Spokesperson of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board, JAMB, Dr. Benjamin Fabian, says that Ejikeme Joy will be prosecuted in court. A few days ago, Ejikeme Joy was accused of deliberately faking her score and falsely claiming to be the highest scorer in the 2023 Unified Tertiary Matriculation Examination.
In a statement released by the board on Sunday, it was revealed that Ejikeme manipulated her score in order to secure an N3 million scholarship from Innoson Motors. In a new development, JAMB has given an update on the scandal during an interview with Legit News. According to the spokesman, Ejikeme Joy might not have perpetrated the crime, however, it could be some unknown persons using the situation against her. “She’s actually a minor; that’s another challenge, but as we speak, the security agency is profiling her…What we know is that we suspect she may not have been the original initiator of this issue. Some people are somewhere doing all those things to take advantage of the situation.” According to him, Ejikeme was arrested and released on bail. He disclosed that this is not the first time such an incident has happened because some time back a student in Kaduna also fake his results even when he did not sit for the exams. “There was one in Kaduna that one didn’t even write the exam. He just came up with one slip and then put scores and said he scored 380.”
However, the NDLEA in the preliminary objection filed by Joseph Sunday, its Director of Prosecution, asked for the lawsuit to be struck out because the court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain it and also because the application by the PDP and Melaye is “incompetent”. Some of the reasons for objection listed by the NDLEA include both the PDP and Melaye “not having a locus standi, and not possessing an interest peculiar to them and above the interests of all other Nigerians”. The anti-drug agency claimed that the only underlying specific interest of the 1st Applicant becomes political in nature” as an investigation and prosecution of Tinubu is only targeted at removing him as a bonafide candidate in the February 25, 2023, presidential election. The Agency argued that “Order of mandamus is an equitable remedy and should only be applied for in good faith and should not produce an indirect or underlying result. The Doctrine of Judicial Self-restraint precludes this Honourable Court from delving into matters with political coloration or matters aimed at getting direct or indirect political goals. Also pointing out that the foundation of the PDP application was the proceeding of the US District Court of the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division in the US, the NDLEA claimed that “the judgment in the said proceeding was given “with prejudice”, adding that “the said proceedings and judgment have no judicial value”, and as such “the supposed cause of action of this suit as constituted is baseless and legally unsustainable.” The NDLEA also attached a sworn affidavit in which a litigation officer attached to its Directorate of Prosecution and Legal Services, Chia Cosmas Depunn stated that as an independent agency of government saddled with the responsibility to investigate, arrest and prosecute persons involved in drug trafficking and other related offences in Nigeria, the NDLEA has a healthy relationship with the government of the United States of America. Depunn said the name of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu “by whatever acronyms or combination of names has never featured in the exchanges we had with the United States of America.” 
“That the 3rd Respondent is an independent Government Agency that has no political colouration or affiliation. “That the Court has a duty to insulate the 3rd Respondent from political controversies. “That the suit is baseless, frivolous and brought in bad faith with the sole aim of achieving a political objective using the instrumentality of the Court process. “That the facts and circumstances of the case require the Court to apply the doctrine of judicial self-restraint. “That the 2nd Applicant is not an officer or executive or management committee of the 1st Applicant. “That the 2nd Applicant has no locus standi to institute this suit as he does not possess any interest peculiar to him and above the interests of all other Nigerians “That an Order of Mandamus is an equitable remedy. “That the Order of Mandamus must be applied in good faith to promote public interest. “That the Order of Mandamus should not produce an indirect or underlying result. “That he has gone through the supporting judicial proceedings and noted as follows: 
“That the matter was a civil forfeiture proceeding in rem brought by the United States of America as plaintiff against certain accounts held in the name of the 6th Respondent. “That the object of the suit was to forfeit the funds or a certain part thereof in the said accounts as proceeds of illicit traffic in drugs. “That the suit was not taken out against the person of the 6th Respondent. “That the suit was not a criminal indictment or charge. “That the standard of proof in civil forfeiture is based on the balance of probabilities. “That the standard of proof in criminal indictment, charges and proceedings is proof beyond reasonable doubt. “That the burden of proof in criminal procedure is much higher than that of civil procedure. “That the Orders of the United States District Court of Illinois delivered by Magistrate Judge John A Nordberg in Suit No. 9C4483 relating to the release of the funds held in Citi Bank N.A. and Citi Bank International which funds were the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the suit were made “with prejudice”. 