Fadehan says candidates paid for calculators and identification cards they allegedly did not receive, while WAEC says he is spreading falsehoods and should prove his claims in court
A dispute inside the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) over the conduct of the 2026 West African Senior School Certificate Examination has escalated into a legal and police confrontation, with a senior council employee alleging that candidates may have been denied examination materials worth billions of naira.
Olanrewaju Fadehan, who works in WAEC’s Anambra operation, alleges that the council failed to supply large numbers of calculators and identification cards for candidates who paid for them before sitting the 2026 WASSCE.
He estimates the value of the alleged shortfall at about ₦15 billion.
Fadehan also alleges wider administrative failures, including shortages of examination question papers, late commencement of papers at some centres and weaknesses in candidate identification.
The allegations have not been established by a court or an independent audit. WAEC has rejected his claims and says he should present whatever evidence he has through the judicial process.
The dispute has now moved beyond an internal employment disagreement. Fadehan has been invited by the Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Centre over allegations of cyberstalking and criminal defamation, while WAEC and its Director-General, Dr Amos Josiah Dangut, have filed a civil action seeking ₦825 million in damages.
A Lagos State High Court also issued an interim order restraining Fadehan from making further publications concerning WAEC, its examinations and Dangut. The order was reported to remain in force for seven days unless renewed.
The ₦15bn allegation
Fadehan’s most serious allegation concerns examination calculators and candidate identification cards.
He said complaints began reaching him during the 2026 examination from education officials, school principals and other stakeholders in Anambra State.
According to him, candidates had paid WAEC for calculators but many allegedly received nothing, leaving them to obtain calculators themselves.
He cited Anambra as an example, alleging that only about 13,000 calculators were released for more than 65,000 candidates.
His calculation is that only about one in five candidates in that example received a calculator through the council.
“The rest were asked to go and purchase calculators that they have paid for,” Fadehan said.
He claimed the calculator was valued at about ₦4,500 on WAEC’s procurement platform.
Using his own estimate of about 1.5 million candidates who allegedly did not receive the item, Fadehan put the calculator shortfall at roughly ₦6.75 billion.
He then added the alleged value of identification cards to arrive at a wider estimate of about ₦15 billion.
That figure is an allegation rather than an independently established financial loss.
The arithmetic behind the calculator component is straightforward: 1.5 million calculators multiplied by ₦4,500 gives ₦6.75 billion. But the crucial factual questions remain whether 1.5 million candidates were in fact charged for and denied calculators, the exact procurement price, how many items were actually purchased and distributed, and how the alleged identification-card shortfall was calculated.
Those are matters that would require documentary verification.
Why the identification cards matter
Fadehan says the dispute is not limited to the financial value of the missing materials.
He argues that candidate identification cards were part of the examination’s verification and anti-malpractice system.
According to him, the cards were expected to help identify candidates at examination centres and support verification of results.
“If the identity mechanism was not functioning as intended,” he argued, “the problem becomes more than a supply dispute.”
That allegation would require examination records, procurement documents, distribution schedules and evidence from affected centres to establish its scale.
It also raises a broader question for WAEC: how effectively were candidate identities verified during the 2026 examination, particularly at centres where the cards were allegedly unavailable?
More than a money dispute
Fadehan’s allegations extend into the conduct of the examination itself.
He claims some centres experienced shortages of question papers, forcing candidates to share copies.
He cited a centre at the Opuno Custodial Centre in Awka, where he alleged that more than 100 candidates could not immediately obtain question papers.
He said staff had to arrange for groups of candidates to share copies.
He also alleged that some examinations that were officially scheduled for the morning did not begin until about noon or 1pm.
Such delays, if established, would raise questions about examination security because candidates could potentially be exposed to information about later papers before sitting them.
WAEC has disputed the broader allegations. Dangut told SaharaReporters, according to the account supplied for this report, that the claims should be tested through the court process.
