A cross-section of parents whose children and wards are seeking admission into the Ekiti State University, (EKSU), Ado Ekiti have sent passionate appeal to the institution’s authorities to thread softly on the issue of pre-admission screenings and payments. Some of the concerned parents, who spoke to reporters on Thursday in Ado Ekiti lamented the repeated screening exercises introduced by the authorities in relation to the 2016/2017 admission exercise.
Those who spoke to newsmen accused the university of conducting separate screening exercises for the prospective students, with each of the screening attracting as much as N5,600, despite the ban placed on such screening by the Federal government.
According to Mrs Afeniforo Emmanuel, the University, three weeks ago screened candidates who possessed the prescribed minimum UTME scores as well as met the required minimum of five credit pass, including English Language and Mathematics.
According to her, “a sum of N5,600 was paid to the prescribed banks for the exercise; I thought that the next was for her ward to be offered or denied admission.”
She said she was shocked to discover that having sailed through the initial screening, her child was again last week invited to another round of screening exercise and asked to pay another N5,600.
Another parent, Mr Kunle Adeyemi said it took the intervention of the institution’s students’ union body to get the authorities of the university to reduce the second screening fee to N3,100, inclusive of bank charges.
A disabled parent, Mrs kafayat Folaranmi called on JAMB to intervene in their plight since the warning against extortion in the name of post-UTME screening came since July.
Meanwhile, going through the list, a newly admitted student is required to pay a minimum of N80,000, in addition to minimum of N50,000 acceptance fee, as against total payment of N50,000 recommended by the state government.
All efforts to get the institution’s PRO, Olubumi Ajibade for a reaction to the allegations were abortive as calls put across to him were not responded to.
Comments