By BONIFACE AKARAH

Comrade Akin Okunowo has renewed his allegations of discriminatory admission practices against the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), accusing the institution of using different admission cut-off marks for candidates from different states and demanding the cancellation of its ongoing 2026 admission exercise.

Okunowo, who describes himself as the National Leader of Anti-Cult Activities in Nigeria, made the demands in a strongly worded response to a statement by the university's Public Relations Officer, Abiodun Olarewaju, defending its admission process and explaining the application of the Federal Government's admission framework.

In the response, Okunowo argued that OAU's explanation amounted to an admission that candidates from different states were assessed using different thresholds. He rejected the university's position that such differences, where provided for under an applicable framework, should not be interpreted as discrimination.

He cited figures which he claimed showed substantial variations in admission scores for candidates seeking admission to the same courses, insisting that the differences violated the constitutional principle of equal treatment.

Challenges OAU over admission figures

Using Law as an example, Okunowo alleged that OAU admitted candidates with scores of 76.875 from Osun State, 76.53 from Oyo, 75.78 from Ogun and 76.83 from Kwara, while candidates from Lagos, Bayelsa, Gombe, Kaduna, Niger and Kebbi were admitted with considerably lower scores.

He also cited Accounting admission figures, claiming that candidates from Osun, Oyo and Ogun faced higher thresholds than applicants from several other states.

He said: “A child with 75% is rejected for law, while a child with 54% is admitted for the same law. A child with 63% is rejected for accounting, while a child with 53% is admitted for the same accounting. Mr. PRO, in case you don't understand logic, let us help you. That is discrimination, no matter the grammar you chose to use in manipulating the narrative!”

Okunowo accused the university of attempting to shift responsibility to the Federal Government, the National Universities Commission (NUC) and the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), following its explanation that the admission framework was based on federal policies and directives.

He challenged OAU management to produce the specific government directive authorising the alleged differences in cut-off marks, arguing that the university was responsible for how the framework was implemented.

“The Federal Government gives you a framework, but does it give you permission to create double standards between two Nigerians for the same course?

“How you implement it is your own fraud! You are the ones who calculated 76.875 vs 53.43,” he said.

Demands publication of state-by-state cut-off marks

The activist also faulted OAU's advice that parents and candidates should avoid comparing admission outcomes without access to complete official records.

He questioned why the university had not publicly released the full cut-off marks for all courses across the states, insisting that transparency would enable candidates and parents to understand the admission process before applying for the next academic session.

“We challenge OAU Management today: Publicly publish the complete 2026 cut-off marks for all courses across all 37 states on your official website RIGHT NOW! Let the world see your shame before candidates purchase JAMB forms next year, so that, parents and students can avoid your outright madness,” he declared.

Okunowo further accused the university of attacking his credibility by describing him as a self-acclaimed national leader of anti-cult activities, rather than addressing the admission figures he presented.

He maintained that the identity or standing of the person raising the allegations should not distract from the substantive questions surrounding the admission process.

Alleges admission racketeering

The statement also alleged that the use of different admission thresholds could create opportunities for admission racketeering, claiming that qualified candidates might be denied places while vacancies were allegedly made available for other purposes.

Okunowo, however, did not provide documentary evidence in the response to substantiate the allegation that admission slots were being sold or that the university's admission process was being manipulated for financial gain.

He also criticised what he described as a departure from the academic standards associated with OAU's founding ideals, accusing the institution's management of undermining merit and academic excellence.

In another part of the response, he questioned the university's handling of candidates who were allegedly offered courses different from their preferred programmes.

He cited the case of a candidate who, according to him, scored 74 per cent but was denied admission to study Law and offered Music instead, asking what connection the alternative course had with the candidate's original ambition.

Demands cancellation of 2026 admission exercise

Okunowo outlined three major demands, including the immediate abolition of what he described as state-by-state cut-off marks and a return to a single national merit threshold, alongside transparent quotas for states.

He also demanded that OAU cancel its ongoing 2026 admission exercise and recalculate admission offers based strictly on merit and equity.

His third demand was the public disclosure of admission records, warning that failure to comply would lead to what he described as a wider exposure of alleged irregularities in the university's admission process.

“We demand an immediate end to the 37-headed monster of state-by-state cut-offs. Return to a SINGLE national merit threshold with transparent, open quotas for all states - not state-sponsored academic discrimination!”

He added: “OAU Management must immediately scrap the ongoing 2026 admission exercise and recalculate offers based strictly on merit and equity.”

The activist also threatened to publish what he described as evidence of questionable admissions across departments and academic years if the university failed to meet his demands.

OAU's position

The latest statement follows OAU's earlier response, signed by Olarewaju, which defended the institution's admission procedure and explained that the university operates within the Federal Government's admission policy framework.

The university had maintained that differences in admission thresholds under the applicable framework should not automatically be interpreted as discrimination, and advised parents and candidates to consider complete official records when comparing admission outcomes.

It also directed those with grievances to the appropriate institutional channels.

However, Okunowo rejected the explanation, insisting that OAU must take responsibility for the way the admission policy was applied.