Opinion

How opposition Tinubu would treat President Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Published

3 months ago

April 4, 2026

Farooq Kperogi

How opposition Tinubu would treat President Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

You may resent Bola Ahmed Tinubu, but you can’t deny that he has earned his place in Nigerian political history as one of the, if not the, most consequential opposition figures in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic. He constructed a carefully planned political and rhetorical template to oppose central governments effectively and then converted the symbolic capital he gained into a path to the presidency.

By May 29, Tinubu will mark his third year as president. He is beset by the same constraints his predecessors faced and is reacting to opponents almost exactly as they did, perhaps with even more viciousness and guile.

But the opposition seems to be in the wilderness. It is flustered, incoherent, spineless, and in strategic disarray. It would do well to study how an opposition Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu would have confronted an increasingly tyrannical and devious President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

If Bola Ahmed Tinubu were in opposition today, watching a president preside over widening and deepening oceans of blood and rising insecurity, constrict the space for alternative parties, intensify economic hardship and offer only perfunctory condolence optics amid horrendous mass slaughters, he would launch a sustained, strategic, organized, merciless and unsparing regime of critical engagement using every available medium. We know this because we have a record of him doing precisely that.

My recollection of his key moves as an opposition politician aren’t intended to be exhaustive. They are merely representative.

In March 2013, for instance, in remarks widely reported at the time, Tinubu said that if President Goodluck Jonathan could not guarantee security, he should “honorably resign.” By November 2014, his tone had hardened. According to TheCable, Tinubu said that in any serious country Jonathan would have resigned over the scale of insecurity in the country.

In the same 2014, he accused Jonathan’s government of “failure, lack of capacity, vision and creativity” and of misleading Nigerians about the true state of security.

READ ALSO:

That is the vocabulary Tinubu reaches for when he is not in power. He did not treat insecurity as a complicated policy arena deserving of cautious language. He treated it as evidence of unfitness for office.

An aggregation of all his statements about the insecurity that pervaded the country when Jonathan was in government (which has become worse on his watch) amounted to this: insecurity equals loss of legitimacy. That was one of his most potent rhetorical blitzkriegs against Jonathan, which traveled beyond the shores of Nigeria.

The same pattern holds for economic distress. On January 11, 2012, in an article published by PM News, Tinubu attacked Jonathan’s removal of fuel subsidy, dubbing it the “Jonathan tax.” He said the policy breached the social contract between the rulers and the ruled, described it as a punitive imposition on the poor and, crucially, urged Nigerians to resist it.

He wrote that citizens had a duty to “peacefully demonstrate and record their opposition.” That line matters. It shows that Tinubu, in opposition, does not merely diagnose hardship. He authorizes not just rhetorical dissent but physical rebellion against it.

Following his exhortation, there were disabling, convulsive and fatal nationwide protests and strikes. Tinubu aligned himself with that mood. He did not urge patience. He gave moral and political cover to resistance. Some even said he funded the protests, called “Occupy Nigeria,” in which at least 12 people died. It ultimately forced Jonathan to reverse the withdrawal of subsidies, which Tinubu is now implementing with more soullessness than Jonathan ever did.

He also does not leave resistance unorganized. On February 6, 2013, opposition parties merged into what became the All Progressives Congress. Tinubu was one of the principal architects of that coalition. The merger’s stated aim was to end corruption, insecurity and economic stagnation. It was a calculated attempt to convert grievance into power. Tinubu did not wait for electoral cycles to do their work. He engineered an alternative.

When he believed the Jonathan administration was using institutions against the opposition, he said so without equivocation. In January 2014, during the Rivers State political crisis, Tinubu described the disruption of opposition activity as “a frontal assault against democracy” and even a “coup against democracy.” In November 2014, after the chaos at the National Assembly, he again held Jonathan responsible. He saw pattern, not accident, and he said it plainly.

READ ALSO:

He went further. In October 2014, when Jonathan sought legislative approval for a $1 billion loan to fight Boko Haram, Tinubu opposed it. He argued that the funds could be used for political purposes rather than security. In other words, he was willing to recast even security spending as partisan maneuvering. That instinct has not been erased by time.

Now bring this record forward.

On April 2, 2026, President Tinubu met victims of the Plateau killings at the airport rather than visiting affected communities, with the presidency citing time and logistical constraints. Strip away the explanations and look at it from the vantage point of opposition Tinubu. This is the sort of image he historically converts into a political weapon. He would not defend it. He would amplify it as proof of cold detachment and deadly incompetence.

