Connect with us

Opinion

Education,ASUU And The Globalist Agenda (I)

Published

4 years ago

on

Professor Lukman Diso

 

L. I. Diso
BUK

When William Saint, the World Bank Education Consultant, came to Bayero University, Kano in 1999/2000, he hadn’t had the slightest idea that ASUU was ready for him. He was shocked by the level of mobilization and the ambush set to give him the terrifying welcome. The naive mindset people on such missions usually have about Africans being complacent, or having short memory and lacking a sense of history, was clearly visible in his mien. The apparent sudden realization that, contrary to his expectation, ASUU seemed to know the agenda they had been implementing in the last three decades (1970s, 1980s & 1990s), was, perhaps, what terrified him the more.

Let us take a short trip through these decades to see the picture that provides the logical context to this discussion. We shall return to Mr Saint to see who he was, what his mission in Nigeria was, how he planned to accomplish the mission, his encounter with ASUU at Bayero University, Kano, and part of his report recommendations to the World Bank.

All these may help to unravel the critical questions of why education has been systematically accorded diminishing national priority, and its role in Nigeria’s national development been consistently receding in the last 60 years. They would also help to deepen our insights into the trajectory that has shaped ASUU’s evolution and its struggles through the decades. Arising from all this may be the temptation to raise and tackle the following questions:
– Why has ASUU, of all the education stakeholders, decided to be the only consistent defender of education in Nigeria?
– Why do different Nigerian governments invariably respond to education crisis in the same pattern?
– What are the implications of government’s brazen hostility to education and the intermittent disruptions that follow as a consequence?
– What lessons could be learnt from ASUU’s consistent struggles for decades?

ASUU Strike And Posterity-Ameer Abdul Aziz

The 1960s, the decade of Nigeria’s independence, was afflicted with crippling political crisis, so turbulent that the new nation was shaken to its very roots. Whether it was an inevitable corollary of colonial vestiges that characterized such emerging nations, education, especially university education, seemed to remain relatively insulated, and as robust as it was anywhere in the world. The university teaching and learning environment, infrastructure and facilities were of high standard and comparably as good as anywhere in Europe and North America. Conditions of service were equally good and attractive. Staffing policy, in terms of staff-students ratio and staff mix, was based on best-practice standards, which produced a cosmopolitan environment and a vibrant academic culture necessary for university to thrive.
Therefore, the need for coming together as a body to represent the academics was not felt until 1965 when the Association for University Teachers (AUT) was formed. AUT was not political. It was formed to cater only for the welfare of the academics. Other variables that define university seemed to have been taken for granted.

However, in the decade of prosperity and consolidation, as the 1970s were referred to, Nigerian Universities began to slide gradually, at the beginning, as the military consolidated their firm grips on the country. Suddenly, though consciously, as if jinxed to a morgaged future, Nigeria decided to embrace a policy that marked the beginning of the cascading crisis that has bedevilled education, particularly university education, to this day, and likely, to a distant future. AUT protested to the extent of a strike to press for the Government to address the deteriorating conditions of education – teaching and learning, and welfare of staff and students.

However, the Gowon Military Government responded ruthlessly and crushed the strike. That experience served as an eye opener for the academics, and they moved to change the dynamics.

Despite the relative obscurity of the policy’s source and contents, it triggered a warning from concerned visionary and farsighted Nigerian citizens, scholars and the ASUU, which was formed in 1978 from the National Association of University Teachers (NAUT). They warned that the policy was clearly meant to serve the master and to rule over the target with all ruthlessness, to forcefully impose its contents, and ultimately emasculate the university system and education in general. However, as the decade was largely characterized by military culture, and the government, itself remotely manipulated by the same forces that had designed the policy, the warning was ignored. This explains why Obasanjo Military Regime witnessed a lot of crises in the education sector.

The NPN civilian government under Shagari (1979-1983) was a bit cautious towards university education, although there were largely unsuccessful attempts to violate university autonomy in order to implement the same surreptitious agenda. ASUU’s spirited resistance thwarted the implementation of the agenda. As the dogged struggle deepened, the first agreement that gave the academic staff the USS scale with 20% differential relative to civil service scale, was signed in 1982.

