Jimoh Abibat

The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has embarked on a two-week warning strike as a result of the Federal Government’s failure to meet the union’s long-standing demands.

We in the Campaign for Students’ and Youths’ Rights (CSYR) unequivocally support the ongoing ASUU strike action. The recent declaration of the two-week warning strike by ASUU serves as a clear reminder that Nigeria’s education sector remains grossly neglected, despite the government’s repeated promises and unfulfilled agreements over the years.

When one examines the core demands behind the strike, they are not abstract. They are basic, urgent, and long overdue. The main demand among them is the non-fulfilment of the 2009 agreement, which ASUU asserts has never been properly implemented. Other grievances include unpaid or withheld salaries and allowances, promotion arrears, and the federal government’s outright refusal to adequately fund universities.

It is especially disheartening that, in a time when nations are debating how to strategically harness artificial intelligence (AI), reform curricula, and leapfrog in technology, our university system is stuck in cycles of crisis over what should be the fundamentals: paying staff, maintaining infrastructure, and providing a stable academic calendar.

Since President Tinubu assumed office, the signals sent toward public higher education have been disappointing. Rather than a demonstrated commitment to revitalising universities, we have seen policy moves that suggest a drift toward commercialisation. The introduction of a student loan scheme, the increase in school fees, and the gradual shift of the burden onto students and lecturers are worrying trends. In institutions like the University of Ilorin, students have decried what they view as an “outrageous” fee hike, with new tuition costs reaching as high as ₦406,888 in some cases.

Yet the university’s Students’ Union issued a clarification, stating that there was no actual increase in base tuition, but rather a consolidation of levies that were previously charged separately. Regardless of the technical framing, the effect is clear, fees were increased. And when many families are suffering from inflation, volatile exchange rates, and shrinking incomes, such burdens often mean that many prospective students can no longer afford tertiary education.

In the broader sense, the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) has publicly raised concerns about institutions hiking fees by some to as high as 521%, which places tremendous strain on the viability of student loans and threatens to trap students in debt. The pattern emerging is one in which public universities abandon part of their funding role and shift it onto students, even as the government claims to support student access via loans.

It is no small irony, then, that the Nigerian Association of Nigerian Students (NANS), supposedly the leading national student body, has offered only speculative responses. Rather than mobilising strong advocacy on behalf of students, NANS issued a statement urging ASUU and the federal government to “sort out their differences”, as if the educational crisis were a matter of personality and diplomacy rather than structural failure. Such neutrality, or worse, alignment with the powers that be, invites serious questions about the ideological and political orientation of NANS’s leadership.

The stance adopted by NANS is particularly concerning when viewed against its founding purpose. Historically, student unions in Nigeria have been at the frontline of mass mobilising students to campaign for free, accessible and qualitative education. To see NANS in what appears to be the position of a government aide, rather than an opposition voice, undermines the moral authority of student activism in this moment of crisis.

Let us, therefore, restate clearly why the demands of ASUU and, by extension, the demands of students, lecturers, and youth alike are morally and politically justified:

First, the 2009 agreement is more than just symbolic. ASUU and allied stakeholders have repeatedly demanded that the terms agreed in 2009 relating to infrastructure funding, allowances, university autonomy, and condition of service should be honoured and updated. The federal government, however, now claims that there was no binding agreement, describing the 2009 pact as a draft rather than a legally enforceable document. Whether or not the agreement in its original form is enforceable, the longstanding promises and repeated referrals to it over many administrations amount to a political obligation.

Second, the victimisation of academics at Kogi State University (KSU) and Lagos State University is a thing of shame as the issue lingers for several months. The government should not use their power to victimise; rather, the issues should be intellectually addressed in a respectable manner.

Third, the issue of withheld salaries and allowances is no exaggeration. Universities have at times withheld lecturers’ pay during prior strikes, and ASUU’s current grievances include the non-payment of “earned academic allowances” and three and a half months’ withheld salaries. Many lecturers and their families live from hand to mouth, and inconsistency in pay undermines their dignity and capacity to function as scholars.

Fourth, promotion arrears and delayed wage awards compound the problem. Promotions are part of a lecturer’s career trajectory; when they are delayed indefinitely, it affects the productivity and career. ASUU’s demands include the settlement of promotion arrears spanning several years.

Fifth, the broader funding of public universities remains wholly inadequate. Many campuses suffer from dilapidated infrastructure, decaying laboratories, hostels in ruin, and limited funding for research and maintenance. ASUU has repeatedly called attention to how the government’s neglect of essential capital expenditure cripples the university system’s capacity.

Lastly, the shift toward commercialisation is both regressive and inequitable. In many countries, the state bears the bulk of higher education costs precisely so that higher learning remains a public good. When governments abandon that responsibility and force students into debt or pay-as-you-go regimes, the working class will bear the brunt. In the first year, NELFUND disbursed billions in institutional fees and upkeep allowances across hundreds of institutions, which raises the question of why these billions were not invested in the sector earlier. Was it because the administration sees education as a sector that is not “profitable” to the bourgeoisie? Was it because education is viewed as a profit-making sector rather than being a public good and value-oriented one that will benefit the citizens and the larger society?

It is also worth noting that ASUU’s decision to give a warning strike is not reckless; it emerges from years of false starts, broken promises, and repeated cycles of suspension and relapse. ASUU has in the past suspended strikes upon government assurances, only to find them unfulfilled. In a recent interview, Professor Chris Piwuna reaffirmed that the government’s verbal commitments have, over time, proven hollow. For many in academia, trusting promises without implementation has become untenable.

The federal government insists it has taken steps: it claims it has paid ₦50 billion in allowances, mainstreamed part of the allowances into salary, released revitalisation funds, and that some allocations have been received by universities. But ASUU counters that these gestures are piecemeal, incomplete, or delayed. The core issue is not rhetoric but execution and sustainability.

If Nigeria truly is to reclaim its intellectual future, a bold reimagining of its education framework is required. This cannot be satisfied by impromptu interventions or reconstituted committees that produce recommendations no one enforces. The cycle of committee after committee must end, and the state must invest concretely.

CSYR calls on the following:

• Massive funding of the education sector, with at least 26% of the country’s budget, according to recommendations from UNESCO.
• Students, lecturers, and youth organisations should stand in solidarity. This is not merely a lecturer’s strike; it is a strike for dignity, sustainable knowledge infrastructure, and the future of this country.
• An end to the victimisation of lecturers in KSU and LASU. An apology should be tendered by the government, and necessary amendments and compensation should be made.
• Stakeholders (students, teaching and non-teaching staff in tertiary institutions, among others) should be involved in the administration of the sector.
• The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) must re-examine its position. It should reposition itself as a principled and militant advocate for students, not a neutral buffer between contending powers.
• The federal government must move beyond public relations. It must demonstrate sincerity by releasing funds transparently, fulfilling what is negotiated, and ensuring no more deadlines become mirages.
• University managements must resist the temptation to exploit students through cloudy charges, hidden levies, or excessive fee hikes masked in administrative reclassifications.
• Civil society, professional bodies, media, and concerned citizens must refuse complacency. We must subject all education policy to public scrutiny. When decisions are made, they should be backed by practical budgets and clear timelines, not vague promises.

If the Tinubu administration persists in neglecting education, it will condemn a generation to shortened promise, brain drain, and systemic inequality. The administration must invest in the sector and quit its capitalist approach to governing the country as a whole.

Nigeria is blessed with enormous natural and human resources, and funding the education sector would not be a problem if the resources were judiciously used for the benefit of all and not in favour of the ruling elites.