University defends admission policy, explains why cut-off marks differ, urges aggrieved candidates to submit formal complaints
ILE-IFE, October 27, 2026 — The management of Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, Osun State, has responded to allegations of discrimination in its admission process following a petition by a parent who questioned why candidates seeking admission into the same courses allegedly faced different cut-off marks based on their states of origin.
The controversy followed an open letter dated October 23, 2026, written by Akin Okunowo, who accused the university of undermining merit and disadvantaging some candidates, particularly those from South-West states.
In its response, OAU rejected allegations that its admission process was driven by ethnic hostility, a secret agenda against Yoruba students or a deliberate attempt to compromise academic standards.
The university maintained that its admission decisions are guided by Federal Government policies, regulatory requirements and established admission guidelines.
The development has renewed debate over the balance between merit-based admission and the federal admission policies designed to promote geographical representation and educational access.
Why Parents Are Challenging OAU’s Cut-Off Marks
In his petition to the university’s Governing Council, Okunowo called for the abolition of state-based admission cut-off marks, arguing that the system could disadvantage qualified candidates from certain parts of the country.
He cited figures he claimed were the applicable cut-off marks for Law and Accounting, questioning why applicants seeking admission into the same programmes appeared to face different admission thresholds.
For Law, the petitioner cited figures of 76.875 for Osun State, 76.53 for Oyo State and 75.78 for Ogun State, compared with 57.05 for Kaduna State and 53.43 for Kebbi State.
For Accounting, he also questioned the figures he cited for candidates associated with Ogun, Oyo and Lagos states.
Okunowo argued that candidates with higher scores could be denied admission while applicants with lower scores appeared to qualify under other state-based categories.
He further alleged that his son, who was born, raised and educated in Lagos State, faced a different admission threshold because of his family’s ancestral connection to Ogun State.
The claims have raised questions among parents and admission seekers about how state of origin, admission categories and candidates’ academic performance interact during the selection process.
However, the figures and individual cases cited in the petition have not, by themselves, established that the university discriminated against any candidate. A full assessment would require the official admission records and the applicable criteria for each applicant.
What OAU Said in Its Response
Responding to the allegations, the university’s Public Relations Officer, Abiodun Olarewaju, explained that OAU operates within the framework of national admission policies and regulatory requirements established by the Federal Government and relevant statutory authorities.
According to the university, admission into competitive programmes is influenced by several factors, including candidates’ performance, available spaces, programme-specific requirements and the applicable admission criteria.
The institution also cautioned against drawing conclusions about individual admission decisions by comparing selected scores without considering the complete admission records, approved admission categories and relevant regulations.
OAU said it was inappropriate to determine whether individual admission decisions were fair or unfair solely on the basis of figures presented in the petition without the full regulatory context.
The university’s response was aimed at addressing concerns over the transparency and fairness of its admission process.
OAU Explains Why Cut-Off Marks May Differ
The dispute centres partly on the use of different admission categories under Nigeria’s federal university admission framework.
These include the merit category, catchment-area provisions and arrangements for Educationally Less Developed States (ELDS).
Such provisions are intended to support national integration and widen educational access. Consequently, the threshold applicable to one admission category may differ from that of another.
However, the existence of these categories does not automatically settle every question about whether a particular admission decision was correctly applied. The relevant records and approved criteria would need to be examined in any specific case.
OAU maintained that comparing candidates’ scores without accounting for their admission categories and the full selection process could lead to misleading conclusions.
What Parents and Candidates Should Do
The university urged candidates and parents who believe their admission decisions were inconsistent with approved guidelines to submit formal complaints through its established channels.
According to OAU, complaints should identify:
- The programme for which admission was sought.
- The relevant admission session.
- The candidate’s qualifications and credentials.
- The admission category applicable to the candidate.
- The specific grounds for challenging the decision.
The university said properly submitted complaints would be addressed in line with its procedures and applicable regulations.
It also advised stakeholders seeking fundamental changes to Federal Government admission policies to approach the appropriate authorities, including the Federal Ministry of Education, the National Universities Commission (NUC) and the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB).
What the Controversy Means for Admission Seekers
The dispute highlights the importance of understanding the admission category applicable to a candidate before concluding that a particular score should guarantee admission.
For prospective OAU students, meeting a published cut-off mark should be assessed alongside the programme’s requirements, the candidate’s admission category and the institution’s approved selection procedures.
For parents, the university’s response provides a formal route for challenging suspected errors or irregularities rather than relying exclusively on comparisons circulating on social media.
At the same time, the controversy underscores the need for clear communication of admission criteria so that candidates can understand how decisions are reached and seek clarification when necessary.
The Bottom Line
OAU has rejected allegations that its admission process is motivated by ethnic hostility or a deliberate attempt to disadvantage Yoruba candidates. The university says it follows national admission policies and has urged aggrieved parents to submit evidence-based complaints for review.
The petitioner’s allegations, however, have kept the spotlight on the transparency of state-based admission categories and the need for applicants to understand the rules governing competitive university admissions.
Whether any individual admission decision was improperly handled will depend on the relevant records and applicable regulations, rather than the comparison of isolated scores alone.