Advert

The deepening contradictions in the Shagari Civilian administration provided the excuse that brought Buhari/Idiagbon military regime (Dec.1983- Aug. 1985) in a bloodless coup D’tat. Immediately they settled the military authoritarian culture began to manifest: the repressive policy mills were hastily deployed to launch a direct assault on the University and draconian decrees arbitrarily manufactured. Under this regime, the University was subjected to a torrent of attacks including:
– Termination of university cafetaria services
– Withdrawal of subsidies on accommodation in universities
– Workers retrenchment and wage freeze
– Transfer of university senate’s powers to NUC through Decree 16 of 1985
– Workers retrenchment and wage freeze
ASUU never relented in its strong resistence to these authoritarian policies despite all the harrassment and intimidation the union faced as a consequence.
The palace coup that toppled Buhari and brought Ibrahim Bodamasi Babangida (IBB) regime (1985 – 1993) was a continuation of the military and their repressive anti-intellectual culture. IBB regime never pretended that it was there to serve interests other than Nigerians’. Shortly after settling, the regime dropped the bombshell, unveiling a World Bank/IMF-packaged economic policy with fanatical determination to implement. While the regime initiated a national debate as to whether or not to take the IMF loan, it contemptuously ignored the process and silently took the loan with all the conditionalities before the public final verdict (a clearly overwhelming rejection). Nigerians were shocked by the regime’s stunning insensitivity in this reckless disregard for the far reaching and devastating socio-economic and political implications of this action.
ASUU became the intellectual light, in the forefront leading the resistance movement, providing an incisive critique of the regime’s economic policy and presenting simplefied but thorough analysis of the policy’s implications. The duo of ASUU and the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the former being an affiliate of the latter, became the most consistent and vocal critics of the policy, vigorously mobilizing the nation with the dogged insistence, to force the government to reverse its decision. As the government intentensified the commitment to the ruthless implementation of this anti-people economic policy, ASUU, NLC, NANS and other pro-people organizations turned the situation into a season of revolutionary activities: intellectually scathing public lectures and production of mobilizational publications to galvanize public opinion against government’s submission to the oppressive policy.
Sensing the massive public support and reaction and the obvious likely consequences, the IBB Regime bared its fangs, unleashing all the repressive instruments at their disposal. Barely one year into IBB’s tenure, the Regime started the full implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) as a package of the IMF conditionalities. NLC, ASUU and NANS started to organize mass protest. NANS, using the Commemoration Day of “Ali-Must- GO”, staged a mass protest, in which many students were shot and killed in ABU, Zaria. The Government’s crackdown was widened and started in full swing:
– Arbitrary arrest of NLC leaders and “bombardment” of NLC offices started across Nigeria
– Plans to Weaken ASUU were hastily hatched and implemented
(1) ASUU was de-affiliated from the NLC by Decree 16 of 1986
(2) Payment of check off dues was made voluntary for ASUU and NANS
(3)The Abisoye Panel set up on ABU Crisis recommended sacking of lecturers for “…not teaching what they were paid to teach”
– A Year later (1987) UniBen VC, Prof. Grace Alele Williams, acting on the contrived report of visitation panel, announced the sack of ASUU President, Dr.Festus Iyayi, from the University. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017).
By the time Dr Attahiru M Jega (Dr Iyayi’s Vice-President) was elected ASUU President in an early NDC in 1988, the IBB regime, following the World Bank Agenda, had added more to the list of its atrocities. In fact, a reign of terror was unleashed:
– Government’s plans to retrench lecturers and rationalize courses had already reached advanced stages
– Dr. Patrick Wilmot (ABU, Zaria), a Scholar and vocal critic of Western imperialism, and Ms. Firinne N.C. Adelugba (BUK) had been covertly abducted and deported from Nigeria
– Government was blatant in its refusal to implement the earlier negotiated EUSS (Elongated University Salary Structure)
– As fuel prices were hiked by the Regime, students protested and the Government responded with massive crackdown on their leadership and on other activists across the country
– NLC was summarily dissolved and sole administrator appointed. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)
These constituted Dr Jega’s immediate challenges as the new ASUU President, and his EXCO set out to confront them head on. They formed Joint Action Committee (JAC) with the Senior Staff Association of University Teaching Hospital, Research Institutes and Allied Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI) to present a united front. JAC submitted its demands to Government, which were expectedly shunned. Joint strike commenced nationwide on July 1, 1988. Curiously, only ASUU was immediately banned. The leadership of SSAUTHRIAI immediately capitulated, dissociated itself from the JAC and called off the strike. ASUU continued with the strike under University Lecturers’ Association (ULA). Government immediately launched a crackdown on national and local leadership of ASUU. Drs Jega, Iyayi, and other national officers were arrested and taken to unknown location (which was later learnt to be Lagos) for over a month. Many branch chairmen, secretaries and activists of the Union were arrested across the nation. Yet, the declared strike was kept alive by, more or less, leaderless members; it lingered for sometime, but finally fizzled out unofficially.
Signature campaigns for the release of all the arrested ASUU leaders and members were initiated nationwide. A legal action was instituted in Kano High Court for their freedom. A day to the verdict, Dr Jega was produced and presented to the court; and all others were released. Case closed, but ASUU remained officially banned (1988-1990). Despite this situation, academics never ceased to organize. They continued to network and organize under different names. It was remarkable, given the circumstances, to be able to stop the World Bank University Sector Loan Facility and consequential staff rationalization. The Loan Facility was carefully packaged to sow the seed for Nigerian University System Innovation Project (NUSIP), which popped up later as Obasanjo Administration’s initiative.