In fact, the seemingly intractable and worsening sanguinary communal upheavals that are spreading all over the country and the rising mass abductions for ransom that seem to be unabating would have constituted more than sufficient grounds for opposition Tinubu to delegitimize the presidency of President Tinubu.

There is also the matter of political space. Tinubu’s own rise was made possible by the constellation of opposition forces. The 2013 merger was a deliberate construction of an alternative to an incumbent he portrayed as incompetent and anti-democratic. If he were outside power today and perceived any effort, real or imagined, to frustrate the emergence of rival parties, such as we are seeing with the ADC, he would not respond with restraint. His record from 2013 to 2015 shows a readiness to build countervailing structures and to accuse incumbents of undermining democracy.

In early 2013 when there were credible fears that INEC might block or frustrate the registration of the new opposition merger that became the APC, including the controversy over a rival party using the same acronym, Tinubu framed any attempt to deny registration as authoritarian sabotage of democracy by the president.

Tinubu’s stance as opposition was confrontational and absolutist. When he was outside power, he interpreted procedural or institutional resistance in maximalist terms as existential threats to democracy, not routine political or legal friction.

And he routinely blamed it on the sneaky wiles of the president, not the institutions that were responsible for the actions he railed against. Opposition Tinubu would have put the blame for INEC’s withdrawal of recognition of the David Mark-led leadership of the ADC squarely on President Tinubu’s desk and would have called it Tinubu’s fascist, cowardly, fear-inspired strangulation of a rival, oppositional political space.

What emerges from this is not a series of isolated reactions but a coherent oppositional method. Tinubu indicts insecurity as presidential failure, frames economic pain as betrayal, promotes and legitimizes physical public resistance, works to consolidate opposition power and heaps all blames for the misfortunes of the opposition on the president. He combined rhetoric with organization. He did not do half measures.

Tinubu in opposition would not recognize the defenses now offered on behalf of Tinubu in power. He would reject them, loudly and repeatedly, and he would mobilize against them.

Criticism of Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the grounds that his NADECO-era allies or Southwest loyalists no longer protest policies they had consistently condemned misses a basic truth about power. People rarely mobilize against themselves, their benefactors or the networks that sustain them. Expecting otherwise is naïve.

The more useful lesson is not to lament their silence but to study Tinubu’s own playbook when he stood outside power. He exemplified disciplined opposition, coalition building, strategic messaging and relentless pursuit of institutional leverage. Those outside the orbit of power should stop waiting for insiders to revolt and instead organize to displace them. Power is not donated; it is taken. Tinubu has proved that.

How opposition Tinubu would treat President Tinubu, By Farooq Kperogi

Kperogi is a renowned columnist and United States-based Professor of Journalism.

Opinion

Nobody needs NYSC reform – Reuben Abati

Published

1 day ago

July 7, 2026

Trends Admin

Nobody needs NYSC reform – Reuben Abati

Peter F. Drucker, the Austrian-American management guru (1909 -2005), it was who opined that change is an inevitable constant in human situations and that innovation is important in the 21st Century where skills become obsolete at the speed of light and what was deemed essential yesterday sooner or later becomes irrelevant, requiring new thinking, new styles, new modes to remain relevant and to gain new knowledge. But the proposed plan by the Federal Government of Nigeria to reform the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) programme does not fit into this pattern. It is a classic case of majoring in the minors, a misplaced priority, a wasteful adventure whose long-term subliminal objective may be mere self-enrichment that would not change much but rather cause unwanted confusion.

The Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration has advertised itself as a reform-minded administration. But certain reforms do not come across as a priority, and this NYSC reform is one such thoughtless proposition, like, if we may cite an earlier example, the decision to revert to the old Nigerian national anthem. I watch people at public events, they sing along most reluctantly because there was no consensus, nor has there been any buy-in, that Nigeria needed to change its National Anthem. It is important that policies are not enacted or revised simply to satisfy the personal fancy or the whims of anyone, no matter how highly placed. In the case of the NYSC, nobody was consulted. We woke up one morning only to be told by the minister of state for youth development, Ayodele Olawande, that a decision had been taken to reform the NYSC programme. Nobody needs NYSC reform.

The NYSC is 53 years old. Established in May 1973 by the Yakubu Gowon military administration, it was a post-civil war measure in pursuit of the objectives of the three Rs: reconciliation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction, to reintegrate Nigerians and reunite them and heal the wounds of the civil war. The fratricidal war divided Nigeria and watered the seeds of ethnicity and difference.

