Connect with us

Opinion

Education,ASUU And The Globalist Agenda (I)

Published

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…..)

Opinion

Beyond Politics: How the Kano State Government Is Turning Federal Partnership Into Tangible Economic Gains for Ordinary Citizens

Published

on

 

Ibrahim Abdullahi Waiya

When Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf made the bold and courageous decision to align Kano State with the Federal Government under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the critics were loud, the cynics were louder, and the doubters were everywhere. They called it political betrayal. They called it opportunism. Some called it the ultimate act of ingratitude toward a man who had invested years, resources, and political capital in building the career of the Kano governor. What they failed to see, or perhaps refused to acknowledge, was the singular and unwavering motivation behind that decision: the welfare of the ordinary men and women of Kano State, the market trader in Kurmi, the widowed mother in Dawakin Tofa, the unemployed graduate in Gwale, and the small business owner struggling to keep his shop open in Farm Centre.
In less than a year of active federal alignment, Kano State has gone from being a politically isolated outlier to becoming one of the most strategically positioned states in the entire federation. Federal presence, federal investment, and federal goodwill are flowing into Kano with a consistency and velocity that was simply impossible under the previous arrangement, where governance was dictated not by the needs of the people, but by the personal wishes of a political godfather seated comfortably in Abuja. For too long, Kano, a state that by every measure of population, commerce, history, and strategic importance deserves to sit at the very centre of Nigeria’s development conversation, was standing at the margins, watching other states benefit from federal partnerships while its own people paid the price of political stubbornness.
The clearest and most visible evidence of this transformation is the forthcoming flag off of the Energise Commercialisation Now initiative, a landmark federal programme spearheaded by the Federal Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology under the Honourable Minister, Dr. Kingsley Tochukwu Udeh, SAN, scheduled to hold in Kano from April 23 to 25, 2026. The programme, designed to mobilise innovation, attract investment, and accelerate industrial production across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones, has chosen Kano as the venue for its national launch and North West zonal deployment. That choice is not accidental. It is not logistical. It is a deliberate federal acknowledgement of Kano’s strategic importance as the commercial and industrial heartbeat of Northern Nigeria, and a direct reward for Governor Yusuf’s visionary and courageous leadership.
The Energise Commercialisation Now initiative represents a structured national platform to identify commercially viable innovations, connect them with investors and manufacturers, and scale them into enterprises that create jobs and generate wealth. For a state like Kano, with its rich history of commerce, its dense network of small and medium enterprises, its vibrant informal economy, and its large population of young, talented, and ambitious people, this programme is not merely a federal event passing through. It is a genuine economic opportunity of generational significance.
More significantly, the programme will be flagged off by no less a personality than Her Excellency Senator Oluremi Tinubu, CON, the First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the personal champion of the ECoN initiative. Her presence in Kano is a statement of the highest order. In Nigerian political culture, when the First Lady travels to a state to commission a programme, it is not a routine governmental act. It is a personal signal from the Presidency itself. It is Aso Rock saying, in the clearest possible terms, that Kano is seen, Kano is valued, Kano is a priority, and Kano will not be left behind in Nigeria’s march toward industrial and economic transformation.
