Opinion

Farooq Kperogi: The 18-year-old age limit for school certificate

Published

2 years ago

August 31, 2024

Farooq Kperogi

Farooq Kperogi: The 18-year-old age limit for school certificate

The directive by education minister Professor Tahir Mamman to the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) and the National Examinations Council to not register candidates who are below 18 for next year’s school certificate examinations is generating knee-jerk resistance from people who are obviously nescient of the psychology and philosophy behind age benchmarks in education.

In most countries of the world, children don’t start primary school until they are 6, and young adults don’t start university until they are 18. That used to be true in Nigeria, too—until parents chose to skirt the law, upend time-tested tradition, and commit mass child abuse in the name of fast-tracking the education their children.

In fact, contrary to what the Nigerian news media has been reporting, Professor Mamman has not created a new law; he is only implementing the existing law. He hasn’t “banned” under-18 students from taking school certificate exams; he has merely chosen to enforce an extant law, which has been serially violated by overeager parents who want their children to get ahead by any means.

The 1982 education policy, also called the 6:3:3:4 system, requires that children should be at least 5 years old to start pre-primary school and at least 6 years old to start primary school. If a 6-year-old spends 6 years in primary school, 3 years in junior secondary school, and another 3 years in secondary school, they would be 18 by the time they graduate from secondary school.

This is the global standard. In the United States, students apply to enter universities between the ages of 18 and 19 (because if you don’t turn 6 in September of the year you want to start First Grade, you have to wait until next year). In Finland, Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, South Africa, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, etc. it is 18.

The age benchmark isn’t arbitrary. It is based on time-honored insights from developmental psychology and educational research, which examined the cognitive, social, and emotional developments of children.

READ ALSO:

For example, Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development tell us that around age 6, children transition from what is called the preoperational stage to the concrete operational stage, at which point they begin to develop logical thinking, which is essential for learning the structured curriculum of primary school education, such as reading, writing, and mathematics.

Research also shows that children develop the social skills needed to interact with peers and teachers in a school environment and the attention span necessary to learn, absorb information, and stay engaged at 6, and that children who start school too early struggle with these skills, which can lead to long-term challenges in academic and social areas.

That was why the late Professor Aliu Babatunde Fafunwa was famous for saying any education of children before the age of 5 is a waste of time and even child abuse. From ages 1 through 5, children should be allowed to be children: sleep, play, laugh, and grow.

Of course, I recognize that because most mothers now work, enrolling children in schools earlier than is ideal is a necessity. But the busy schedule of parents is no excuse to buck science, ignore the requirements of a well-integrated childhood, and contribute to the mass production of maladjusted adults.

Similarly, research in developmental psychology shows that by age 18, most teenagers have reached a level of emotional and social maturity that enables them to live independently, make decisions, and handle the challenges of university life.

Neuroscientific research also shows that the brain continues to develop well into the early twenties, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and planning. By age 18, the brain has typically matured enough to handle the complex cognitive demands of higher education.

Plus, in many countries, including in Nigeria, 18 is the age of legal adulthood, which aligns with the transition to university. This legal framework supports the idea that students are ready to take on the responsibilities associated with higher education, such as managing their own time, finances, and education.

Of course, as with everything, there are always exceptions. Precocious children can and do skip grades and start university earlier than 18 even in the United States and elsewhere. There are exceptionally gifted children who graduate from university as early as 11. But such students undergo rigorous tests to determine that they have intelligence that is far ahead of normal developmental schedules. They are also few and far between.

That’s not the situation in Nigeria. Just like our bad national habit of always wanting to jump the queue—what Americans call cut in line—Nigerian parents have, over the years, developed impatience for the normal development schedules of their children and want them to get ahead against the evidence of science, common sense, and even the law of the land.

READ ALSO:

It is not because their children are exceptional. In fact, they are often mediocre. For example, my brother’s son, who is only 14 years old and with average intelligence, registered to take his WAEC exam this year. I told my brother that was inexcusable child abuse.

Nigeria has a bad reputation across the world for sending underage children not just to domestic universities but also to foreign universities. People who work at the International Student and Scholar Services at the university where I am a professor have asked me multiple times why only Nigeria sends underage students here.

The consensus is that such students often lack maturity, have difficulty engaging in adult conversations, and struggle to fit in and get the best of the opportunities they have.

Several Nigerians who teach at other U.S. universities share the same stories. As I pointed out earlier, here in the United States, like in most other countries of the world, students don’t begin their undergraduate education until they are 18, which also happens to be the age of consent. A student who is under 18, by law, can’t attend several extra-curricular activities undergraduates typically take part in.