The dispute therefore turns on evidence: centre reports, invigilator records, question-paper distribution logs, examination schedules, candidate complaints and any internal investigations carried out by WAEC.
The 2026 WASSCE results provide the backdrop
The controversy emerged shortly after WAEC released the 2026 WASSCE results.
WAEC said 1,950,726 candidates sat the examination, while 1,200,514 candidates, or 61.54 per cent, obtained credits in at least five subjects including English Language and Mathematics. The examination was conducted across more than 24,000 schools.
The results therefore provide the statistical backdrop to Fadehan’s demand for scrutiny.
But a lower pass rate or poor performance in particular subjects, on its own, does not establish that candidates were denied calculators or that examination administration failures caused the results.
Any such connection would require candidate-level performance data alongside verified evidence showing which centres lacked the relevant materials.
How the dispute reached the police
The confrontation intensified in September.
The NPF National Cybercrime Centre invited Fadehan to appear in Abuja over allegations of cyberstalking and criminal defamation. The invitation was signed by the centre’s director, AIG Akaninyene Ezima.
The police action followed legal proceedings initiated by WAEC and Dangut.
Justice Yetunde Adesanya of the Lagos State High Court issued an interim order restraining Fadehan from publishing, broadcasting, circulating or disseminating alleged defamatory or injurious statements concerning WAEC, its examinations, results and certificates, as well as statements about Dangut’s character or integrity.
The order covered written, audio and video publications, including material circulated on platforms such as YouTube and WhatsApp.
WAEC and Dangut are seeking a total of ₦825 million.
The claim comprises ₦500 million in general damages, ₦300 million in aggravated and exemplary damages and ₦25 million in legal costs. They are also seeking retraction, a public apology and permanent removal of the disputed publications.
The court’s interim order is not a finding that Fadehan’s underlying allegations are true or false. It is a temporary judicial restraint while the substantive dispute proceeds.
Fadehan says the police action will not silence him
Fadehan rejects the accusations of cyberstalking and criminal defamation.
He insists that his statements amount to whistleblowing based on evidence he says he has collected.
“I will not be gagged and I will not be cowed,” he said, arguing that the allegations he made about WAEC could be supported by documents, recordings and other evidence.
He says he has preserved copies of the material and intends to provide them to investigators and journalists.
His position is that the appropriate response to allegations of financial or administrative misconduct is investigation rather than punishment of the person raising them.
That argument, though, does not determine whether the allegations themselves are accurate. The evidential test remains central.
WAEC rejects the whistleblower’s account
WAEC has taken the opposite position.
In comments reported by The PUNCH, the council said Fadehan remains an employee whose employment has not been finally determined and accused him of spreading falsehoods and sensational material.
WAEC said his allegations had been investigated at various levels and described them as false.
Dangut separately told SaharaReporters that the matter was already before the court and that he wanted to avoid prejudicing the judicial process.
He said Fadehan should present his evidence through the court.
The disagreement therefore rests on two fundamentally different accounts.
Fadehan says he uncovered serious administrative and financial problems and was punished after raising them.
WAEC says its employee is making false and damaging allegations and must substantiate them through the proper process.
Neither position, by itself, establishes the underlying facts.
The disciplinary battle
The dispute has also opened a second front over Fadehan’s employment.
Fadehan disputes WAEC’s account of earlier disciplinary proceedings and says the council has attempted to present him as a disgruntled employee.
WAEC has previously linked disciplinary action against him to an alleged diesel shortage at its Awka office.
Fadehan rejects that explanation.
He says an internal panel examined the diesel matter and that the shortage was associated with leakage rather than theft.
He alleges that a subsequent disciplinary process was connected to his statements about WAEC’s management.
He has further alleged that his dismissal was effectively predetermined, although that claim also remains disputed.
The employment dispute is important because it may become part of the evidence used by both sides to explain the origins of the confrontation.
If Fadehan’s disciplinary history preceded his complaints, WAEC could argue that his allegations arose from an employment dispute.