For Governor Yusuf, whose critics questioned whether his alignment with the APC and the Tinubu administration would translate into anything concrete for his people, Senator Oluremi Tinubu’s visit to Kano on April 23 is the most powerful possible answer. It says that the partnership is real, the commitment is genuine, and the dividends are already arriving.
But beyond the symbolism and the political significance, what does all of this mean for the ordinary Kano citizen?
It means that the innovator in Fagge, the young entrepreneur in Tarauni, the female small business owner in Nasarawa, and the graduate sitting at home in Ungogo and all other localities in Kano now have a real, structured, and government-backed platform to showcase their ideas, access funding, connect with investors, and build enterprises that can employ others. It means that Kano’s universities, polytechnics, and research institutions, which for years have produced brilliant graduates and groundbreaking research that never left the laboratory, will now have a direct pipeline to the market. It means that the textile artisan in Kofar Mata, the leather craftsman in Yan Kaba, and the food processing entrepreneur in Dorayi can look at this programme and see themselves as legitimate participants in Nigeria’s industrial future.
This is precisely the promise of Governor Yusuf’s Kano First Agenda, an agenda that places the prosperity of Kano people above every political consideration, above every personal loyalty, and above every partisan calculation. When the governor stood before his people and declared that Kano would come first in every decision his administration makes, he was not making a campaign promise. He was entering into a sacred covenant with millions of people who had entrusted him with the highest office in the state.
Every decision his administration has taken since then, including the historic and difficult decision to align with the centre, has been guided by that covenant. The governor has consistently and publicly maintained that he answers to the people of Kano, not to any individual, not to any movement, and not to any political structure whose primary interest is the perpetuation of personal power rather than the advancement of public good. Kano State, he insists, is no longer remotely controlled. The elected chief executive is fully in charge, and fully accountable to the people alone.
The results of this philosophy are not abstract. They are measurable, verifiable, and visible to anyone willing to look beyond the noise of political controversy.
A N1.477 trillion budget for 2026, the largest in Kano’s history, with 68 percent allocated to capital projects. Over N334 million disbursed to 6,680 women across all 44 local government areas of the state, each receiving a monthly stipend of N50,000 to grow their businesses and support their families. More than N800 million invested in youth empowerment programmes benefiting over 5,300 young people. Kano ranking first in Nigeria’s 2025 NECO results, a historic educational achievement that signals a transformation in the state’s human capital investment. A health sector receiving N212.2 billion, with hospitals upgraded, the Abba Care Scheme launched, and healthcare access expanded across the state. An infrastructure allocation of N346.2 billion, covering urban roads, solar streetlights, housing development, and market renovation across all 44 local government areas.
These are not political talking points. These are not figures conjured for a press conference. These are the measurable, auditable, and undeniable fruits of purposeful, people-centred governance under a leader who understands that the ultimate test of political courage is not the decision itself, but what that decision delivers to the people it was made for.
As Kano prepares to host the First Lady of Nigeria and welcome the nation’s attention on April 23, one truth stands clear, unambiguous, and beyond reasonable dispute: Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf did not align with the centre for himself. He did not do it for political survival. He did not do it for personal gain. He did it for Kano. He did it for the market trader, the young graduate, the nursing mother, the struggling entrepreneur, and every ordinary citizen who deserves a government that fights for them at every level of power.

