Fact Check II: Where Is the Safe Haven for the Believer?

On the 21st of February, 2026, several online news outlets, including Kemi Filani, Telegraph Nigeria, and Punch Newspaper reported a case involving a social media user, asakyGRN. In a video, a man claimed that his sister was asked to remove her hijab before being photographed at a JAMB centre.

According to him:

"I followed my sister to the JAMB centre to collect her form. She was told to remove her hijab before she could be captured. After the capturing, they asked her to sign an undertaking for wearing a hijab. And she signed it to follow the global standards of passport photography since her ears were not captured."

In response, the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), through its verified account, stated:

"Thank you for your concern. However, it is important to state clearly that the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board, whether in the past or present, has never issued any directive prohibiting candidates from wearing the hijab."

Ironically, in this very video, the lady in question was not even wearing a conventional hijab. She had on a single gown with a cap sewn to it. Asking her to remove it would mean removing her entire outfit. Yet, we are all citizens.

Despite these clarifications, incidents persist. At ABUAD registration centre in Lagos, there are still personnel who seem to see a covered woman as a suspect. If any reconsideration happened in that instance, one could argue it was only because they realized they were being recorded.

At Esther Oshikoya CBT Centre in Ibadan, a similar incident occurred, where a lady’s hair covering was forcefully removed.

Every year, these situations repeat themselves. JAMB distances itself, the centres deny responsibility, and yet the same pattern continues. What about the ad hoc or security staff often implicated in these cases? Were they not properly oriented? Are they operating outside the authority of the centres they represent?

Perhaps we should not entirely blame them for their paranoia. Some individuals, supposed to be humans in form but inhumane in action have committed atrocities while shouting "Allahu Akbar," disguising themselves in similar ways, and spreading fear and destruction.

But must we now abandon our way of dressing because criminals, whom authorities have failed to contain, dress like us? Should we also stop expressing our faith just to avoid being profiled alongside criminals?

"You want to kill a dog, give it a bad name."

Why attach a faith identity to criminals, and then extend suspicion to innocent adherents? Today, believers are no longer safe, no longer safe from criminals or from their fellow citizens. The criminals themselves do not discriminate by tribe or religion when they strike, yet ordinary people who simply wish to live their lives, or even sit for an examinationare made to bear the consequences.

A Muslim who travels is treated with suspicion. A Muslim at home is not entirely safe either.

So, we keep quiet, because we do not want to be labeled intolerant.

 Even when faced with discrimination, we are expected to endure in silence, as though we are repositories for society’s prejudice.

But we are human beings. Respect is meant to be reciprocal.

One can only hope that the issue of insecurity is addressed swiftly. Perhaps then, people will finally be able to breathe. Perhaps then, candidates will be able to sit for examinations in modest dressing, without being subjected to dehumanization, denigration, disgrace, and public humiliation.

®Ahmed Salim Jn ✍️

#Uloko