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.

#

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

President Tinubu’s Visit to Katsina: A Missed Opportunity Wrapped in Songs and Handshakes

Published

on

Jamilu Abdussalam Hajaj

 

By Jamilu Abdussalam Hajaj

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s visit to Katsina should have been a pivotal moment—an opportunity for the state to draw national attention to its pressing challenges, developmental milestones, and future aspirations. Unfortunately, what should have been a strategic communication moment for the state turned into a viral distraction.

From the streets of Katsina to the corners of social media, two things dominated the narrative: a campaign-style song from singer Rarara and a casual handshake between the President and Aisha Humaira. These moments, while lighthearted and culturally expressive, overshadowed the very essence of a presidential visit—governance, development, and accountability.

It raises a critical question: Was the state’s PR machinery asleep, or was the leadership not interested in framing the visit within a narrative that could catalyze national interest, policy focus, or even investment in Katsina?

In a time when states are competing for federal attention, donor support, and private capital, optics matter. Yet, in Katsina, a sitting governor was cheering a singer on and clapping joyfully to impress the President. A presidential visit is not just a ceremonial tour; it is a platform. It’s the time to walk the President through pressing realities— insecurity in rural areas, the economic potential in agriculture, the struggles with education, the underfunded health sector, the resilience of the people, and the efforts already underway to tackle these issues.

#

Instead, the silence around these important issues was deafening.

No strategic documentaries. No impactful speeches. No high-level stakeholder engagements positioned in the media. No community interactions that could inspire federal interventions. Not even a strong visual presentation of the state’s development agenda.

Governance is not just about doing the work; it’s about telling the story. And in that regard, Katsina missed the moment.

This visit should have been used to showcase the hard work of the administration (if there is any to show), to call for more support where needed, and to galvanize public interest and empathy. But when all that trends from a presidential visit are a song and a handshake, it’s safe to say the moment was poorly managed or, worse, completely misunderstood.

Moving forward, states must take public relations seriously—not for propaganda, but for perception, engagement, and strategic positioning. Because if you don’t control the narrative, someone else will. And often, they will focus on the trivial and mundane parts, not the transformational.

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

EFCC Probe on Refineries: Transparency or Political Witch-Hunt

Published

on

 

By Aminu Umar

The recent move by Nigeria’s anti-corruption agency, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), to probe the handling of finances and contracts related to the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries has stirred a heated debate on whether the investigation represents a genuine drive for transparency or a politically motivated witch-hunt.

At the heart of the issue is the EFCC’s request for salary records and allowances of 14 key officials who served during the refinery rehabilitation period. These include high-ranking executives such as Abubakar Yar’Adua, Mele Kyari, Isiaka Abdulrazak, Umar Ajiya, Dikko Ahmed, Ibrahim Onoja, Ademoye Jelili, and Mustapha Sugungun.

Others listed are Kayode Adetokunbo, Efiok Akpan, Babatunde Bakare, Jimoh Olasunkanmi, Bello Kankaya, and Desmond Inyama. The commission appears focused on payments and administrative decisions linked to the multi-billion naira refinery resuscitation program.

However, conspicuously absent from the list of those summoned is Adedapo Segun, the current Chief Financial Officer (CFO) of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL), who served as Executive Vice President for Downstream and was directly in charge of treasury, refinery operations, shipping, and trading. During this time, all payments related to the Port Harcourt and Warri refineries were made under his financial supervision.

#

This omission has raised several questions: Why is Segun not being invited or questioned if the goal is transparency? Why is the probe appearing selective?

Equally puzzling is the inclusion of Abubakar Yar’Adua, whose role is administrative rather than operational, while high-profile former Group Managing Directors (GMDs) such as Andrew Yakubu, and Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, who played central roles in refinery policy and contracts in previous administrations, appear to have been bypassed.

We are not saying Mele Kyari is innocent or guilty, but we must insist on a fair process,” a stakeholder familiar with the situation told this reporter. “This shouldn’t be a selective trial. The people who gave out the contracts and approved the funds must be investigated too.”