Over 50 years later, the wounds are yet to heal. The NYSC was an attempt at reconciliation. It started with the posting of graduates of tertiary institutions to cities and states far away from their homes and places of graduation, to allow them to live among other people, get to understand Nigeria and learn to serve Nigeria selflessly. The emphasis was on service. When the late sage Chinua Achebe wrote that “there was once a country”, the NYSC was part of that effort at the making and remaking of Nigeria. It is the case that when the country began to fail on all fronts in terms of security, institutional integrity, and increased ethnic and religious division, a group of Nigerians began to agitate that the NYSC was no longer serving its purpose and it should be scrapped.

READ ALSO:

Except that the problem is not with the scheme but the Nigerian factor: the inbred tendency by those in charge to minimise every good thing and ruin it. It is instructive that the Tinubu administration is not contemplating an abandonment of the scheme. Apart from the fact that this would be a disservice to the father of the NYSC, General Yakubu Gowon, who is still alive, it would amount to an unconscionable erosion of a significant aspect of collective public memory. Those who participated in the scheme in the earlier days have fond memories.

On Saturday, during a radio programme, Professor Seun Omotayo, a professor of sports psychology, currently based in Ghana, recalled that when he completed his undergraduate studies at the University of Ibadan, he was posted for National Service in Ogun state. He was not happy that he was being sent to his home state. He personally went to the NYSC office in Lagos and asked to be posted to the northern part of Nigeria. I doubt if anyone would request such a change of posting these days. On Sunday, I had a conversation on the NYSC with Emeritus Professor Duro Oni of the University of Lagos, in the course of which he held the view that the NYSC remains relevant to Nigeria’s growth and development. The NYSC gave him his wife. He met her when she came to participate in the scheme in Lagos. Today, the woman from Ogoja in Cross River state has given him four sons and six grandchildren. “I probably would never have met her if there was no NYSC.”

There are many Nigerians who have a similar experience: inter-ethnic marriages being one of the gains of the NYSC. Those who would probably never have left their hometowns discovered Nigeria through the eyes and experiences of other Nigerians and communities. Life-long friendships have been formed over the years. I know Shedrack Akolokwu from Omoku-Ogba in Rivers state, for example. I was a young secondary student when he came to serve Nigeria in Abeokuta, Ogun state. He was so much a part of the community. He and I have remained in touch over the years. The last time I saw him in Port Harcourt, he was asking after everybody in the neighbourhood, mentioning each person’s name as if he had left Abeokuta yesterday, and it has been over 45 years since he participated in the NYSC.

My service year was spent in Benin City, old Bendel state. A few years ago, I found myself in Benin. I quickly asked the driver to take me to the compound where I lived. I also went to the department where I was a graduate assistant at the University of Benin, reliving old memories. I find it shocking, therefore, that one of the reforms being proposed by the Tinubu administration is that corps members may not be posted to conflict areas where insecurity may be a challenge, to ensure safety and reduce the anxiety of parents. Only indigenes of those areas or graduates of schools in such locations would be sent there. This defeats the fundamental objective of the NYSC: to promote unity and open up Nigeria to its young persons. And who the hell came up with the twisted logic that graduates and indigenes from conflict zones are better off in those zones? Every life is important. No Nigerian, whether a graduate or not, should be exposed to danger. It is the duty of the government to address the challenge of insecurity and make every part of Nigeria safe for all.

READ ALSO:

Minister Olawande also said the NYSC uniform will be changed, although a final decision on this has not yet been taken. But the government is considering Ankara or the adire batik fabric. The idea is to promote locally made fabrics and support the Nigerian textile industry. I dare say that there is nothing wrong with the current NYSC uniform. The khaki fabric and the vest are more durable than either Ankara or adire that would start fading or get torn within a short while. The proposal is also likely to evoke ethnic comparisons and sentiments. Adire batik is largely produced in the south-western part of the country, made for the most part in Ogun, Osun and Kwara states. It may be dismissed as an opportunity to create business for only one part of the country. Igbos are likely to demand that the Isiagu should also become part of the NYSC uniform. Northerners are likely to ask for babanriga in the spirit of federal character. Other ethnic nationalities may also make a case for their own local attire. Nobody needs such confusion. What can be done is to improve the quality of the present uniform. In our time, the khaki had better quality, the vest and the boots too, but these days, the uniform is so poorly made, its cheapness is unmistakable.