Advert

Continue Reading

Opinion

The Abuja-Kano Synergy: A New Dawn of Innovation

Published

on

 

By Mohammed Babagana Abubakar Kano State Coordinator, The Unifier Project April 19, 2026

In the long and complicated history of Nigerian federalism, the relationship between the federal centre and the states has rarely been described as synergistic. It has been described as extractive, as patronising, as politically transactional, and as structurally unequal. States have too often found themselves on the receiving end of a development architecture that took their resources, ignored their priorities, and returned a fraction of their value in the form of federal allocations that barely covered recurrent expenditure. The idea that a state and the federal government could operate as genuine partners, each bringing its own strengths to a shared developmental vision, each amplifying the capacity of the other, has remained, for most of Nigeria’s post-independence history, more aspiration than reality.
What is happening in Kano in April 2026 is different. And it deserves to be understood as such.
Nigeria’s innovation crisis is not a crisis of ideas. It is a crisis of translation. Walk through the corridors of Bayero University Kano, Kano University of Science and Technology Wudil, or Northwest University Kano, and you will find researchers who have spent years, sometimes decades, developing technologies, agricultural innovations, and industrial processes with genuine commercial potential. Ask them how many of those innovations have reached the market, created jobs, or generated revenue for their inventors, and the answer, almost universally, is the same: very few.
The Federal Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology estimates that a substantial proportion of Nigeria’s research and development outputs remain permanently within academic environments, never translated into commercially viable products, industries, or exportable enterprises. This is not a uniquely Nigerian problem. But in a country of 220 million people, with the largest economy in Africa, the largest population of young people on the continent, and a natural resource base of extraordinary diversity and depth, the cost of that translation failure is measured not just in lost economic opportunity but in lost human potential, in the graduate who cannot find work, in the innovator who cannot find capital, and in the entrepreneur who cannot find markets.
The Energise Commercialisation Now initiative, designed and led by the Federal Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology under the Honourable Minister Dr. Kingsley Tochukwu Udeh, SAN, and championed personally by Her Excellency Senator Oluremi Tinubu, CON, First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is the Federal Government’s most direct and structured answer to that translation failure. And on April 23, 2026, Kano becomes the national stage on which that answer is first delivered.
What distinguishes ECoN from the long line of federal innovation initiatives that have preceded it is the specificity and coherence of its implementation architecture. This is not a programme that announces ambitious goals and leaves the machinery of delivery undefined. It is a programme with a structured Innovation Commercialisation Pipeline, a National Innovation Asset Register, a sub-national resource mapping framework, dedicated IP advisory sessions, standards and quality clinics, deal rooms, industry matchmaking sessions, and a direct pipeline to international trade platforms including the Intra-African Trade Fair scheduled for 2027.
Each of these components addresses a specific and well-documented failure point in Nigeria’s innovation ecosystem. The sub-national resource mapping framework addresses the chronic disconnect between local assets and national industrial strategy, a disconnect that has allowed Nigeria’s 774 local government areas to sit on enormous concentrations of agricultural wealth, mineral endowments, skilled human capital, and indigenous technology without any systematic mechanism for connecting those assets to the investors, manufacturers, and market intermediaries that could convert them into productive enterprise.
The National Innovation Asset Register addresses the invisibility problem, the fact that Nigeria’s innovators have historically operated without the legal, institutional, and commercial visibility required to attract serious investment. An innovation that has not been documented, evaluated, and registered within a credible national framework is an innovation that exists, for all practical purposes, outside the economy. The register changes that.
The IP advisory sessions address the protection problem. For Kano’s craftsmen, whose leather goods, textile patterns, and agricultural processing techniques represent intellectual property of genuine commercial value, the absence of structured IP protection has meant that their innovations have been replicated and commercialised by others, often in other countries, without any benefit flowing back to the original creators. The ECoN framework, by integrating IP advisory directly into its programme structure, treats intellectual property not as a legal technicality but as an economic asset that the state has a responsibility to protect.
The choice of Kano as the national launch venue for ECoN is not an act of federal charity. It is an act of strategic intelligence. Kano brings to this partnership an economic inheritance and a current governance momentum that few Nigerian states can match.
