A concern over alleged discrimination has sparked debate on social media. The issue involved a candidate at a registration centre linked to the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB). A young man had raised alarm after accompanying his sister to obtain her form. He claimed she was compelled to remove her hijab before biometric capture.
“I followed my sister to the JAMB centre to collect her form. She was told to remove her hijab before she could capture. After the capturing, they asked her to sign an undertaking for wearing a hijab. Are Muslims now being discriminated against for wearing hijabs?”— Man laments
However, JAMB has now issued a detailed clarification.
No Directive Against Hijab
In its response, the Board firmly denied issuing any policy banning the hijab.
“@AsakyGRN, thank you for your concern. However, it is important to state clearly that the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), whether in the past or present, has never issued any directive prohibiting candidates from wearing the hijab. What transpired at ABUAD was a case of misinformation. According to our findings, when his sister presented herself for registration, she was informed of the Board’s standard guideline which is a global practice in capturing candidates for both international passport and visa which requires that both ears must be visible during biometric photo capture.”
Thus, the Board emphasized that the requirement was technical rather than religious.
It further explained that ear visibility aids facial recognition systems. Such standards are common in passport and visa processing globally.
Technical Requirement, Not Religious Restriction
According to the statement, the guideline does not demand removal of the hijab itself.
“This requirement is purely technical and is intended to ensure proper facial recognition and identification does not require the candidate removing her hijab. However, she indicated that she could not expose her ears on religious grounds. Her position was respected. However, she was requested to formally state in writing that she personally chose not to comply with the guideline regarding ear visibility, so that the record would accurately reflect the circumstances and prevent future misrepresentation.”
Consequently, the candidate reportedly complied with the documentation request.
“She obliged and was successfully captured, albeit after considerable time and effort that could have been used to attend to several other candidates.” JAMB stressed that the process was completed without denying her registration.
Aligning With Global Biometric Standards
The Board compared its procedure with international identification systems.
“For clarity, candidates are not required to remove their hijab. The simple requirement is that the ears be visible during photo capture, which can be done without removing the hijab itself. This is a standard biometric procedure, similar to what obtains during passport or visa applications at embassies worldwide.”
Indeed, biometric guidelines in many countries require clear facial features for accurate identification. Nevertheless, religious accommodations are often considered where feasible.
Therefore, JAMB maintained that it balanced technical standards with respect for personal beliefs.
Call for Calm and Accurate Reporting
Finally, the Board appealed for responsible public discourse.
“JAMB remains committed to respecting the rights and beliefs of all candidates, irrespective of religion or background. At the same time, we seek the cooperation and understanding of candidates in areas where minimal technical adjustments are required for identification purposes, without compromising anyone’s faith. We urge all concerned to avoid spreading incomplete or misleading accounts and to always seek clarification where necessary. Mutual understanding will enable the Board to serve every candidate more effectively and fairly.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, the controversy highlights the tension between biometric requirements and religious sensitivities.
However, the Board insists there was no discrimination. Rather, it describes the situation as a misunderstanding rooted in technical procedure.
Going forward, clearer communication at registration centres may help prevent similar concerns.
Feel free to share your thoughts with us on this issue in the comments section.