The orientation camp for the NYSC, we are told, will be extended from four to six weeks, and the deployment will be restructured based on choices and processes during the camp, as the new NYSC will offer 11 specialised streams ranging from agriculture, education, technology and digital, healthcare, infrastructure, public service, legal, paramilitary and security, the economy, to enterprise. Corps members will be required to choose any of these streams, where within six weeks they can be trained in entrepreneurial skills and prepared for the job market. We are missing the point. The NYSC orientation camp is not a training school. It is meant to be an experience. If the plan is to teach entrepreneurship, that should have been done at the university level. It is the college curriculum that needs to be reviewed, and entrepreneurship built into the various disciplines in order to ensure a proper alignment between scholarship and the labour market, for a purposeful school-to-work transition.

In its original design, the NYSC was meant to provide paramilitary training and inculcate the values of discipline and service. Indeed, there is nothing new about the six-week proposal. During the 1990/91 batch, corps members spent six weeks in camp and were even taught how to handle small arms and light weapons. But the military government soon abandoned the idea out of fear that the state may have unwittingly been training potential coup plotters. The so-called streams actually exist. In our time, corps members were assigned to specific responsibilities: persons who manned the kitchen prepared the meals and served others, some corps members served as Platoon commanders while everyone marched, we had press club, drama club, and it all worked out smoothly. Part of the reform is to place the NYSC under civilian leadership. Under the present arrangement, the director-general may be from the education corps of the Nigerian military, but at the state level, the NYSC secretariats are manned by civilians, and so changing the headship of the scheme will not make much difference as long as standards are maintained.

What the federal government needs to do is to make the NYSC experience richer and more exciting for those who participate in it. The monthly allowance for corps members should be increased, and feeding at the orientation camps should be improved. Scrap the monthly community development exercises. Ensure that the orientation camps are properly secured to eliminate the risk of bandits and terrorists attacking those camps to kidnap corps members. Corps members should be deployed to places of primary assignment relevant to their fields of study. There is no point in changing from a passing-out parade to a graduation ceremony. Will corps members now wear graduation gowns? That is not necessary. Will the proposed reforms modernise the NYSC? No. Will they improve employability? I don’t think so.

There are far more important and urgent issues that the federal government should be concerned about at this moment. One, the terribly embarrassing disclosure that a certain Prince Adeniyi Adeyemi Matthew set up a fake Presidential Agency – the Presidential Foreign Intervention Promotion Council (PFIPC) and Presidential Economic Advisory Council (PEAC) – which the Presidency now disclaims as a scam operation, and yet the said Prince had been operating openly – meeting with key government officials, receiving ambassadors in audience, and running an office at the Federal Secretariat that was duly allocated to him by the Office of the Sectary to the Government of the Federation. He has over 300 staff, including directors, who are all on the government payroll. His fake agency even got a N1.3 billion allocation in the 2026 Budget. He runs 39 bank accounts and even has accounts with the Central Bank of Nigeria. He has since been charged to court, and his matter comes up on July 27. The man is in no way apologetic. He says he has a letter of appointment and that he paid N600 million to the president’s chief of staff, Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila, to get appointed. Trouble started when his sponsor wanted a lion’s share of the budgetary allocation to his office. He says one Babatunde Tanimola facilitated his appointment, but now Tanimola died in a hotel room in Abuja just before he, Adeniyi, was arrested in November 2025. Indeed, who knows tomorrow?

What we know today is the spectacle before us: a spectacle of institutional failure, incompetence, collusion, corruption and the failure of due process. If it is possible to manufacture a non-existent government agency and operate openly and brazenly, then there are persons within the entire government machinery who must answer questions. A thorough investigation must be conducted to find out if there are other similar agencies in the Federal Capital Territory. Prince Adeniyi’s boldness is so shocking. He should have his day in court. He should be allowed to say all that he knows, and no attempt whatsoever should be made to intimidate him. It is wrong, as the police reportedly did yesterday, to arrest Adeniyi’s father in lieu. Police allegedly stormed his parents’ home in Ogbomoso and arrested his father and a family friend. It is illegal to do so. Criminal liability is personal. It is not transferable in light of Section 7 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015. The Nigerian Police, not knowing this, is scandalous.

