Opinion
ASUU, FG: Who Is Fooling Who? (II)
Ikegbu Emmanuel
ASUU had made all efforts to get well meaning citizens to understand their plight. They were present at a Joint National Assembly Committee of Higher Education in 2002 to project their demand for autonomy, which was passed into an Act in June 2003 and was signed by President Obasanjo as the University Miscellaneous Act on July 10, 2003.
But since after then, this law was not implemented. Several other demands have since crept in. As they were not also met, ASUU went on strikes.
For instance, Imo State University Owerri, had only 11 weeks lectures but 12 weeks just within the first semester of 2008/09 session and is yet to conclude exams for some departments. This is outside the July – August ASUU strike.
Smaller countries such as Bostwana, Lesotho, Togo, Ghana, and Gambia, among the lots, whose GNPs are not up to half of Nigeria’s, have better education system. But, Academic unions of Ghana and Benin had to go on long strikes before their education sector got better funding.
Perhaps, the important point is that their governments were people friendly. They took education as a top priority and accorded it 26 per cent – 42 per cent of their annual budgets. University education got a greater share of the education budgets.
The ASUU –FG saga has lingered for long. About three years ago, the Federal Government entered into a fresh agreement with the union. They were never implemented.
President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua was ushered into power with ASUU’s six months old strike. Every effort was made to pacify the Union’s National Executive Committee with much lobby, the strike was kept in abeyance.
Soon after then, the demands of ASUU were not met as industrial actions continued. But the Minister of Information, Prof Dora Akunyili, after the Federal Executive Council (FEC) meeting of July 1, 2009, authoritatively informed newsmen of government’s moves concerning resolving the impasse, stating that “they wanted increased funding, that we have granted; they wanted autonomy, that we have granted; they wanted retirement at 70, that we have also granted; they also want 109 per cent increase in salaries, that we are negotiating. As I speak to you, the Minister of Education, Dr Sam Egwu, is with Mr President discussing this issue. Government is not folding her hands. Government would not fold her arms and watch our university students sit at home,” she assured.
The FG feels that the demands of ASUU are much though they are doing their best, as it believes but the picture from ASUU shows the reverse. They want the government to sign the agreement reached a few years ago.
ASUU is disappointed that months after negotiations, with research based forward looking, condition of service, autonomy of universities, increase funding, and education tax should be harmonised. The union sees the FG’s attitude as “provocative action.”
ASUU argues that an agreement was reached for federal and state governments to devote 26 per cent of its annual budget to education.
The implementation of the constitutional provisions that the government should appropriate funds to assist the states in the area of higher education.
While the tortoise and monkey continues to display their sagacity and dexterity, we must not forget that it is the grass that suffers when two elephants fight. Our students have been suffering the muscle flexing.
Permit me to also ask ASUU, how sincere have our lecturers been? Research grants have been converted to allowances, given some lecturers untamed access to influence. Some earn more than their income. The issue of exploiting innocent students cannot be swept under the carpet.
The rate and manner in which students are exploited by lecturers is pitiable. The former ASUU Boss at Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike, lamented that some lecturers sentimentally defend their colleagues caught in corrupt acts.
But for the fact that students stay idle at home, the option would have been for the government to squeeze and flush out the rotten eggs in the system. The Judas is denting the image of the eleven.
Nevertheless, the government should be sincere with ASUU even as Nigerians want both parties to always go to the negotiating table. We are privileged that President Yar’Adua, Vice President Goodluck Jonathan, and the Minister of Education, Dr Sam Egwu, who are key players in this matter were all once in the lecture hall. They have worn the shoes. They should know where it pinches.
Let no one fool anyone. Vision 20 – 2020 enshrined in the seven-point agenda awaits us. ASUU, FG, is anyone fooling the other?
Emmanuel is a Student of Imo State University (IMSU) Owerri.
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