They need waivers signed by their parents to participate in certain activities, but since their parents are often in Nigeria, they pose logistical nightmares for universities.

For example, in the United States, by law, you can’t sign a lease agreement (to rent an apartment) if you are not at least 18 years old. Many underage Nigerian undergraduates at my school require an adult to co-sign for them. Since their parents are in Nigeria, the burden often falls on Nigerian professors and staff, who are understandably reluctant to co-sign leases of underage strangers who could break their agreements and put us in legal jeopardy.

Dating is also a treacherous legal minefield for the American classmates of underage Nigerian undergraduates in American universities. Having intimate relationship with anyone who is under 18 is statutory rape, even if it is consensual. I am aware of the story of a 17-year-old second-year Nigerian undergraduate girl who had a disagreement with her boyfriend who was from another African country.

Neighbors called the police to intervene. When the police asked for their ID cards, they discovered that the Nigerian girl was underaged. It led to the imprisonment—and later deportation— of the man for statutory rape even when their relationship was consensual. Stories like this are not unique.

Unless someone is exceptionally gifted, which should be proved conclusively with special tests, they should not start university earlier than 18. Fortunately, that is already the law, which is informed by the consensus of research findings in developmental psychology, neuroscience, and social research. Professor Mamman has only signaled his readiness to apply the law. He has my full support.

I read that the National Parent Teacher Association of Nigeria (NAPTAN) said they would sue the federal government for indicating readiness to implement a law that has been in the books for more than 40 years. Good luck with that!

Farooq Kperogi: The 18-year-old age limit for school certificate

Related Topics:age limit school certificate

Up Next

Mystery of Dangote Refinery in Nigerian oil politics – Farooq Kperogi

Don't Miss

Tinubu: Overfed father of starving children, By Farooq Kperogi

Opinion

2027: Tinubu May Get Less Than 10% of Northern Votes — Ard

Published

1 day ago

September 7, 2026

Hamdalat Bisiriyu

2027: Tinubu May Get Less Than 10% of Northern Votes — Ard

President Bola Tinubu could suffer a dramatic collapse in his Northern support in the 2027 presidential election, securing less than 10 per cent of votes from the region if the poll is free and credible, Convener of the League of Northern Democrats and key promoter of the All-Democratic Alliance (ADA), Dr Umar Ardo, has predicted.

Ardo made the prediction on Monday in an interview on Frontline, a current affairs programme on Eagle 102.5 FM, Ilese-Ijebu, Ogun State, arguing that the outcome would largely reflect how Northern voters assess the Tinubu administration’s performance.

He identified insecurity, worsening poverty, economic hardship and the rising cost of living as major issues likely to influence voting decisions in the region.

According to him, the persistent insecurity affecting communities, farmers, traders and businesses remains one of the administration’s biggest challenges.

READ ALSO:

“You can solve the issue of insecurity and insurgency in one year,” he said, insisting that the Federal Government could significantly reduce the crisis with the right strategy and sufficient political will.

Ardo also faulted the administration’s economic reforms, particularly the removal of fuel subsidy, questioning whether ordinary Nigerians had experienced corresponding benefits.

“Subsidy removal, is it a benefit?” he asked, arguing that the reforms had eroded purchasing power and made basic necessities increasingly unaffordable.

He said the impact had been particularly severe in Northern Nigeria, where a large proportion of the population is economically vulnerable.

“The economic reform has pushed from the state of poverty to destitution,” he said.

The political commentator also raised concerns about political representation under the Tinubu administration, arguing that the composition of government could shape public perception of its commitment to different regions.

Ardo said Northern voters should not be assumed to be permanently aligned with the voting pattern recorded in 2023, stressing that prevailing economic and security conditions would determine their choices in 2027.

“If a free, fair and credible election is conducted in Nigeria, Tinubu can’t get 10 percent of the Northern part,” he declared.

His prediction puts the spotlight on the opposition’s capacity to exploit any erosion of Tinubu’s Northern support, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other opposition figures potentially positioned to benefit from any major electoral realignment.

2027: Tinubu May Get Less Than 10% of Northern Votes — Ard

Opinion

Beyond the Ballot: Shaping a Bar That Works for All

Published

1 week ago

August 30, 2026

Trends Admin

Beyond the Ballot: Shaping a Bar That Works for All

By Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye, SAN

The inaugural address of Mrs. Oyinkansola Badejo-Okusanya, SAN, titled “From the Call to the Cause,” marks a historic turning point for the legal community as she officially assumes office as the 33rd President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) as she wa sworn in by her predecessor, Afam Osigwe, SAN, at the High Court complex in Port Harcourt, Rivers State.