The occurrance of an interesting coincidence in 1990 helped to expose the desperation of the IBB regime to implement the IMF/World Bank policies. A day after the Association of University Teachers (AUT) – name adopted by the banned ASUU – had held a National Conference on the World Bank in OAU, Ile-Ife, the Orka Coup took place, April 22, 1990. In his coup speech, Major Gideon Orkar made apparently innocuous reference to the prevalent repressive tendencies of IBB and his Government. He adduced three reasons for the coup, part of which included:
“(d) The intent to cow the students by the promulgation of the draconian Decree Number 47.
(e) The cowing of the university teaching and non-teaching staff by an intended massive purge, using the 150 million dollar loan as the necessitating factor.”
Given the contemporary issues against which the ASUU, NLC and students were consistently united, and that which informed the core of their struggles against the government, it was easy for a sensitive government like IBB’s to perceive a connection between the coup and the conference. Hence, the conferene organizers, Prof. Omotoye Olorode and Dr. Idowu Awopetu (ASUU National Treasurer) were immediately arrested and detained as alledged coup suspects.They were subjected to military trials (Court Martial) but were found innocent and released. Yet, they were compulsorily retired “in public interest”. They were reinstated by the court when Prof. Aliu Babatunde Fafunwa became Education Minister.
After a long spell of unease between the Government and AUT (the former still defiant to address ASUU’s demands), September 1990 became a new dawn for ASUU as it was deproscribed. ASUU intensified its demand for collective bargaining – to negotiate the conditions of service and other work-related issues for its members. The IBB Gvernment remained adamant and invariably hostile whenever ASUU made attempt to push its demands, until May 1992, when Dr Jega was reelected President. After several failed efforts to get the Government to start negotiation, ASUU commenced the suspended strike. However, as if that was the Greenhouse conditions desperately needed, the Government readily submitted to start negotiation as the strike subsisted. What an irony! No sooner had the negotiation commenced than it was unilaterally suspended by the Government! ASUU had no option than to commence the strike.
On May 25, the strike commenced, but had to be suspended on May 30 as Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) stepped in. That marked the beginning of a series of crowded activities as ASUU responded to every Government move to arm-twist its way. ASUU continued to checkmate the Government’s unsavory litiny of absurdities until one by one they reached their climax and crumbled with a bang. Follow the labyrinth of tragicomedy of industrial relations as it unfolded:
– On June 1, the IAP found Dr Jega guilty of contempt of court, but the judge, apparently considering the weighty political implications, decided to waive it.
– On July 20, with Government irresponsibilty, ASUU had to commence the strike
– On July 22, ASUU was banned again, but the strike continued under Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities (ASNU)
– The situation remained until the Government was forced to negotiate through a committee it constituted
– On September 3, 1992, the two parties reached an agreement on Funding, Conditions of Service [with University Academic Salary Scale (UASS)], and Autonomy and Academic Freedom
– On September 4, the 4-month old strike was suspended and academic activities commenced.
Immediately the Agreement was signed, other university workers were instigated to ask for “parity”, insisting that whatever was given to ASUU must be given to them. Even some of their members reasoned and questioned the basis of their leaders’ claims to parity, pointing out that they had been part of JAC when the struggle had begun, but unilaterally decided to ditch the JAC, capitulated and called off the strike when the chips were down. With our union preserved and intact, and without any collectively bargained agreement, what justification do we have to claim parity? – these SSANU members rationally queried.
However, as implementation of the ASUU Agreement commenced SSANU intensified its parity demand, which led to another round of the “Theatre of the Absurd”. The new vicious cycle started with the appointment of Professor Ben Nwabueze as Secretary (Minister) of Education. He contrived a new concept of “the Agreement of Imperfect Obligation”, meaning that the FG/ASUU Agreement was not (legally) binding on the Government to implement. He therefore directed universities to stop implementing the UASS/USS. Without any provocation, Prof Nwabueze continued his vicious attacks on ASUU with systematic breaches of the Agreement. It was obvious that he was deployed to do the hatchet job, and he was certainly doing it with utmost efficiency. ASUU’s voice of protest was drowned in a wirlwind of blackmail and intimidation. Its persistent demand to stop the breaches of the Agreement came up against a brick wall. With most aspects of the Agreement rolled back and no sign of de-escalating the breaches, ASUU had no option other than to take action.
– ASUU resumed the strike on May 3, 1993, and all member universities joined
– Three days later, the Government announced the dismissal of all striking lecturers and salary stoppage
– A Decree making teaching essential service, retroactively prohibiting teachers from going on strike, was enacted
– All lecturers on strike were given sack letters
– In some campuses, lecturers were ejected from their houses, despite the argument that residency of campus quarters was governed by the rental law.
– A particular case of UniAbuja Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Isa Muhammed, was pathetic. He went to the extent of sending the estate staff to tear off the roofs of lecturers’ houses, and then the security personnel to eject them.
– Even after the reinstatement of all lecturers later, Prof. Isa Muhammed refused to reinstate the EXCO of UniAbuja.