The other urgent issue would be the observation by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that the Nigerian government has frittered away 2% of GDP (about N8.8 trillion) on off-budget spending. The prompt reaction from the Minister of Finance, Taiwo Oyedele, is to deny and insist that Nigeria does not have any ghost budget. This does not call for bluffing. The same government that introduced Executive Order 9 to ensure transparency and accountability in government finances should take allegations of hidden deficit, opaqueness and failure of oversight more seriously. Finally, it is about time Nigeria took South Africa to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on its request for compensation over xenophobia losses, the genocide in South Africa and that country’s institutionalisation of hatred. On the question of NYSC reform, it is in the best interest of the Nigerian government to listen to the people’s responses and retrace its steps forthwith.

Nobody needs NYSC reform – Reuben Abati

Opinion

Dr. Dayo Mobereola at NIMASA: Over two years of Reform, Stability, and the Road Ahead

Published

1 day ago

July 7, 2026

Trends Admin

Dr. Dayo Mobereola at NIMASA: Over two years of Reform, Stability, and the Road Ahead

By Kolawole Ojelabi

When Dr. Dayo Mobereola assumed office as the Director-General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA) in March 2024, expectations were high. With an extensive background in public sector administration, transport infrastructure, and institutional reforms, stakeholders anticipated a leadership that would reposition Nigeria’s maritime sector to support economic growth better. Dr. Mobereola was the first Managing Director of the Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (LAMATA), and while at LAMATA, he implemented most of the reforms in the public transport space that are today yielding lots of fruits.

More than two years into his administration, the agency has recorded progress in several key areas. The achievements recorded during this period have been driven not only by Dr. Mobereola’s administrative reforms but also by the strategic policy direction and unwavering support of His Excellency Adegboyega Oyetola, Minister of Marine and Blue Economy. Since the creation of the Ministry, Oyetola has provided the political leadership and international engagement necessary to reposition Nigeria’s maritime sector within the Federal Government’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

However, significant challenges remain, requiring sustained reforms if Nigeria is to harness the enormous potential of its blue economy fully.

The achievements recorded during this period have been driven not only by Dr. Mobereola’s administrative reforms but also by the strategic policy direction and unwavering support of His Excellency Adegboyega Oyetola, Minister of Marine and Blue Economy. Since the creation of the Ministry, Oyetola has provided the political leadership and international engagement necessary to reposition Nigeria’s maritime sector within the Federal Government’s Renewed Hope Agenda.

One of the notable achievements under Dr. Mobereola’s leadership has been the continued consolidation of maritime security gains. NIMASA has maintained collaboration with the Nigerian Navy and other security agencies in sustaining the Deep Blue Project, which has contributed to the reduction of piracy and armed robbery in Nigerian waters.

The improved security environment has enhanced Nigeria’s reputation within the Gulf of Guinea, encouraging greater confidence among international shipping companies and insurers.

The administration has adopted a more consultative approach with industry stakeholders. Shipowners, terminal operators, labour unions, maritime training institutions and government agencies have enjoyed increased engagement on policy matters. This dialogue has helped improve confidence in the agency and encouraged greater collaboration in addressing industry challenges.

READ ALSO:

In alignment with the Federal Government’s Renewed Hope Agenda and the creation of the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, NIMASA has increasingly positioned itself as a strategic driver of Nigeria’s blue economy.

The agency has continued to promote investment opportunities in shipping, fisheries, maritime transport, offshore services and marine environmental protection.

NIMASA has maintained support for the Nigerian Seafarers Development Programme (NSDP), while pursuing initiatives aimed at increasing the employability of Nigerian cadets.

Nevertheless, the long-standing challenge of securing mandatory sea-time training for graduates remains unresolved, limiting the country’s ability to produce internationally certified seafarers in sufficient numbers.

The agency has continued its statutory responsibilities in ship registration, flag-state and port-state inspections, marine pollution control and enforcement of international maritime conventions.

There have also been sustained efforts to strengthen Nigeria’s compliance with International Maritime Organization (IMO) standards through improved regulatory oversight, maritime safety initiatives, and institutional reforms. These efforts culminated in Nigeria’s successful election back into Category C of the IMO Council, a significant diplomatic and maritime achievement. The victory reflected the combined efforts of the Federal Government, with Minister of Marine and Blue Economy, His Excellency Adegboyega Oyetola, leading Nigeria’s diplomatic campaign and international engagements, while NIMASA, under Dr. Dayo Mobereola, provided the technical and regulatory foundation that reinforced the country’s credibility before the global maritime community. Despite these positive developments, several critical issues deserve greater focus.