Her leadership, the hiccup of her emergence notwithstanding, represents a historic milestone as the first woman elected to the NBA presidency through a competitive, though highly disputed, national ballot. Her address presents a powerful vision for a “bolder Bar” that actively confronts internal fractures, deep professional disconnects, and economic vulnerabilities. Central to her message is the core understanding that an association tasked with safeguarding judicial independence and speaking truth to power cannot effectively fulfill its national mandate if it remains internally fragmented. By focusing on the professional survival of young lawyers and vowing to act decisively against public misconduct, Badejo-Okusanya highlights an urgent reality: institutional strength requires collective solidarity and institutional determination. Fostering lasting unity within the NBA under this administration demands a deliberate shift from performative governance to deeply institutionalized, structural changes that build bridges across classes, factions, generations, and geographical divides.

To bring the NBA together, the new administration must incorporate proactive mechanisms for post-election reconciliation directly into its governance framework. The leadership must deliberately distance itself from divisive rhetoric and provocative nuances. The competitive nature of Bar elections often leaves behind lingering bitter factions that can stunt long-term cooperation and slow down progressive policies. By building an “olive branch” initiative that integrates runner-up contestants and their core campaign stakeholders into strategic national committees, the leadership can transform former rivals into active co-creators of the Bar’s future. Indeed this strategy which I dubbed the Abraham Lincoln strategy remains an eternal clincher.

Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 presidential election and famously appointed his chief Republican nomination rivals to key cabinet positions. Lincoln believed the country faced extreme peril during the crisis leading into the Civil War l. He wanted the most capable and influential leaders in his administration regardless of past personal competition. He valued robust debate over agreement, using differing viewpoints to make better decisions. This inclusivity must simultaneously bridge the widening economic and generational gap between senior practitioners and younger advocates. Enforcing standardized minimum remuneration and welfare requirements across all local branches will help reduce the economic alienation felt by younger members. To make this sustainable, the administration should establish joint mentorship hubs where senior legal practitioners collaborate with tech-savvy young lawyers on modern areas of practice, such as artificial intelligence, data privacy, and digital commerce, turning a generational divide into a symbiotic avenue for mutual professional empowerment.

True unity also requires restoring civil digital discourse through a comprehensive Digital Ethics Enforcement framework, fulfilling the President’s explicit warning against the breakdown of professional etiquette on social media. The profession has lost some vast mileage due to the digital posture of some members. To achieve this, the NBA can look to established global precedents where foreign bar associations have successfully navigated the complexities of digital misconduct. For instance, the American Bar Association (ABA) successfully integrated technological expectations into its framework via the Ethics 20/20 Commission, explicitly modifying its Model Rules of Professional Conduct such as Rules 1.6 and 8.4 to govern online confidentiality, misleading public statements, and deceptive digital behaviour. Similarly, the Law Society of England and Wales updated its practice note and compliance frameworks to penalize offensive online remarks, reinforcing that comments made by a lawyer in a personal capacity can still be actively disciplined as professional misconduct if public trust is damaged. By adopting a similar structure, the NBA can expand its own Rules of Professional Conduct into a clear code for online behaviour, utilizing its network of regional Ethics and Disciplinary Committees to monitor digital spaces and safely review flagged misconduct via secure portals.

Backing this framework with public disciplinary actions and a tiered system of sanctions will allow the NBA to decisively penalize cyberbullying, transitioning professional disputes into mediated internal forums rather than chaotic public platforms. This digital accountability should be reinforced by introducing mandatory continuing legal education (CLE) modules in digital etiquette, ensuring that practitioners maintain technological and behavioral competence.

Immediately, the NBA must dismantle the persistent perception that it is a “Lagos-Abuja centric” organization. Actively decentralizing national activities, rotating National Executive Council (NEC) meetings across various geopolitical zones, and providing direct financial and technical resources to smaller, rural branches will make every lawyer feel valued regardless of geography. Ultimately, by integrating these targeted, practical strategies and internationally proven ethical standards into the foundational ideals of her inaugural address, the administration can successfully unite its members and establish a cohesive, resilient front capable of defending the rule of law across Nigeria.

The new administration must pursue a deliberate policy towards attracting many docile members back into its fold.
If the new administration must know, the opaque electoral processes that had dogged the association in recent history has adversely affected the morale of a significant number but silent members of the Association. Chief Yomi Alliyu graphically stated the disturbing position when he posited in an opinion piece that: “The NBA has been hijacked by political lawyers to the disaffection of real practitioners of law. “Elections from 2016 or so vide e-voting had been manipulated to favour members of this class.”

