The House of Representatives has once more stepped into the protracted educational dispute, although their prior interventions arguably caused more harm than good-during the brief pause in the strike, all incoming calls were diverted to voicemail, signaling a lack of effective communication. Meanwhile, the Senate has voiced its exasperation over the government’s continual failure to honor commitments, convened a tripartite dialogue, and likely formed yet another committee. This situation prompts a pressing inquiry: why were these bodies absent or inactive throughout the conflict’s duration? As a well-known Nigerian proverb states, “Na eye I de luk!”
In a recent revelation, a Nigerian doctor who emigrated abroad shared that his earnings over six months overseas surpass what he made in seven years back home. At the same time, the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has issued a strict ultimatum, demanding government action within seven days, warning of consequences if ignored. However, NANS seems to have lost much of its former clout after aligning closely with politicians-accepting accolades, official vehicles, and multiple aides. Public sentiment is increasingly turning against ASUU, holding the union responsible for the educational impasse. Some factions are even advocating for the dismissal of all lecturers, the privatization of universities, and the outright prohibition of ASUU, accusing educators of laziness and corruption. Yet, it remains puzzling why the government consistently enforces the “No Work, No Pay” policy whenever ASUU initiates industrial action. To shed light on this persistent deadlock, I revisit my 2022 analysis, which echoes concerns first voiced in 2009. The scenario remains largely unchanged. Continue reading:
On February 14, 2022, ASUU reaffirmed its commitment to Nigeria’s educational advancement by launching a rolling strike, set to persist indefinitely depending on future developments. The cycle of ASUU strikes is all too familiar: the government signs agreements but fails to implement them; ASUU responds with strikes; the government counters with propaganda and superficial concessions; the public pleads for resolution; ASUU eventually relents; and the cycle repeats. To illustrate this, I share an excerpt from my July 13, 2009 article originally published in BusinessDay. Consider the following:
“Public opinion has always been influenced by competing interests. While ASUU’s demands are valid, students are eager to graduate on time, and parents prefer their children to be away from home.”
The saying, “When the axe first entered the forest, the trees said, ‘It is one of us; the handle came from our stock,'” perfectly captures the misplaced trust ASUU placed in the government during President Yar’Adua‘s tenure. ASUU believed their concerns were safeguarded, leading to complacency. This misplaced confidence paved the way for the government’s initial betrayal, revealing the harsh reality that the axe would not spare them.
On July 1, 2007, ASUU ended a 98-day strike based solely on a promissory note from the newly inaugurated President Yar’Adua, who promised swift resolution and prompt renegotiation. ASUU’s trust was rooted in Yar’Adua’s academic credentials and perceived integrity. Unfortunately, no substantial progress was made, and promised renegotiations dragged on until December 2008. Those who had encouraged ASUU to end the 2007 strike later advocated shelving the 2009 strike.
The government has consistently spread misleading narratives about ASUU. An agreement was indeed presented, as shown by Dr. Egwu’s invitation to ASUU to sign on May 12, 2009. However, the Ministry of Education’s budget of N200 billion, which covers numerous dependent agencies, hardly reflects any real increase in funding. The widely publicized N78 billion allocation is less than 5% of what is spent on the power sector, constituency projects, political officeholders’ allowances, or even a single contract at the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). Mrs. Akunyili rightly noted that genuine agreements are not forged in one-sided Federal Executive Council meetings or during brief media appearances.
Public reactions remain divided, shaped by personal interests. While ASUU’s position is broadly acknowledged as justified, students prioritize timely graduation, and parents prefer their children to be away from home. NANS has threatened a nationwide solidarity protest. Commentators such as Ngozi Nwozo of The Nation lament the strike’s harsh impact on students; Obadere of BusinessDay criticizes the government’s repeated betrayals; Azu of Punch condemns officials but questions the strike’s effectiveness; and Akpan of NewsWatch recalls the government’s failure to honor 18 agreements with ASUU between 1981 and 2005, calling for accountability and reform. The discussion continues next week.
Ik Muo, PhD, Department of Business Administration, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye. 08033026625