The Amendment of the JAMB Act was sponsored by Rep. Tolulope Sadipe (APC-Oyo), at the plenary on Thursday.
Leading the debate, Sadipe said many students sit for the JAMB examination and come up with good grades, but for one reason or the other, they ended up not being offered admission, for no fault of theirs.
She said these students and their parents, were made to bear the financial burden to sit for the examination the next year.
According to her, the excuse that JAMB allegedly keeps bringing up, in that regard, was that it was revenue generation for them.“When you look at the number of students that apply for university admissions every year and the number that eventually get in, it is definitely not their fault, so, why should they be penalised?
“Everywhere in the world, there is no such exam that is valid for one year; Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) is valid forever.
“Most universities across the world value such exams for at least five years, but here in Nigeria, JAMB is valid for just one entry, and if you do not get it, you repeat it.
“I think this is totally unfair, there are a lot of children in this country, whose parents are struggling to put them through school.However, while contributing to the debate, Rep. Nkem Abonta (PDP-Abia), argued that extending the validity of JAMB results would defeat the aim of the entry exams.
He said that JAMB Act, sought to regulate the mode of entry into Nigerian universities, saying that making the result valid for two to three years would cause more problems.
Abonta said the relevant committee should look at the proposed amendment critically, so as not to compound the problem, in an attempt to solve it.
Rep. Chinyere Igwe (PDP-Rivers), argued that there was a difference between an entrance examination and a terminal examination.He said, “JAMB is an entrance examination, with the purpose of securing admission into a university, polytechnic or colleges of education, with a view to earning a terminal qualification,”.
The lawmaker said the foreign exams mentioned by the sponsor of the bill, are terminal examinations, and not entry examinations, like JAMB.
He said that when one sat for the entrance examination and did not make the cut-off score, the exam was reseated.
The rep said that making the result valid for two years would reduce the standard of education in the country.Rep. Toby Okechukwu (PDP-Enugu) urged the house not to “throw the baby and bathwater away”.
According to him, students and their parents and sponsors had not only been suffering “double jeopardy but several jeopardies”.
He said some students had continued to pass JAMB exams, and had not been able to go to school for over five years, which sometimes often results in dropping out of school.
In his remarks, the Deputy Speaker, Rep. Ahmed Wase, referred the bill to the relevant committees of the house, for further legislative actions.
Torontonians rally for abortion rights outside the U.S. Consulate at 360 University Avenue, in reaction to the American Supreme Court decision to strike down Roe V. Wade, June 25, 2022, in Toronto.(STEVE RUSSELL/TORONTO STAR/GETTY IMAGES)
Following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States, people in states with restrictive abortion laws are looking for resources beyond their local clinics – including even across the country’s northern border.But while some Americans might be turning to Canada for a solution to some of the rollbacks on abortion rights in the U.S., seeking abortions in the country may not be the most accessible answer. Canada has had abortion decriminalized since 1988, but traveling across the border to seek care in Canadian abortion clinics remains out of reach for many abortion-seekers in the U.S., experts say.
Indeed, Liza Fuentes, a senior research scientist specializing in abortion and contraceptive access at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that supports abortion rights, says that looking to Canada isn’t exactly a “silver bullet” or long-term solution to the rollback of rights in the U.S.
“People are going to obtain abortion care in the manner that is best for them given the circumstances,” Fuentes says. “Pre-Roe, did people leave the country to obtain abortion care? Of course they did. But who are we talking about? We're talking about the people who have the most amount of resources to be able to arrange travel in a way that is safe and effective.”According to a Guttmacher study, about 1 in 10 abortion-seekers in 2020 traveled outside of their home state to receive treatment. And while 13 U.S. states border Canada, financial issues might prevent many Americans from crossing the border to seek abortions – especially given that about half of abortion recipients in 2014 lived below the poverty line.
Traveling across the Canadian border could be cost-prohibitive for the average abortion-seeker needing to pay for plane tickets, gas, lodging or other expenses. Child care costs could also be a consideration, given that approximately 6 in 10 women who have abortions are already mothers, according to 2019 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Fuentes also notes that traveling internationally to seek abortions is unrealistic for people without passports.
“People who are undocumented are going to be left behind,” she says.
For those who do travel, even though Canadian abortion clinics close to the U.S. border are open to taking American patients, Dr. Angel Foster, a professor and former chair of women’s health research at the University of Ottawa, predicts that people in the U.S. seeking abortions in states with restrictions will still be more likely to travel within the U.S. for their care instead.“The reality of who has abortions in the United States and who was most affected by these bans, these are not people who are going to be traveling to Canada,” she says.
Instead, Foster sees people with existing connections in Canada – like family they could stay with while receiving care, for example – as a group more likely to make the cross-border journey for abortion access.
“For most of those people who are going to travel, they're going to travel to a state that's much more proximate,” she says.
But while some in the U.S. are looking to Canada as a safe haven for abortion access, the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade may have implications on Canadians seeking services, too.
Although abortion does not exist in Canada’s criminal code, abortion is still regulated at the provincial and territorial levels, and barriers to access still exist, especially for people in Canada’s northern territories. Even in Canadian provinces where abortion is morewidely available, some people needing abortion care at later gestational ages, such as after 20 weeks of pregnancy, have not been able to get such care, Foster says. In fact, some Canadians have relied on traveling to the U.S. to provide that care, she adds, and that may be in danger in a post-Roe landscape.
Nevertheless, traveling to get an abortion – either across national or state borders – may well prove to be out of reach for many abortion-seekers.
Now, many abortion researchers and activists have started to prioritize preventing people from having to carry unwanted pregnancies to term – whether that be through accessing abortion funds to travel to the nearest clinic, expanding awareness for self-managed abortions via online abortion pill services or other means.