(TO BE CONTINUED…..)

Related Topics:

Opinion

Beyond the Numbers: What the Ekiti 2026 Governorship Results Reveal About Coalition Politics and Path to 2027

Published

12 hours ago

on

July 20, 2026

By

 

By Abass Sherifat Taiwo

Returning Officer Adenike Oladiji, a professor and Vice-Chancellor of the Federal University of Technology, announced the results in the early hours of Sunday, at roughly 3:13 a.m. Incumbent Governor Biodun Oyebanji of the APC won comfortably, polling 319,224 votes across the state’s 16 local government areas. His closest challenger, the PDP’s Oluwole Oluyede, trailed far behind with 40,543 votes, while the ADC’s Dare Bejide came in third with 12,872 votes.

Of the 384,940 voters accredited for the election, 375,777 cast valid votes, a validity rate of about 97.6%, suggesting relatively few spoiled or rejected ballots.

Oyebanji’s win carries added weight as the first consecutive re-election in Ekiti’s history, a state known for unseating incumbents since 1999. His dominance was also total: he won all sixteen LGAs, and even his closest contest, in Ikere, was still a comfortable margin. His five strongest councils alone delivered nearly half his statewide votes, showing concentrated rather than thin support.

Elite alignment mattered too. For the first time, every living former Ekiti governor backed his re-election, leaving the opposition without any prominent defectors to rally behind. This unified backing functioned as a coordinated endorsement strategy, a visible signal of consensus that opposition parties had no comparable message to counter.

Between the opposition parties, PDP’s showing is more telling than ADC’s. ADC placing third as a newer platform isn’t surprising, but PDP, a long-established national party, barely crossed 3,000 votes in most councils, pointing to weak grassroots structure rather than just a bad cycle. The deeper question is whether this reflects a structural failure or a failure to sustain visibility and message presence at the ward level between election cycles.

