All The NewsCover StoryOpinionPerspective

Why Does the FG Perpetually Play Deaf to ASUU and Others?

6 Mins read

 

By Taiwo Adisa

A back-and-forth ensued between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, in the last days of August 2025. Alausa was to fire the first salvo when he dismissed ASUU’s persistent claim that the Federal Government had breached the agreement it had with the union. While speaking to journalists in Abuja, Alausa said that what the government had with the union were mere proposals. “The documents ASUU has been referring to as agreements were just proposals that were never signed,” he had stated on Thursday, August 28. Almost immediately, ASUU President, Prof. Chris Piwuna replied to the minister, accusing the government of lacking a proper culture of record-keeping. He stated that ASUU’s demands go beyond allowances, adding that the union had often pushed for improved salaries, better conditions of service, enhanced university autonomy, and comprehensive reforms in the education sector, among others. He also questioned the continuity between successive administrations in the ministry.

Less than 24 hours after the initial declaration, which prompted ASUU to start preparing for the ‘mother of all strikes’, the Minister of Education realised his mistake and retracted his earlier position. In a statement titled: “Clarification on Minister’s Statement Regarding FGN-ASUU Agreements,” which was signed by the Ministry’s Director of Press and Public Relations, Boriowo Folasade, Alausa acknowledged that the 2009 agreement between the Federal Government and ASUU was an officially signed pact. He added that efforts to review the agreement, including the Nimi Briggs Committee, which produced a draft agreement in 2021, and the Yayale Ahmed Committee set up by the Bola Tinubu administration, have not produced a conclusive agreement.

The statement read in part: “When the Honourable Minister stated that there had been ‘no new signed agreement’ with ASUU, he was referring specifically to the 2021 draft Nimi Briggs document, which has not been formally executed. The Ministry, therefore, reaffirms that the 2009 FGN-ASUU Agreement remains the last formally signed agreement. The 2021 draft serves only as the latest framework for discussions.”

The minister, however, proceeded to institute a technical committee to perfect issues between ASUU and the government, while assuring that the government was determined to resolve the 16-year-old impasse with ASUU through what he called “sustainable and constitutionally backed measures.” Though in one breath, an ASUU member had described the minister’s decision as “keeping them taking syndrome,” the development has, however, provided the much-needed breather that could enable the Tinubu government to keep its desire to avoid strikes by the university teachers during its tenure.

That desire is what many would call an uphill task. Not because it is not doable, but especially because no government has attained that feat since the Ibrahim Babangida days in 1992. I was able to write my final exams when ASUU struck, driving students into a prolonged strike that changed the course of many. Since that historic strike, every successive administration has had one problem or the other with ASUU, academic unions of other institutions, and the non-academics as well. The Umaru Yar’Adua/Goodluck Jonathan government in 2009 believed it had struck gold when it signed off on the landmark 2009 agreement with ASUU, but the implementation of that agreement has been an issue ever since. So, when the Minister of Education first announced that there was no agreement between the Federal Government and ASUU, he could be pardoned because many waters have passed under the bridge. But one would have to ask, why does the Federal Government perpetually play deaf to ASUU’s demands? Why is it so difficult for the government to implement agreements freely entered into with the university teachers? The answers to those questions and every other one that revolves around the FG/ASUU imbroglio are not far-fetched. I will borrow the words of Senator Enyinnaya Abaribe, the Senator representing Abia South in the red chamber, who was asked to appraise the problems with the Power Sector. Remember, Senator Abaribe is a veteran chairman of the Senate Power Committee. He simply answered the question posed to him by saying: “For all have sinned…” his response was rooted in the biblical book of Romans 3:23, which says: “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” The Senator was simply stating that all actors in the Power sector have contributed a share or the other to the travails of that sector.

If you want to answer that question in relation to ASUU and the endless brushes with the Nigerian government, you will also come to that conclusion…for all have sinned. There is blame on both the government side and the university administrators. There is blame to be apportioned to university lecturers as well. The university is expected to lead society with innovations and breakthroughs, not the other way round. Our university teachers imbibe the master/servant operational mode by seeing themselves as civil servants on the altar of either the state or the Federal Government. That accounted for the disposition of some to form what they called CONUA when former Minister Chris Ngige roared against ASUU.

But a key element of the problem starts from the Nigerian system, which devalues education by allowing barely educated people to aspire to the highest office in the land. A lawyer friend, who believed he would reclaim his ‘stolen’ House of Representatives mandate in the 2003 election, gave me clear insights into the Nigerian situation. The man had filed the WAEC result of his opponent, which, of course, was ‘F9 parallel’, as part of the evidence to convince the court that the man declared as the winner by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) was unfit to represent the people. He was, however, shocked to the bone marrow when the Tribunal and the Court of Appeal returned the verdict that what the constitution requires is evidence of attendance at secondary school. Which means that an ordinary school testimonial is enough to qualify a candidate for any of the elective offices in the land, including the House of Assembly, the governorship seat, the House of Representatives, the Senate seat, and the seat of the president of Nigeria. With that as the foundation, the elected officers are tempted to go about with the notion ‘who education ep’.

The above is further assisted by the attitude of the intellectuals themselves when appointed to positions of power and the nature of their relationship with men in power. Rather than lead the way with their intellect and knowledge, intellectuals get into public offices with inferiority complexes that portray them as “nothing special” before the politicians. Rather than tell the truth and exit a public office if they are disrespected, the intellectual twists and turns just to belong to the “right side of power.” I have a classical example that illustrates this scenario. The governor of a state had invited a committee of experts to join his commissioner and other government officials to resolve a knotty issue. The commissioner in charge of the sector, being an experienced professional was expected to lead discussions. But in one technical session, the governor just dropped an idea he had read online about the subject matter and needed further insights. Our commissioner friend replied, ‘Your Excellency is right. ’ The confused governor turned to one of the technical committee members for input, and the expert, from a federal institution, ended up tearing the governor’s idea to shreds. A further confused governor reverted to his commissioner, and our friend dropped the clincher: “Actually, Your Excellency is right, he is also right!” The meeting burst into endless laughter. Of course, we all know that two opposing views cannot be right at the same time, but that is the typical behaviour of an intellectual in power. So, if you go into public office and refuse to show the executive office holder that academics have the special touch to lead the way, how do you expect the office holder to treat you specially?

I think that is the difference between the way politicians see judges and university lecturers. We all saw the way the Tinubu government handled the issue of the new salary structure for judges upon the assumption of office. It is because the government knows that judges hold the power of life and death over politicians, thus the need for special treatment. A lecturer said last week that Nigerian university teachers earn the worst emoluments in the world. I agree with him.

Thirty-something years ago, we still met expatriates in the universities. Tell me, which Nigerian university can attract an expatriate lecturer into its system these days? As a student in the Department of Communication & Language Arts, University of Ibadan, I was taught by Prof David Williams and Prof Sybil James. Both are from the Caribbean. Williams originally came to Nigeria on sabbatical to the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) and was later snapped up by UI. He fell in love with Ibadan and Nigeria and eventually naturalised. He married a Nigerian and died a Nigerian. On the current remuneration of university teachers, no Nigerian university can attract lecturers even from neighbouring Benin Republic and Togo.

If we have thus foreclosed the capacity of our varsities to earn their names as centres of universal knowledge, what are we really building for the future generation? Maybe we are saying that this country will have to keep playing the second or third fiddle to the already developed nations till Thy kingdom comes.
https://wp.me/p7ZDOE-4OvG

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com