Historically, Kano’s Kurmi Market, one of the oldest trading centres in West Africa, served as the terminal point of trans-Saharan trade routes connecting sub-Saharan Africa to North Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Its leather industry, anchored on the Kofar Mata dye pits that have operated continuously for over 500 years, represents a living tradition of artisanal innovation that predates the Nigerian state by centuries. Its textile sector, its groundnut processing industry, and its dense network of small and medium enterprises across 44 local government areas represent a commercial culture of extraordinary depth and resilience.
In the present, Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s administration has invested with remarkable consistency in building the enabling environment that innovation-driven industrialisation requires. The state’s 2026 budget of N1.477 trillion, the largest in Kano’s history, allocates N405.3 billion to education, N346.2 billion to infrastructure, and N212.2 billion to health. Kano ranked first in Nigeria’s 2025 NECO results, a historic educational achievement underpinned by the recruitment of 400 Mathematics teachers, mass classroom renovations, free basic education, and the establishment of Kano State Polytechnic in Gaya. Over N334 million has been disbursed to 6,680 women entrepreneurs across all 44 local government areas, and more than N800 million has been invested in youth empowerment programmes benefiting over 5,300 young people. These are not background statistics. They are the active ingredients of a state that is ready to receive, deploy, and maximise a federal innovation programme of ECoN’s ambition and scope.
It would be intellectually incomplete to discuss the Abuja-Kano synergy without examining the political decision that created it. Governor Yusuf’s alignment with the Federal Government under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not universally welcomed. In a political environment as emotionally charged as Kano’s, where loyalty to the Kwankwasiyya movement had defined political identity for over a decade, the decision to break ranks and chart an independent developmental course attracted fierce criticism and deeply personal accusations of betrayal.
The governor has been consistent and unapologetic in his response. His decision, he has maintained, was not driven by personal ambition or political survival. It was driven by a simple and non-negotiable conviction: that Kano’s 20 million people cannot afford the luxury of principled opposition when principled partnership offers them hospitals, schools, jobs, and industrial investment that opposition cannot deliver.
The ECoN national launch in Kano, coming within months of that alignment, validates that conviction in the most visible and public way possible. A state that was, until recently, watching federal programmes pass it by is now hosting the national inauguration of the Federal Government’s most ambitious innovation initiative, with the First Lady of Nigeria personally in attendance. That is not a coincidence. That is the developmental logic of political alignment producing exactly the outcomes that Governor Yusuf promised his people it would produce.
The ultimate measure of the Abuja-Kano synergy is not the quality of the speeches delivered on April 23, or the size of the crowd at the event, or the number of dignitaries on the high table. It is what happens in Kano’s markets, workshops, factories, and farms in the months and years that follow.
It is whether the leather craftsman in Yan Kaba, whose family has practiced its trade for four generations, can access the IP protection, the quality certification, and the international market connections that will allow him to sell directly to buyers in Milan and Dubai rather than through intermediaries who capture the majority of the value. It is whether the agricultural processor in Gezawa, who has developed an innovative technique for extending the shelf life of groundnut products, can access the standards clinic, the financing, and the industry matchmaking that will allow her to scale from a local operation into an export-ready enterprise. It is whether the engineering graduate from Bayero University, who has spent three years developing a solar-powered water purification system in his family’s backyard, can stand in a deal room on April 24 and walk out with an investment commitment that turns his prototype into a product.
These are the outcomes that the Abuja-Kano synergy must ultimately deliver. They are the outcomes that Governor Yusuf’s Kano First Agenda is designed to support. And they are the outcomes that the Energise Commercialisation Now initiative, if implemented with the discipline, transparency, and follow-through that the moment demands, is structurally equipped to produce.
Kano has been many things in its long and storied history. A commercial crossroads. A centre of Islamic scholarship. A manufacturing hub. A political battleground. A city that has known greatness and felt its erosion with a particular kind of pain that only great cities can feel.
On April 23, 2026, Kano begins a new chapter. Not with the fanfare of a political rally, not with the hollow promises of a campaign season, but with the structured, federal-backed, internationally engaged, and data-driven architecture of an innovation commercialisation programme that treats Kano’s people not as voters to be courted but as producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, and economic actors to be empowered.