Party | Votes | % of Valid Votes
APC | 319,224 | 84.95%
PDP | 40,543 | 10.79%
ADC | 12,872 | 3.43%
ADP | ~1,289 | 0.34%
Accord | 564 | 0.15%
LP | ~263 | 0.07%
AAC | ~188 | 0.05%

When the vote totals of every opposition party are combined, they amount to roughly 55,719 votes, or about 14.83% of all valid votes cast, a stark contrast to the APC’s dominant 84.95% share on its own. Even in a hypothetical scenario where every opposition party ran on a single, fully united ticket, their combined total would still fall short of the APC’s by approximately 263,505 votes. This gap illustrates just how commanding Oyebanji’s victory was: it was not simply a matter of a divided opposition splitting votes among several parties, but a result that would have withstood even total opposition unity.

Advert

Following the Ekiti result, APC framed it as proof of growing national support ahead of 2027, pointing to the rise in its vote totals in the state from about 187,000 in 2022 to roughly 318,000 in 2026, and projecting even higher numbers for Tinubu in 2027. Opposition parties, including the ADC and SDP, pushed back, arguing that Ekiti’s off-cycle, low-turnout nature makes it a poor predictor of a national contest.

Both claims need scrutiny. APC’s growth trend is real, but it happened in a state the party already governs, where incumbency and federal attention worked in its favour, so it says more about consolidating an existing stronghold than expanding into contested territory. The opposition’s caution is fair, but understates that APC’s structural advantages, incumbency and federal resources, aren’t unique to Ekiti and could repeat elsewhere. The more accurate takeaway is that Ekiti confirms APC’s strength where it already holds power, without proving it can replicate that in genuinely competitive states by 2027.

ADC’s third-place finish in Ekiti, just 3.43% of the vote, looks unremarkable on its own, but it only makes sense next to the party’s national story. A year earlier, ADC had positioned itself as the face of a new opposition coalition, pulling in heavyweight names like Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi with the promise of a unified front against the APC. That promise hasn’t held: Obi and Kwankwaso have since defected to a rival platform, the NDC, while ADC battles leadership disputes and court cases that put its own 2027 participation in doubt.

That is the real lesson here for coalition politics as a communication problem, not just a structural one. ADC did not fail for lack of big names, it had plenty. What it could not do was hold one coherent message together once multiple egos and regional bases began pulling in different directions. Whether it can still become the platform it promised by 2027 is uncertain, but Ekiti is an early sign of a bigger unraveling.

Beyond Ekiti, the result speaks to a deeper pattern in Nigerian opposition politics: alliances are far easier to announce than to sustain. This suggests APC’s greatest advantage going into the next general election may not be its own performance, but the opposition’s continued inability to stay united. The near-total validity rate and one-sided outcome in Ekiti also raise questions about how genuinely competitive Nigeria’s state elections currently are, and whether low-turnout, off-cycle polls like this one can reliably signal national voter sentiment.

The Ekiti result is less a story about Oyebanji’s popularity alone than about the opposition’s structural fragility. Even a fully united opposition ticket would not have closed the gap, which means the problem isn’t vote-splitting, it’s organisational weakness, unstable coalitions, and the absence of a party capable of matching APC’s machinery and incumbency advantages. What Nigeria’s opposition needs before 2027 isn’t just structural unity, but a coherent, disciplined communication strategy capable of sustaining one message across factions, something no coalition has yet demonstrated. Until Nigeria’s opposition can build a coalition that survives contact with real electoral pressure, results like Ekiti’s are likely to repeat themselves in APC strongholds heading into 2027.

By Abass Sherifat Taiwo
Department of Development and Strategic communication University of Abuja
200level

Continue Reading

Opinion

Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf Has Earned a Vote of Confidence on Education

Published

2 days ago

on

July 19, 2026

By

 

By Hon. Muhammad Sanusi S. Kiru, FCIA
(Former Commissioner of Education, Kano State)

There comes a time in public discourse when fairness must prevail over partisanship and facts must take precedence over preconceived opinions. That moment has come in my assessment of the educational reforms being implemented by the administration of His Excellency, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf.

As a former Commissioner of Education and someone who has consistently evaluated government performance with candour, I owe the people of Kano State an honest appraisal of the Governor’s performance in the education sector. After objectively reviewing the administration’s interventions from 2024 to 2026, particularly its determined efforts to address the acute shortage of teachers, I have reached an inescapable conclusion: Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf deserves a vote of confidence for his outstanding commitment to the development of education in Kano State.

