There is a need for a clearer ideological direction, particularly regarding what education should be and the goals it should achieve for the nation. The government must not view itself as separate from the people it governs, and this principle should extend to the systems it creates, which must reflect that harmony; otherwise, it will continue to face critical challenges
THE parable of the stick and carrot exemplifies an approach that combines a reward system with punitive measures to encourage productivity and discipline. Sadly, in Nigeria’s educational system, only one leg of that approach is recognised. Punishment. Members of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) have been accused of exaggerating the benefits and rewards offered by the government. From the inception of ASUU, a metamorphosis of earlier unions, there has been mixed development that substantially affects the country’s tertiary educational system. Meanwhile, the Union has made several promises to strengthen the country’s education through its intervention and initiatives. These efforts have increasingly motivated neighboring countries to adopt similar approaches to ASUU, and many of them are now treading a better path in their educational engagements.
While a litany of deprecatory concerns and comments by individuals and groups remains about the activities of ASUU, the Union itself appears to overemphasise its importance, given that similar sister unions have reflected its agitations and concerns. However, the Union’s goals and concerns seem to differ from the general perspective against them, primarily because it has become the only reasonable voice that continues to challenge the political establishment and prompt them to take responsibility for tertiary education. One of ASUU’s most critical concerns is that tertiary education is linked to national development. In other words, the proportion of a country’s development across every stratum is inversely dependent on the quality of knowledge produced at its tertiary level of education. Therefore, a country must make efforts to develop and transform its human and intellectual resources into something substantial. However, a collision of interests has occurred, and this has had detrimental consequences for Nigeria’s education.
To be fair to ASUU and its leaders, particularly since the start of the 21st century, they have actively engaged with the Nigerian populace, especially in their response to politicians who prioritize other interests over education. Between 1999 and 2000, the Union was able to negotiate with the President Obasanjo administration, and that became the locus of their engagement in the long run. According to the documentation by the officers of the Union, only the Umar Musa Yar’Adua administration made conscious efforts to give ASUU the necessary attention. According to the reckoning of some of the Union’s leaders, the President invited them to deliberate on issues that border on the several concerns and agitations of the group.
At the center of ASUU’s concern is the argument that the Nigerian political leadership is poorly invested in research. It is believed that the country’s perspective on educational engagement reflects the government’s lackadaisical attitude towards education. It is a cringing irony that the Nigerian government, which does not invest significantly in education, especially at the tertiary level, seeks foreign investors from countries that have made substantial economic and technological progress due to their investment in their own educational sectors.
The ASUU leadership, along with well-meaning Nigerians, has consistently maintained that Nigeria should promote research that can lead to national development. They argue that if developed countries had not made substantial investments in research and education, they too would have remained underdeveloped and would now be seeking aid from nations that have made desirable progress. All these form the basis of ASUU’s protest and continued engagements. According to Professor Chris Piwuna, ASUU’s President, the Union will always serve as the voice of the country, especially since the country’s bright future is dependent on the meaningful investment made in education.
In all of these, there is a side to the strictures between the government and ASUU that must be carefully examined. Politics and scholarship are intertwined in an infernal circle of independent biases, where politics holds the upper hand because it occupies the most important place at the negotiation table. Every political figure who has held the most important office in the country has always tried to manipulate or take advantage of the ASUU-government relationship. They mostly do this through their ministers of education, who communicate the President’s decisions to the ASUU leadership. These ministers often approach the engagement from a peculiar perspective, one that seeks to absolve the government of any blame that the public might attribute.
If they succeed in doing this, it means that the Union’s leadership will face backlash from the populace, who have been programmed to see things from the government’s perspective. For instance, the recent outburst by the Minister of Education, stating that there was no official agreement between the government and ASUU in 2009, is intended to undermine the efforts made earlier and reduce the integrity of the Union, which would garner mixed emotions in the public space. Some people have already condemned the Union for their lack of insight, especially for not ensuring that the terms of the agreement were appropriately documented to avoid situations like the current one.
Notwithstanding, the input of academics in all of these cannot be overstated. Some scholars believe that the perennial problems that continue to fester between the government and ASUU leadership stem from inherited animosity. This is underscored by the country’s deeper issues with political identity. It seems that the country has yet to evolve to the point where leadership position is viewed as a unified one, where respective political leaders should act as a single, indivisible entity. To arrive at this point, to be candid, requires years of consciousness about the indivisibility of the country. Otherwise, each politician who comes into power will continue to represent the interests of the layers of political parties, ethnic identity, and religious beliefs. And if this happens, there will never be a coordinated relationship between their ideological stance and what is required in the country.
In the case of ASUU and the government, as seen recently, each successive government does not regard the agreements made by earlier ones as something they have a moral duty to uphold. Meanwhile, governments that also enter into agreements with ASUU and other necessary groups are often inconsiderate of their successors when they make purely political decisions that do not reflect their economic and sociopolitical realities. All these factors contribute to the challenges faced by the country’s educational system.
There is a need for a clearer ideological direction, particularly regarding what education should be and the goals it should achieve for the nation. The government must not view itself as separate from the people it governs, and this principle should extend to the systems it creates, which must reflect that harmony; otherwise, it will continue to face critical challenges. While we acknowledge that funding issues persist in Nigeria’s educational system, it is also true that underlying systemic problems have long plagued the country. We cannot solve ASUU-related issues with the same mindset that created them in the first place.
- This is a reflection on the interview held with the President of ASUU on November 9, 2025.