There is a need to resolve the issues of thousands of Nigerian cadets unable to complete their certification because of insufficient sea-time opportunities.

NIMASA should work with indigenous shipowners, international shipping companies, and the Nigerian Navy to establish structured sea-time programmes. Incentives should also be introduced for vessels that provide cadet placements.

The decline of Nigerian-owned vessels continues to limit indigenous participation in international trade. The agency should accelerate reforms that promote fleet expansion, improve access to financing, and encourage local ship ownership.

A vexed issue is the implementation of the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund (CVFF). Perhaps no issue has generated more industry debate than the prolonged delay in disbursing the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund.

Incidentally, the agency a while ago opened its portal for qualified indigenous shipping to apply for the fund. Transparent implementation of the fund would certainly significantly strengthen indigenous shipping companies and create employment opportunities for Nigerian seafarers.

Further digitization of ship registration, licensing, certification, and regulatory processes would reduce bureaucracy, improve transparency, and enhance operational efficiency. Digital platforms should enable stakeholders to complete transactions seamlessly without unnecessary delays.

There is also a need for closer partnerships between NIMASA, maritime academies, and universities. This would improve curriculum relevance and align training with international standards.

Investment in simulators, research facilities, and modern equipment is equally important.

Beyond training, greater attention should be paid to the welfare, insurance, medical support, and career progression of Nigerian seafarers.

Implementation of the Maritime Labour Convention should remain a priority.

Climate change is increasingly influencing global shipping. NIMASA should continue promoting cleaner shipping practices, marine pollution control, ballast water management, and decarbonization initiatives consistent with IMO regulations.

Although port operations involve several government agencies, NIMASA can continue collaborating with the Nigerian Ports Authority, the Nigerian Customs Service, and other stakeholders to reduce vessel waiting time, eliminate operational bottlenecks, and improve Nigeria’s competitiveness.

At the time he took over at NIMASA, Dr. Dayo Mobereola inherited an agency operating within a maritime industry facing numerous structural challenges. His administration has demonstrated a commitment to institutional stability, stakeholder engagement, maritime security, and regulatory effectiveness. Working in close alignment with Minister Oyetola’s vision for the marine and blue economy, the agency has also helped restore confidence in Nigeria’s maritime governance. Their collaborative approach—combining ministerial policy leadership with institutional execution by NIMASA—has strengthened Nigeria’s standing among regional and global maritime stakeholders.

However, the true measure of success will depend on translating policy into measurable outcomes—particularly in indigenous fleet development, implementation of the Cabotage Vessel Financing Fund, creation of employment for Nigerian seafarers, digital transformation and strengthening Nigeria’s position as a leading maritime nation in Africa.

The opportunities within the blue economy are immense. With sustained reforms, stronger public-private partnerships and consistent policy implementation, NIMASA under Dr. Dayo Mobereola, working in tandem with the strategic leadership of His Excellency Adegboyega Oyetola, has the potential to play a transformative role in unlocking these opportunities. Nigeria’s return to the IMO Council demonstrates what coordinated political leadership and effective institutional execution can achieve. Building on that momentum will be critical to expanding indigenous shipping, creating jobs, attracting investment and positioning Nigeria as Africa’s leading maritime nation.

Dr. Dayo Mobereola at NIMASA: Over two years of Reform, Stability, and the Road Ahead

Kolawole Ojelabi, a developmental journalist and public commentator, writes from Lagos.

Opinion

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASUU-FGN 2025 AGREEMENT

Published

2 days ago

July 6, 2026

Trends Admin

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASUU-FGN 2025 AGREEMENT

Jeff Godwin Doki

It has become very necessary to clear some of the innumerable misconceptions surrounding the implementation of the ASUU-FGN Agreement which was signed on December, 23, 2025. Without doubt, this clarification shall be for the benefit of the General public, the Nigerian Media, Students, Parents and other stakeholders in the Education sector who have overtime been fed with all manner of untruths and a litany of lies by the Ministry of Education. Below is a true and honest account of the whole issue. Recall that the negotiation of this agreement lasted for eight good years punctuated essentially by many hiccups and false starts. But first, let us historicize this. The ASUU- FGN 2025 Agreement started in 2006 and stretched to 2009. In 2009, the FGN signed the agreement with ASUU made up of all Federal and State Universities. The Government team was headed by Chief Gamaliel Onosode while ASUU was represented by Dr. Abdullahi Sule who was later replaced by Prof.Ukachukwu Awuzie, himself a Professor from a State University in Nigeria. Over the years, ASUU made series of efforts to get the government to renegotiate this very agreement. The efforts of ASUU bore some kind of fruit in March, 2017 when the government constituted a committee to renegotiate the 2009 Agreement.

