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:

• Mbappe Penalty Sends France Past Paraguay in Heated World Cup Clash
• FIFA lifts Balogun’s ban, clears US striker for Belgium World Cup clash
• Can a School Founded by a Public University Truly Be Called Private?

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:

• NIPSS Attack: Troops Nab Suspects, Recover Stolen Army Rifle in Jos South Raid
• Haaland’s brace fires Norway past Brazil into first-ever World Cup quarterfinals
• Technician dies protecting family during armed robbery in Ondo

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:

• NNPCL cuts petrol price as Dangote Refinery competition intensifies
• US to closely monitor Nigeria’s 2027 elections, tie future support to religious freedom
• Gunmen Kill Retired Army Officer, Abduct Woman in Nasarawa Community

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.

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ASUU-FGN 2025 AGREEMENT

Can a school founded by a public university truly be called private?

By Maroof Asudemade

The recent Court of Appeal judgment on the International School, Ibadan (ISI) hijab case has reopened a constitutional debate that extends well beyond school uniforms. At the heart of the controversy lies a fundamental question: Can a school established by a public university legitimately be regarded as a private institution for the purpose of limiting constitutional rights?

This intervention is not intended to question the wisdom of the Court of Appeal’s decision or to relitigate the merits of the hijab controversy. Rather, it seeks to examine the broader constitutional and legal implications arising from the court’s reported characterisation of International School, Ibadan (ISI) as a private school.

According to reports, the Court of Appeal held that ISI is a private institution and that parents and students who voluntarily accepted the school’s code of conduct are bound by its provisions, including restrictions on the wearing of the hijab. While contractual obligations deserve respect, the broader constitutional question remains unresolved.

The University of Ibadan (UI) is not a private enterprise. It is Nigeria’s premier public university, established by law, owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria, and funded through public resources. International School, Ibadan, founded by the university in 1963, was created as part of the institution’s educational mission. It was not established by private investors, a religious organisation or an independent educational trust, but by a public institution acting in the public interest.

READ ALSO:

• NIPSS Attack: Troops Nab Suspects, Recover Stolen Army Rifle in Jos South Raid
• Haaland’s brace fires Norway past Brazil into first-ever World Cup quarterfinals
• Technician dies protecting family during armed robbery in Ondo

This raises an important legal question. If a public university establishes a school, appoints its governing authorities, determines its policies and exercises ultimate oversight, on what legal or constitutional basis does that school become a private institution? Does the collection of tuition fees automatically transform a publicly established institution into a private one? If that reasoning is accepted, should fee-paying public universities themselves also be regarded as private institutions? The answer is far from obvious and deserves careful legal scrutiny.

The significance of this issue extends well beyond the ongoing ISI hijab case. It raises broader questions about the constitutional responsibilities of institutions created, owned and controlled by the state. If publicly established institutions can avoid constitutional obligations simply by being described as private entities, then the protection of fundamental rights may become increasingly dependent on administrative policies rather than constitutional guarantees.

This argument should not be interpreted as suggesting that schools should be stripped of the authority to maintain discipline or prescribe dress codes. Uniform policies remain an essential aspect of school administration, helping to promote order, equality and institutional identity. However, where such policies intersect with constitutionally protected rights, particularly freedom of religion, the law should strive to achieve a careful balance instead of assuming that contractual consent automatically overrides constitutional protections.

The central constitutional issue is therefore not whether International School, Ibadan has the authority to regulate its students. Rather, it is whether a school established, owned and supervised by a public university should simultaneously enjoy the legal privileges associated with a private institution while benefiting from the public status, legitimacy and authority of its parent institution.

The conversation may now need to move beyond the courtroom. The National Assembly, education policymakers, constitutional scholars and the wider public should consider whether Nigeria’s laws provide sufficient clarity regarding the legal status of schools established by public universities. Greater legislative certainty would help prevent future disputes and ensure that the constitutional rights and responsibilities of such institutions are clearly defined.

The ISI hijab controversy may ultimately reach a final legal resolution. However, the broader constitutional question is likely to remain relevant long after the current dispute has ended.

When does an institution created, owned and controlled by the public cease to be public?

Until that question receives a clear legal answer, debates over the constitutional status of schools established by public universities are likely to continue.

Can a school founded by a public university truly be called private?

The Phantom Presidential Council scandal, By Farooq Kperogi