The new administration must therefore consciously pursue reconciliatory steps that rein in all members. As at now, the silent class war must end for NBA to achieve its full potential.

I was sorely tempted to headline this peice: Nigerian Bar Association: the road to Kigali. I refrained because I still saw a silver lining which this new administration can latch on to save the NBA from itself!

The “road to Kigali” serves as a grim warning about the risk of total institutional fracture, polarization, and potential irrelevance. If proactive steps are not taken to unify and reform the body, it faces the danger of fracturing into competing, ethnicized, or regionalized professional factions, effectively ending the era of a single, unified voice for the Nigerian Bar.

The 1992 Port Harcourt Conference Crisis, was a definitive moment that brought the NBA to the brink of permanent destruction. Today, unless we play the ostrich, the cries of war are abroad but the present leadership could etch their names in gold if the NBA is consciously, deliberately and clinically steered from self implosion. Their job is cut out for them.Failure to seize the moment may end up placing us all on the road to Kigali.

Asiwaju Kunle Kalejaye SAN
Eagle102.5 FM Ilese-Ijebu

Opinion

Why Atiku’s subsidy gambit rattles Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

3 weeks ago

August 22, 2026

Trends Admin

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based professor of journalism.

Farooq Kperogi

Why Atiku’s subsidy gambit rattles Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Atiku Abubakar may finally have discovered the issue that can draw political blood from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. And I am enjoying seeing the president and his inner circle squirm in discomfort like cats stranded on a hot zinc roof.

On Thursday, barely a day after official campaigns began for the 2027 presidential election, Atiku pledged to restore petrol subsidies if Nigerians elect him president. That pledge, more than anything he has done lately to dislodge Tinubu, is the clearest signal yet that he is prepared to wrest power from the president.

Before now, Atiku expended money, time and energy excavating Tinubu’s past, much of which Nigerians already know. Tinubu’s 1993 civil forfeiture of $460,000 to the US government in a case that grew out of a heroin-trafficking investigation has been public knowledge for years. It was Sahara Reporters that first reported it on September 15, 2008. Fresh FBI or DEA papers are unlikely to suddenly alter electoral attitudes.

The Chicago State University expedition was even less politically useful. Tinubu genuinely attended and graduated from CSU in 1979. Caleb Westberg, the university’s registrar, said so under oath. He agreed that the photocopy Tinubu submitted to INEC did not look like the 1979 samples shown to him, but CSU’s diploma templates changed over the years and the BBC found that Tinubu’s copy resembled replacement diplomas from the 1990s. Westberg also said the missing portion of the university logo could have been cut off during photocopying because American diplomas are unusually large and aren’t intended to be photocopied.

In America, diplomas are largely ceremonial documents that people frame and hang on walls. Transcripts are the official records routinely used to verify attendance and graduation. Atiku’s legal expedition ironically helped establish that Tinubu has a CSU transcript and graduated with honors.

The BBC Global Disinformation Team found no evidence for the claim that Tinubu forged the CSU diploma he submitted to INEC. The report, in fact, won “Fact-Check of the Year by a Working Journalist” at the 2024 African Fact-Checking Awards in Accra. In other words, Atiku spent enormous political energy helping to settle a question whose answer was electorally barren.

Tinubu understood this and mostly ignored the attacks. More importantly, Atiku offered little policy distance from Tinubu on the economic question that has tormented Nigerians since May 2023. He had promised during the last election to remove petrol subsidies within his first 100 days in office. On the most consequential economic policy of the Tinubu presidency, Atiku was traveling on the same ideological road.

READ ALSO:

That changed this week. Atiku asked the question millions of Nigerians have been asking: where is the money supposedly saved from subsidy removal? He then promised a new subsidy structure that would privilege locally refined petrol, give qualifying Nigerian refineries crude at preferential prices, impose a fixed annual spending ceiling, trace subsidized crude to actual domestic production and punish diversion. His formulation is that “the subsidy will follow the barrel.”

That is a more serious proposal than the Presidency’s caricature of it. And Tinubu suddenly found his voice. He personally dismissed Atiku’s pledge as a demonstration of “serious ignorance” of governance and the economy. Atiku’s previous assaults on Tinubu’s character produced studied presidential indifference. But his challenge to the economic orthodoxy that has pauperized Nigerians produced presidential irritation. That means he struck a raw nerve.