Advert

The Abuja-Kano synergy is real. Its foundations are solid. Its timing is right. And its potential, for the people of Kano and for the broader project of Nigerian economic transformation, is nothing short of historic.

Kano is ready. The partnership is in place. And the work, the real, lasting, generational work of converting innovation into industry and potential into prosperity, begins now.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Kano at the Heart of Nigeria’s Innovation Revolution: Why Sub-National Resource Mapping Matters Now

Published

on

Kano state Map of Nigeria

 

By Najeeb Nasir Ibrahim DG, Unifier Project 19 April 2026

There is a moment in the life of every great city when history and opportunity arrive at the same address, at the same time, and demand an answer. For Kano, that moment is April 23, 2026. On that day, Her Excellency Senator Oluremi Tinubu, CON, First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, will stand in the commercial heartbeat of Northern Nigeria to flag off the Energise Commercialisation Now initiative, a federal programme that carries within it the most ambitious and consequential blueprint for decentralised industrial transformation that this country has attempted in a generation.
For decades, Nigeria’s development architecture has been built on a fundamentally flawed assumption: that economic transformation can be designed, directed, and delivered exclusively from the federal centre. The result of that assumption is visible in every part of the country. Universities full of brilliant graduates producing research that never leaves the laboratory. Agricultural communities harvesting commodities that travel hundreds of kilometres to be processed elsewhere, returning as finished goods at prices that bear no relationship to the value that local hands created. Industrial estates, once productive and purposeful, standing as monuments to the gap between policy intention and economic reality.
Nigeria is not a poor country. It is a country that has consistently failed to convert its wealth into wellbeing, its potential into production, and its knowledge into commercial power. The distance between what Nigeria has and what Nigeria does with what it has is the central economic problem of our time. And the answer to that problem, as the Energise Commercialisation Now initiative correctly identifies, does not lie in Abuja alone. It lies in Kano, in Kaduna, in Sokoto, in Kebbi, in Jigawa, in Katsina, and in Zamfara. It lies in the 774 local government areas of this federation, where the real economic activity of 220 million people actually happens.
The concept of sub-national economic and resource mapping sits at the intellectual core of the ECoN initiative, and it deserves a more precise explanation than it typically receives in policy documents and press releases.
Resource mapping, in this context, is not simply a geological survey or an agricultural inventory. It is a comprehensive strategic framework designed to identify, organise, and connect every category of productive asset within a state or local government area, including indigenous technologies developed in informal workshops, academic research sitting unpublished in university repositories, skilled human capital that has never been matched to an appropriate industry, natural endowments that have never been processed beyond their raw state, and entrepreneurial energy that has never been channelled into structured enterprise.
The goal is to create what the Federal Ministry of Innovation, Science and Technology describes as a National Innovation Asset Register, an integrated, living database that maps local strengths against national industrial priorities and identifies the specific interventions, whether financing, technology transfer, standards certification, or market access, required to convert each asset from potential into production.
For a state like Kano, whose economic assets span ancient leather craft traditions, a dense network of small and medium enterprises across 44 local government areas, three major universities conducting active research, a N1.477 trillion state budget with 68 percent allocated to capital projects, and an agricultural hinterland producing groundnuts, sorghum, millet, and cowpea across millions of hectares, the creation of such a register is not an administrative exercise. It is an economic revolution in its earliest and most critical stage.
Kano does not come to this conversation as a passive participant or a grateful recipient of federal attention. It comes as a city with a 500-year commercial pedigree, a proven capacity for enterprise, and a state government that has already been doing the foundational work that makes innovation-driven industrialisation possible.
Consider the evidence. Under Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s administration, Kano ranked first in Nigeria’s 2025 NECO results, a milestone that signals a transformation in the quality of human capital the state is producing for its economy. The administration has recruited 400 Mathematics teachers, established Kano State Polytechnic in Gaya to expand technical and vocational education in the state’s southern corridor, and invested N405.3 billion in education within its 2026 budget alone. It has planted over 5.5 million trees under its Climate Change Policy, approved 11 mini-dams to support year-round agricultural production, and procured 199,000 bags of fertiliser for distribution to farmers. It has cleared N32 billion in pension backlogs, trained 2,000 Neighbourhood Watch operatives for community security, and disbursed over N334 million directly to 6,680 women entrepreneurs across all 44 local government areas.
These are not disconnected welfare gestures. They are the deliberate construction of an enabling environment for exactly the kind of innovation-driven industrialisation that ECoN is designed to accelerate. A sub-national resource mapping exercise arriving in a state with functional schools, improved security, empowered women entrepreneurs, and a government committed to agricultural productivity is a mapping exercise that will find real assets, not empty promises.