The first attempt was by the committee headed by Wale Babalakin which was botched and replaced by the committees by Jibril Munzali and Emeritus Prof. Nimi Briggs both of which produced agreed documents but, sadly, the Federal Government turned down the two draft agreements especially the one headed by Emeritus Prof. Nimi Briggs. At the end of the day, it was the Agreement submitted by the Alhaji Yayale Ahmed committee in February, 2025 that was renegotiated and signed in December 2025.

READ ALSO:

Then on January 14, 2026, the FGN decided to publicly unveil the agreement in Abuja with much mumbo-jumbo and fanfare that smacked of hypocrisy and deceit. As a matter of fact, some commentators called the unveiling ceremony a cynical and mischievous one. The question that such fanfare surrounding the unveiling of an agreement raises in such a timely fashion is straightforward: is this public show of patriotism not one of the whims and chicanery of the Education Minister? Why draw the attention of the entire world to the unveiling of an agreement between the Government and the University teachers? Has the signing of an agreement become some national victory? But more worrisome is the fact that after the whole shebang of that public show, the FGN did not find it necessary to match its words with action by inaugurating an Implementation Monitoring Committee (IMC) with the responsibility of ensuring that all the terms spelt out in the 2025 Agreement were implemented.

More disturbing is that the same FGN did not find it necessary to provide the solvent or cash-backing to University administrators to implement the Agreement and in a letter in the month of February, 2026, the Education Minister had requested University authorities to go ahead and pay the three major components of the Agreement namely: Consolidated Academic Tools Allowance (CATA), Earned Academic Allowance (EAA) and Professorial Allowance (PA) using their Internally Generated Revenue (IGR). It could be perceived that mischief and deceit were clearly at work here. The reasons trumped off for Government’s inability to implement the Agreement at that time was that the 2026 Budget was awaiting approval by the National Assembly. And what happened when the budget was eventually approved? Silence! No action!

When by May 2026, it became apparent that both the Federal and State Governments have not demonstrated serious and sincere commitment to implementing the Agreement, the National Executive Council of ASUU at its meeting held at the at Modibbo Adamawa University Yola, resolved to engage the Press by drawing the attention of the general public to the imminent crisis in the Nigerian universities should governments fail to urgently honor the Agreement. Perhaps, it was this Media option that compelled the Federal Government to release about 80 billion Naira to take care of the monetary component of the Agreement. The FGN also set up an Implementation Monitoring Committee saddled with the responsibility of developing an equitable formula for fund allocation among beneficiary institutions, in this case, both Federal and State Universities.

READ ALSO:

In all fairness, the Implementation Monitoring Committee (IMC) allocated the sum of Seventy -four billion six hundred and ten million naira (#74,610,000,000.00) to be shared to both Federal and States universities. The committee also identified a total of seventy -nine universities in Nigeria as eligible beneficiaries. Out of this number, forty-four are Federal universities and thirty-five State universities. But most importantly, Federal universities were allocated 70% of this sum amounting to fifty-one billion, eight hundred and forty two million seven hundred thousand naira (#51, 842,700,000,00), while State universities received 30% amounting to (#22,218,300.000.00).
Apart from states that have more than two or more universities (namely Kano, Ondo, Bayelsa,) each state university received a uniformed sum of six hundred and fifty three million, four hundred and seventy nine thousand four hundred and eleven naira seventy six kobo(#653,479,411.76).

Now to the point: many state governments are yet to commence the implementation of the Agreement. Some even claim that the Agreement was signed between the Federal Government and ASUU alone. Some outrightly deny that they were not aware of such an Agreement. But mark this: the Federal Government of Nigeria has, times without number, told Nigerian citizens that since the removal of fuel subsidy in 2023, gargantuan sums of money are being released on a monthly basis to all state Governors in the country and for that reason, state Governors have no excuse but to bring the much-needed development to the people and give them a better life and education. And from the figures quoted above it could be perceived that the Federal Government has released money to both Federal and state universities in Nigeria. Let us concede that in this regard, some state Governments namely: Bauchi, Benue, Ekiti, Osun, Ogun, and Sokoto States, deserve commendation for taking the lead to implement this agreement in their state universities. The obvious implication is that the Vice chancellors of these state universities have demonstrated abundantly that they are genuine and patriotic citizens concerned with the development of the education sector.
From the foregoing argument, it could be deduced that any State Governor or visitor who has not released money meant for the implementation of the ASUU-FGN Agreement is an unpatriotic nation-wrecker whose desire is to derail our country and, in fact, the entire Nigerian university system from its chosen path of orderly progress into renewed crisis and anarchy.