If Atiku’s proposal demonstrates ignorance, what does Tinubu’s policy demonstrate? Any honest person knows the answer: cruelty. Between ignorance and cruelty, which is more benign? You be the judge.

The anti-subsidy theology that Tinubu and his neoliberal choristers recite has always rested on a false premise. Subsidy simply means government assistance. Every functional society subsidizes something its people need for survival and economic productivity. Governments subsidize food, agriculture, housing, healthcare, transportation or energy according to the peculiarities of their societies.

For Nigeria, petrol occupies a uniquely central place because it doubles as an infrastructural substitute. People buy petrol because public electricity is unreliable. Small businesses generate their own power. Goods move mostly by road. Workers commute in vehicles powered by fuel. Farmers, artisans, traders and manufacturers absorb fuel costs and pass them on through prices.

A petrol subsidy therefore travels through the economy. Its removal travels through the economy too, only in the opposite direction. It raises transportation costs, production costs, food prices and the cost of nearly everything that depends on movement or power.

READ ALSO:

I warned about this exactly one month before Tinubu was inaugurated. In my April 29, 2023 column titled “Six Agenda Items for Tinubu’s Success,” I warned that any policy that caused an arbitrary and unbearable increase in petrol prices without a corresponding improvement in incomes and living conditions would sink Tinubu. That warning was elementary commonsense.

The subsidy removal has since wreaked havoc on the economy, deepened poverty, killed businesses, murdered hope, hollowed out the middle class and democratized misery. Reuters now describes the aftermath of Tinubu’s reforms as the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation. Nearly 80 percent of Nigerians in a recent voter tracker said the country was headed in the wrong direction.

The government’s answer is always the same sterile, tired, intentionally dishonest incantation: temporary pains will yield permanent gains. But we have heard that sermon before.

Ibrahim Babangida’s Structural Adjustment Program came with the same vocabulary of sacrifice, deregulation, currency devaluation, subsidy withdrawal and deferred prosperity. Nigerians were told to endure pain today for abundance tomorrow. By the time Babangida left in 1993, manufacturing had been battered, purchasing power had collapsed and social misery had spread. The promised gains vanished into the ether.

Only living people can enjoy future gains. A government that starves people in installments cannot redeem itself with a hypothetical prosperity scheduled for an undefined tomorrow.

Tinubu’s most frequently advertised dividend of subsidy removal is that states now receive more money and can pay salaries and pensions. That is useful to salary earners, pensioners and the relatives who depend on them. Every Nigerian with a functioning brain cell knows that formal salary and pension earners constitute only a small fraction of Nigeria’s population. The wellbeing of state treasuries is a poor substitute for the wellbeing of the vast majority of citizens.

What kind of economic triumph makes governors more solvent while making citizens poorer? Government has improved the liquidity of public treasuries by draining the liquidity of household economies.

Atiku has finally opened a policy flank that Tinubu cannot wave away with moral insults, ethnic mobilization or tales of macroeconomic “reform.”

Nonetheless, Atiku’s conversion deserves scrutiny. He promised in 2023 to remove the same subsidy he now wants to restore in a redesigned form. I disagreed with him then. A politician who changes his mind after observing the destructive consequences of a policy can reasonably plead that evidence changed his assumptions. Nigerians also have abundant reasons to distrust politicians who discover compassion during campaigns.

They campaign in poetry and govern in prose. Tinubu, after all, told Nigerians during the 2023 campaign that if he failed to give them electricity and returned for a second term, they should not vote for him, although he inserted an escape clause about giving “adequate reasons” for failure. Muhammadu Buhari promised a paradise of security, prosperity and integrity before power exposed the hollowness of his promises.

Atiku therefore has work to do. He must keep explaining the cost of his subsidy plan, its funding source, its legal path under the Petroleum Industry Act, its anti-corruption safeguards and the mechanisms that will ensure cheaper energy reaches households and industries. He should put these commitments in language that can be measured and used against him if he wins.

In spite of my well-justified distrust of the promises of politicians, including Atiku who supervised a ruinous privation program when he was vice president, I can’t help but concede that this is the first truly useful political argument of the 2027 campaign.

Policy contrast is finally replacing pointless and unproductive character assassination. Nigerians already know that Tinubu has a morally complicated past, but they live every day with something more immediate: the extortionate price of food, transport, electricity, medicine and survival.

Atiku has finally moved the contest from Tinubu’s old files in America to Nigerian kitchens, markets, factories and motor parks. That is where Tinubu is most vulnerable. Tinubu can survive old scandals, but the mass hunger his “reforms” have created is a more formidable opponent than impotent darts thrown at his character.