If, on the other hand, documentation shows that disciplinary proceedings escalated after his complaints, that sequence could become relevant to claims of retaliation.
The chronology needs to be established from dated queries, panel reports, correspondence, minutes and disciplinary decisions.
Petitions to EFCC, ICPC and the National Assembly
Fadehan says he did not begin with the media.
According to his account, he first raised the issues internally and subsequently wrote to the WAEC board, the Minister of Education and the House of Representatives Committee on Basic Education and Examining Bodies.
He says he later petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.
These petitions could become significant if they contain the documents on which his public allegations were based.
They could also establish when the concerns were first raised and whether any agency opened a formal investigation.
At present, the existence of such petitions does not amount to proof of the allegations contained in them.
The extraordinary ₦250m claim
One of Fadehan’s other allegations concerns an alleged payment of as much as ₦250 million to frustrate an anti-graft investigation.
He acknowledged that he had not established that claim before SaharaReporters at the time of his interview, although he said information had come from what he described as a reliable source.
This is a particularly serious allegation and requires independent documentary evidence.
No claim involving such a payment should be treated as established without financial records, credible testimony, transaction evidence or findings by a competent investigative authority.
What would establish the calculator allegation?
The central financial allegation could be tested without relying on competing public statements.
The first documents investigators would need include WAEC procurement records showing how many calculators were purchased, the supplier invoices, unit prices, payment records and delivery notes.
The next layer would be distribution data.
That would include records showing how many calculators were allocated to each state, district, school or examination centre and how many candidates were charged for the item.
A reconciliation between the number procured and the number distributed could then establish whether a material shortage occurred.
Candidate receipts and school-level records would provide another independent test.
The identification-card allegation requires the same approach.
WAEC would need to establish how many cards were produced, how many were distributed, where they were distributed and how many candidates were charged for them.
Fadehan’s claimed ₦15 billion figure can only move from allegation to evidence if those numbers can be independently reconciled.
Why the allegations matter beyond WAEC
The controversy is significant because WAEC examinations affect university admission, employment opportunities and the academic records of millions of young people.
The 2026 WASSCE involved nearly two million candidates in Nigeria, making the reliability of the examination system a matter of broad public interest.
If the allegations about missing examination materials are eventually substantiated, the implications would extend beyond the alleged financial value.
They could raise questions about procurement controls, candidate welfare, examination security, internal reporting mechanisms and management accountability.
If the allegations are disproved, WAEC would have an equally important obligation to explain the documentary evidence demonstrating that the materials were properly procured, paid for and distributed.
In either case, the public interest is served by evidence rather than competing accusations.
The unanswered questions
Several questions now sit at the centre of the dispute.
How many calculators were purchased for the 2026 WASSCE?
How many candidates paid for them?
How many were actually distributed?
What was the verified unit cost?
How many identification cards were produced and distributed?
Were candidates charged separately for materials they did not receive?
Were there documented cases of centres running short of question papers?
Were examination start times properly recorded at every affected centre?
Were complaints from schools formally logged and investigated?
What did WAEC’s internal investigations find?
What documents did Fadehan submit to the council and government authorities?
And have EFCC or ICPC opened formal investigations into his petitions?
Those questions are more important than the public argument over who has been louder.
What happens next
The legal proceedings will determine the disputed claims before the court, while any independent inquiry by anti-corruption or education authorities could address the underlying administrative and financial allegations.
Fadehan says he has documentary evidence and recordings.
WAEC says the allegations are false.
The court has already imposed an interim restriction on further publications while the dispute proceeds.
The decisive issue now is whether the allegations can be independently tested against procurement records, examination records, financial documents and testimony from affected schools and candidates.
Until that evidence is examined, the alleged ₦15 billion loss remains an allegation, not an established fact.
For the millions of Nigerian families who depend on WAEC certificates, that distinction matters.
The bigger question is not whether one employee or one institution wins the public argument.
It is whether the integrity of the examination system can withstand independent scrutiny.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let's know your opinion.