One of the greatest challenges confronting our educational system has been the persistent shortage of teachers, resulting in unfavourable teacher-pupil and teacher-student ratios across many public schools. This problem has adversely affected the quality of teaching and learning for many years.

The present administration has confronted this challenge with courage and determination. Between 2024 and 2026, the government recruited or absorbed 8,715 permanent teachers and engaged 3,688 temporary BESDA Cohort V teachers, bringing the documented total to 12,403 education personnel. With recruitments by other education agencies, the overall figure is widely estimated at approximately 13,000 teachers.

Advert

This represents one of the largest teacher recruitment exercises in the history of Kano State. More importantly, it is a strategic investment in the future of our children and in the long-term development of the state. By substantially reducing the teacher deficit, the administration has strengthened both the basic and post-basic education subsectors and created a stronger foundation for improved educational outcomes. The new recruitment not only means making our classrooms more vibrant and ensuring that teaching is consistently taking place, but it also signifies a positive shift in the narrative reflected in monitoring reports, the annual school census, and national personnel data.

Looking at the tangible achievements now before us, particularly in education, it is clear that the administration has made significant and commendable progress. Leadership should always be judged by measurable accomplishments, and in this regard, the Governor has acquitted himself admirably.

One area where the administration must, however, improve is public communication. Many of its remarkable achievements have not received the publicity they deserve. A well-coordinated and effective publicity strategy would ensure that citizens fully appreciate the scope and impact of these landmark interventions.

As His Excellency prepares to personally attend the special ceremony for the presentation of appointment letters to the newly employed teachers on Tuesday, 21st July 2026, I consider it appropriate to congratulate him on this historic milestone. The ceremony is more than a presentation of appointment letters; it is a celebration of renewed hope for thousands of families, a reaffirmation of government’s commitment to quality education, and a significant step towards building a stronger educational system for future generations.

I wish His Excellency a successful and hitch-free ceremony and pray that Almighty Allah grants him wisdom, good health, and continued strength to sustain the ongoing transformation of the education sector. May this programme mark the beginning of even greater achievements in the quest to provide every child in Kano State with access to quality education delivered by competent and dedicated teachers.

Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf deserves sincere commendation for these giant strides. If this policy of continuous recruitment and investment in teachers is sustained, it will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the defining legacies of his administration. Future generations will look back on this period as a turning point in the educational history of Kano State.

I therefore extend my heartfelt congratulations to His Excellency and offer him a well-deserved vote of confidence. I also wish him every success as he formally presents appointment letters to these newly recruited teachers on Tuesday. May the occasion be memorable, successful, and another milestone in the march towards educational excellence in Kano State.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Kashim Shettima and the Question of Continuity in 2027

Published

3 days ago

on

July 18, 2026

By

Kashim S

By Baba Dantiye, MON, mni, FNGE

As Nigeria gradually approaches another election cycle, political discussions are naturally beginning to focus on the choices that will shape the 2027 general elections. Among the issues attracting attention is the question of presidential tickets and, particularly, the role of Vice President Kashim Shettima within the current administration.

The choice of a running mate is one of the most significant decisions in any presidential contest. It involves considerations that go beyond electoral calculations. Factors such as competence, experience, political balance, governance record, public perception and the ability to complement the President’s vision all play important roles.

Against this background, the performance, public service record and leadership contributions of Vice President Kashim Shettima have become central to discussions about continuity and the future direction of the Tinubu administration.

Since assuming office in May 2023, Shettima has occupied an important position within the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. As Vice President, his responsibilities have included representing the President at official engagements, chairing strategic meetings, coordinating government initiatives and engaging with national and international stakeholders.

One of the notable features of the Tinubu-Shettima partnership has been the public display of cooperation between the President and his deputy. Nigeria’s political history has witnessed instances where relationships between presidents and vice presidents became strained, creating distractions that affected governance. The relatively smooth working relationship between the two leaders has been viewed by observers as an important factor in maintaining stability within the administration.

Shettima has consistently presented himself as a supportive deputy, focusing on responsibilities assigned to him and contributing to the implementation and communication of government policies.

In political leadership, loyalty is often considered alongside competence and capacity. A Vice President is expected not only to support the President but also to bring experience, judgment and independent value to governance. Supporters of Shettima point to his ability to maintain this balance by remaining committed to the administration while drawing from his extensive background in public service.