The tension is heightened by growing concerns that the probe is targeted at individuals from a specific region. Many observers fear this could deepen regional mistrust, especially if only northern executives are made scapegoats.

We are worried this is being used to paint Northerners as the only looters,” said one source. “You cannot fight corruption with bias. You need to look at all sides. This includes those who were ‘exonerated’ too quickly.”

Another burning question is why individuals such as Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu, former Minister of State for Petroleum, and Andrew Yakubu, former GMD of NNPC, who had strategic influence on contract awards and rehabilitation policies, are not facing any scrutiny. Critics argue that anyone involved at any stage of the refinery rehabilitation—whether from policy, finance, or operational perspectives—should be equally held accountable.

Civil society groups and international anti-corruption bodies are now being urged to step in. The call is for an independent and thorough probe that includes all relevant stakeholders—without exception.

“We are calling on NGOs and international organisations to ensure that this is not a political trial. If you must clean up the refinery system, you must do it across the board,” the statement concluded.

In a country plagued by decades of failed refinery operations and opaque oil sector dealings, the public is watching this investigation closely. The EFCC is at a crossroads: its actions will either affirm its commitment to justice or expose it to accusations of being used as a tool for political vendettas.

For now, Nigerians wait—with growing skepticism.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Censoring the Uncensored: The irony behind Hisbah’s ban on Hamisu Breaker’s song

Published

on

 

By Ummi Muhammad Hassan

Following the ban by Hisbah on a new song titled “Amana Ta” by Hamisu Breaker, social media went into an uproar, capturing the attention of the public.

In the early hours of April 24, 2025, social media was filled with reactions following a press statement issued by the Deputy Commander of the Hisbah Board, Kano State chapter, Dr. Khadija Sagir, announcing the ban of Breaker’s new song. The reason cited was that the song allegedly contains obscene language.

This announcement, however, triggered a counterreaction from the public. Many became curious to know more about the song and the so-called obscene content, with some taking to their social media handles to express their opinions.

The irony of the situation is that Hisbah unintentionally gave the song more prominence, causing it to go viral. Many people who were previously unaware of the song searched for and listened to it, just to understand the controversy.

#

In my opinion, after listening to the song, it contains no obscene language. Rather, the issue seems to lie with some young women who mimed the song in a suggestive manner after hearing that Hisbah had labelled it as indecent—as though to dramatize or reinforce the claim. Some even appeared as if they were intoxicated.

To me, this is both devastating and concerning, as it reflects the erosion of the strong moral standards once upheld by Hausa women. Many young people are now making videos lip-synching the song in indecent ways. It made me pause and ask myself: where has our shyness gone? I believe this question deserves a deeper conversation on another day.

In Breaker’s case, thanks to the Hisbah ban, he became the most trending Kannywood artist in April, and his song went viral—and continues to trend.

A similar incident occurred earlier this year when the federal government banned Idris Abdulkareem’s song *Tell Your Papa*. That action unexpectedly brought the artist back into the spotlight, causing the song to trend widely.

Social media has made censorship increasingly difficult. Once a movie, text, or song reaches the internet, it becomes almost impossible to control—even by the creators themselves.

While social media censorship remains a challenge, this recent incident highlights the need for the government to intensify efforts against the spread of indecent content—through Hisbah and agencies like the Kano State Film Censorship Board.

Clear guidelines should be put in place, requiring artists and filmmakers to submit their content for review and approval before public release. This, among other strategies, could help reduce the spread of inappropriate material.

Additionally, Hisbah should be more mindful of how such announcements are made, as they may inadvertently promote the very content they seek to suppress.

Ummi Muhammad Hassan, Ph.D., is a lecturer in the Department of Mass Communication at Bayero University, Kano. She can be reached via email at: ummeemuhammadhassan@gmail.com.

Continue Reading

Trending