From the figures quoted above, one can say with considerable justification that the Federal Government of Nigeria has partly kept its own terms of the ASUU-FGN 2025 Agreement and it is left for visitors of state universities in Nigeria to simulate the example of the six other visitors of states universities cited above.
Lest we forget, Education, whether at the Federal or State levels, remains a basic human right as outlined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights, article 28 of the Convention on the rights of the child and article 11 of the African charter of the rights and welfare of the child. All these Conventions emphasize the need for the state to provide free and compulsory basic education.

READ ALSO:

Another challenge in the higher education sector is the incessant establishment of universities in Nigeria. We find ourselves in a situation where universities are established not for pragmatic reasons but just to score some cheap pollical points. As a matter of fact, the idea of the university as the ‘ivory tower’ has been completely eroded in Nigeria and we fear that one day every Nigerian Senator shall have a university located at his very backyard. Just look at this: Nigeria hosts 312 universities (77 federal, 67 state, and 168 private). By contrast, the United Kingdom, a nation with a far stronger economy and a firm commitment to educational quality, has approximately 163 universities. South Africa, the continent’s most developed economy, has only 26 public universities. Kenya has 64 universities (37 public and 27 private). And this explains why foreign universities are considered among the best in global university rankings. Is it surprising that many Nigerian students flock to foreign universities to acquire higher education? Here again, the National Universities Commission (NUC), has played a quisling role.

It seems clear that the Commission lacks the capacity to effectively perform its role as a regulatory body saddled with the responsibility of enhancing quality in the university system. Rather, the Commission encourages the establishment of private universities charging extortionate fees which are not commiserate to the services offered and which are essentially profit-driven. ASUU’s demand for a review of the laws governing the NUC and JAMB, therefore, is truly justified. In Nigeria, private universities consider their students as customers because of their financial capacity to pay exorbitant school charges.
But apart from the signed Agreement, there are other outstanding issues like the release of withheld three and half months salaries, sustainable funding of public universities, revitalization of public universities, cessation of the victimization of ASUU members in LASU, Kogi State University and FUTO, payment of outstanding 25-35 % salary arrears, payment of promotion arrears and the release of withheld third party deductions.
Looking back, it seems clear that the FGN has treated ASUU so monstrously.

From the regime of Babangida to Obasanjo, to that of Yaradua, to Jonathan and Buhari to Tinubu it has been the same farcical drama of sham, indifference and disdain. Promises were made but not fulfilled, negotiations began and were stopped only to begin again and stop. For the past three decades, no Nigerian leader has dealt with the ASUU- FGN agreement seriously, sincerely, honestly and honorably. It is expected that the Nigerian leadership should prioritize education and burnish our universities up to international standards.

From 1992 to date, the rot in the University system has continued unabated. Nigerian Universities hold up their decaying buildings and potholed roads as physical emblems of a deeper malaise. Nigerian University teachers have embarked on several warning strikes and sometimes indefinite strikes all in an attempt to press the Nigerian government to tread the path of honor by respecting its promises. But strikes could be avoided in our ivory towers if the Nigerian leadership lives up to its social responsibility of providing education for all its citizens. How can posterity believe that their parents were responsible for the present rot in the education sector? It is common knowledge that in Nigeria students do not pass through the Universities anymore, they merely survive through them. In Nigerian universities, graduation is not a dream come true, it is the other end of a long chaotic nightmare because the facilities that could make learning a pleasure are non-existent.

The only peaceful solution is for all visitors of State Universities in Nigeria to direct the immediate implementation of the 2025 FGN/ASUU Agreement, and to address all other lingering issues in their respective universities. The FGN has released funds to both Federal and state universities and for any state Governor to refuse to implement the FGN-ASUU 2025 is , to say the least, the height of criminality. Finally, this is also the right time for all well-meaning Nigerians, parents, traditional rulers, the clergy, the Press and other stakeholders to mount pressure on state governments to do the needful in order to ensure industrial peace on university campuses in Nigeria.
But it is left to be said that, from all indications, the Federal Government has only scorched the snake, it is yet to kill it.