His leadership of the National Economic Council (NEC) is one of the key areas in which his role has attracted attention. The Council provides a platform for collaboration between the Federal Government and state governments on issues affecting economic development, infrastructure, agriculture, energy and other national priorities.

Chairing such a body requires political maturity, patience and the ability to manage diverse interests. Nigeria’s governors represent different political parties, regions and perspectives. Effective coordination therefore depends on consultation, dialogue and consensus-building.

As a former Governor of Borno State, Shettima brings practical experience of state administration and an understanding of the challenges faced by sub-national governments. This background has been useful in facilitating discussions between the Federal Government and State leaders on issues requiring collective action.

The Vice President has also been involved in government efforts relating to economic coordination, food security and other national development priorities. While the long-term impact of many policies will continue to be assessed, his role demonstrates the importance of coordination and collaboration in a complex federal system.

Advert

Another area frequently discussed is his role in communicating government policies. The current administration has introduced significant economic reforms that have generated extensive public debate. In such circumstances, communication and public engagement become important elements of governance.

Shettima has consistently used public platforms to explain government positions, engage stakeholders and present the administration’s perspective on national issues. His approach has generally emphasised patience, understanding and the long-term objectives of government programmes.

Beyond his current office, Shettima’s experience as Governor of Borno State remains an important part of his public record. He governed during one of the most challenging periods in Nigeria’s recent history, when the Boko Haram insurgency created serious security and humanitarian difficulties.

Leading Borno State during that period required resilience, crisis management skills and the ability to work with security agencies, traditional institutions, humanitarian organisations and development partners. His administration operated under extraordinary circumstances while attempting to sustain government services and support affected communities.

That experience contributed to his understanding of security management, humanitarian challenges and the relationship between peace, stability and development.

His political journey also reflects experience across different levels of governance. Before becoming Vice President, he served in the Senate, where he participated in national legislative processes and gained further exposure to federal governance. His experience as a former governor, legislator and Vice President has shaped his understanding of Nigeria’s political and administrative environment.

Observers have also highlighted his relationship with his successor in Borno State as an example of political transition without public disagreement. In Nigeria’s political environment, where transitions between elected officials can sometimes lead to conflicts, peaceful succession and institutional continuity are often regarded as positive developments.

The Vice President’s relationship with Northern stakeholders has also formed part of discussions around his political relevance. Through engagements with traditional institutions, business communities, professional groups and other stakeholders, he has remained one of the administration’s prominent voices in explaining government policies and national priorities.

The North remains an important component of Nigeria’s political landscape, and leaders from the region have historically played significant roles in national affairs. Shettima’s experience and political network have contributed to his visibility in national conversations.

However, the question of a presidential ticket involves broader considerations beyond the performance of an individual office holder. Political parties must consider issues such as national spread, electoral strategy, changing alliances, public sentiment and the overall objectives of the party.

Different perspectives will naturally emerge as Nigeria moves closer to 2027. Some may emphasise continuity and the value of retaining an established partnership, while others may advocate different approaches based on evolving political circumstances. Such debates are part of the democratic process.

Ultimately, the decision on the composition of the presidential ticket will rest with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the leadership of the All Progressives Congress. Their decision will reflect political consultations, strategic considerations and their assessment of what best serves their objectives and the country.

Nevertheless, public discussion remains important because democracy is strengthened when citizens assess leaders based on performance, responsibility and contributions to national development.

A successful administration depends not only on policies but also on teamwork among those entrusted with implementing them. Stability, trust and institutional experience are valuable assets in governance, particularly in a country as complex and diverse as Nigeria.

Whether continuity is ultimately preferred or a different path is chosen, the debate underscores an enduring principle: democratic leadership is strengthened when decisions are informed by performance, experience, constitutional responsibility and the public interest. As Nigeria looks ahead to 2027, the experience, service and contributions of Kashim Shettima will remain central to any serious assessment of the choices before the nation.

About the Writer

Baba Dantiye, MON, mni, FNGE, is a former Commissioner for Information and Internal Affairs, Kano State and former President of the Nigerian Guild of Editors (2003–2008)

Continue Reading

Trending