One of the most economically consequential arguments embedded in the ECoN framework is its emphasis on regional value addition, and it is an argument that Kano’s history makes more powerfully than any policy document can.
For generations, the economic tragedy of Northern Nigeria has been the export of raw materials and the import of finished goods. Kano’s groundnut farmers have watched their harvest leave the state as unprocessed commodity and return as refined oil at prices that enrich processors elsewhere. Its leather craftsmen have seen raw hides travel to tanneries in other cities and come back as finished goods that command international prices the original producers never see. Its cotton farmers have supplied raw fibre to textile mills that, when they were still operating, captured the majority of the value chain’s economic benefit.
The ECoN framework’s insistence on processing and manufacturing at the source represents a direct challenge to that extractive economic model. By connecting Kano’s raw material producers with the technologies, the financing, and the market linkages required to process their outputs locally, the programme creates the conditions for a fundamental redistribution of economic value within the North West. More jobs created locally. More revenue retained within the state. More enterprises built around Kano’s natural and agricultural endowments. More young people employed in productive industries rather than idle in urban centres.
The ripple effects of that redistribution, sustained over a period of years, are the difference between a city that hosts commerce and a city that drives it.
The ECoN initiative’s ambition does not stop at the borders of the North West. One of its explicitly stated objectives is to prepare Nigerian innovators, startups, and SMEs for international trade platforms, including the Intra-African Trade Fair scheduled for 2027. That objective places Kano’s entrepreneurs, quite literally, on a pathway to continental and global markets.
The African Continental Free Trade Area, which came into force in 2021 and represents a combined market of 1.3 billion people and a GDP of approximately three trillion dollars, remains, for most Nigerian SMEs, an abstract aspiration rather than a practical opportunity. The gap between aspiration and opportunity is filled by exactly the kind of structured support that ECoN provides: standards certification, intellectual property protection, export readiness training, investment facilitation, and access to the institutional networks that make international trade possible for enterprises that would otherwise navigate it alone.
For Kano, whose merchants have been trading across international boundaries for five centuries, the prospect of reconnecting that commercial tradition to a structured, government-backed, and internationally recognised framework for African trade is not merely exciting. It is historically resonant.
It would be intellectually dishonest to discuss Kano’s hosting of the ECoN national launch without acknowledging the political context that made it possible. Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s decision to align Kano State with the Federal Government under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was, and remains, a subject of vigorous political debate. But beneath the political noise lies a developmental logic that this moment validates with striking clarity.
A state in productive alignment with the federal centre is a state that can nominate its priority innovations for national programmes, mobilise its stakeholders for federal platforms, host engagements that connect its entrepreneurs to national and international investors, and position its industrial clusters for the federal attention and investment that can reverse decades of decline. That is precisely what Kano is doing on April 23. And the people who will benefit most from it are not politicians. They are the innovator in Fagge, the female entrepreneur in Nasarawa, the agricultural processor in Gezawa, and the young graduate in Ungogo who has spent years waiting for a structured opportunity to match his talent.
What Kano is demonstrating, through the hosting of this initiative, is something that every state government in Nigeria needs to study and internalise: that the future of Nigeria’s prosperity is not a centralised project. It is a distributed one. It is built state by state, local government by local government, enterprise by enterprise, and innovation by innovation. The federal government can provide the framework, the financing, and the convening power. But the actual work of converting Nigeria’s extraordinary natural and human endowments into commercial and industrial wealth must happen at the sub-national level, driven by state governments with the vision, the capacity, and the political will to lead.
Kano has that vision. It has demonstrated that capacity. And under Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, it is exercising that political will with a consistency and a purposefulness that is already producing measurable results.
Nigeria’s innovation revolution will not be won in a single federal ministry or announced in a single presidential executive order. It will be won in the markets of Kano, the workshops of Aba, the farms of Benue, the fishing communities of Bayelsa, and the technology hubs of Lagos. It will be won by the collective energy of a nation that has finally, through initiatives like ECoN, begun to recognise and systematically harness the extraordinary economic intelligence embedded within its states and local communities.
Kano’s moment is here. And if properly harnessed, with the state government’s commitment to enabling infrastructure, human capital investment, and federal partnership providing the foundation, this moment will not be remembered merely as a successful event. It will be remembered as the day Kano reclaimed its place at the centre of Nigeria’s economic story, and began writing the next chapter with the confidence, the competence, and the conviction that the chapter deserves.

Advert

Continue Reading

Trending