‑M billions promised transparency—but students are still asking: where did the money go? Toye Faleye reports
How NATAP-M Came into Being
In 2018, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB) launched the National Tertiary Admissions Performance Merit Award (NATAP‑M).
The award was designed to reward institutions that showed transparency in admissions, followed JAMB’s CAPS system, respected quota policies, and put merit first. The goal was clear: encourage integrity by offering both recognition and cash.
Since then, JAMB has given out over ₦2.42 billion. Each year, the winners are announced with much celebration. In 2025, six institutions shared ₦710 million.
The University of Ilorin, Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria, the University of Lagos, Federal University of Technology Minna, and the Federal Polytechnics Nekede have all won the award several times.
A Rare Example of Transparency
One institution stands out. In December 2025, the University of Ilorin opened a new hostel called the “JAMB Merit Awards International Hostel,” built with its ₦500 million prize. For students used to crowded dorms, this was a welcome change. “At least now we can point to something tangible,” said a student union leader. So far, this is the only clear example of NATAP‑M funds being used for a specific project.
The Big Names Fail to Respond
Elsewhere, there has been no information. ABU Zaria received ₦500 million in 2025 but has not explained how the funds were used, and, like several institutions, has remained unresponsive to inquiries about their allocation.
UNILAG, another regular winner, has confirmed its awards but shared no details, similarly offering no response to requests for clarification.
So far, apart from Unilorin, none of the six institutions that regularly won NATAP-M awards from 2018 to 2025—ABU Zaria, UNILORIN, UNILAG, FUTMINNA, UNIJOS, and Federal Polytechnic Nekede—have provided detailed public reports on how they utilised the funds.
The only information shared has been JAMB’s announcements of the amounts awarded and the selection criteria, including merit-based admissions, CAPS compliance, transparency, inclusivity, and ICT innovation.
These institutions usually confirm receiving the awards at the ceremonies, but they have not published any audited breakdowns or reports on how the money was used.
Why disclosure is limited
One observer explains that, since the awards are given as general grants to institutions rather than for specific projects, JAMB does not require public reports on how the funds are spent.
Universities and polytechnics might use the funds for ICT upgrades, infrastructure, or student support, but they rarely share these decisions with the public. The media often covers the award ceremonies and the amounts awarded, not how the money is spent afterwards.
A school administrator points out that while JAMB is open about how much money is given out, how the money is spent afterwards is kept within each institution.
At most, a few Vice-Chancellors or Rectors have made general comments about using the funds for ICT upgrades or infrastructure. However, no audited reports are available to the public.
Such institutions have remained silent about disbursements from 2019 to date; they also failed to respond when TheDiggerNews sought their opinion and explanations regarding detailed accountability for the mouth-watering funds.
At the time this investigation was put together, the University of Ilorin, Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, Federal University of Technology Minna, University of Lagos, University of Jos, and Federal Polytechnic Nekede had not acknowledged receiving the request letter TheDiggerNews sent to them by email on February 9, 2026, asking for an explanation of how the funds were used.
However, as some students noted, the funds might not have had an impact on the campuses. For instance, a student at Federal Polytechnic Nekede remarked, “We still have to share outdated computers to complete our assignments, even after hearing about the awards.”
Similarly, at UNILAG, a resident student reported, “Eight of us are squeezed into rooms meant for four, so we haven’t noticed any difference since the institution received the award.”
“We hear about these awards every year, but apart from Unilorin’s hostel, we don’t see the impact here,” said one Unilag student.
A union representative in Zaria was blunter: “If JAMB is rewarding institutions with hundreds of millions, then the public deserves to know how that money is spent.”
There is a clear gap between the awards and what students actually experience. In Lagos, crowded hostels mean students have to sleep on mattresses laid out on the floor.
In Zaria, lecture halls have peeling paint and broken fans. In Owerri, ICT students have to use old computer labs.
These cases illustrate a significant disparity between the outcomes NATAP-M intended—such as improved infrastructure and enhanced student experience—and the persistent challenges students face across various campuses.
This gap has immediate consequences for students, who continue to contend with overcrowded hostels, outdated equipment, and inadequate learning facilities despite the influx of funds.
As a result, students are deprived of the quality educational environment that NATAP-M aims to foster, which may undermine their academic performance, personal development, and overall well-being.
This limited realisation of the program’s objectives in practice suggests that the awards have not consistently translated into tangible improvements in campus conditions, leaving students to bear the brunt of ineffective implementation.
How It’s Done Abroad
Many countries use performance-based funding, but they have stricter rules for accountability. In the United Kingdom, the Research Excellence Framework gives out billions of pounds based on research quality, and universities must publish audited reports showing how the money is used to improve labs, hire faculty, and support postgraduates.
In the United States, the Tennessee model ties state budgets to graduation and retention rates, directing money to tutoring centers, advising, and, in Finland and Denmark, funding depends on graduation rates and how employable graduates are. The government closely monitors spending to ensure funds go toward new curriculum initiatives and career counselling.
In contrast to Nigeria’s NATAP-M, which primarily prioritises institutional prestige, foreign models prioritise clear allocation formulas and mandate regular audits, leading to tangible improvements in student outcomes, such as enhanced campus facilities, higher graduation rates, and measurable academic success.
Mandatory Audits Lacking
JAMB evaluates institutions before disbursing funds, but there is little follow-up afterwards. There are no required audits, and only UNILORIN has shown clear evidence of careful spending. “Worthy initiative, but without transparency, it risks becoming symbolic rather than transformative,” said an Abuja‑based policy expert.
A Call for Reform
Experts suggest improving the program by requiring audits and annual reports on how the funds are used. However, they also acknowledge that institutions may face administrative or resource constraints in meeting these additional reporting requirements.
They believe the money should be spent on initiatives that help students, such as building hostels, libraries, and ICT labs. Awards should be linked to results such as graduation rates, employability, and research output.
There should also be independent oversight by civil society and education groups, and public reports that show which projects are funded by NATAP-M.
JAMB’s NATAP‑M initiative has disbursed billions with the stated aim of promoting transparency in admissions. However, to fully realise the program’s objectives and ensure meaningful improvements in the tertiary education sector, admissions transparency should be accompanied by transparency and accountability in the allocation and use of awarded funds.
As the evidence suggests, reforms such as mandatory audits, regular public reporting, and the linking of awards to measurable outcomes—combined with independent oversight—are essential for realising the potential benefits of NATAP‑M.
Unless such measures are widely adopted and other institutions emulate UNILORIN’s example of clear, project-based reporting, the question of how these substantial funds are actually used will remain unresolved.
