Opinion
ASUU, FG Impasse: The Way Forward
Dr Felix Igwe, chairman, Rivers State University of Science and Technology (RSUST) ASUU: The strike is simply about implementing an agreement reached since 2009. It beats our imagination that we are in a society where agreements are not being respected, where people sign agreement in such accord and not respect it, to the point that the tenets of human relations, (because we are talking about labour union and the tenets of collective agreement, which is what moves society forward) are not be respected.
So we feel that we have to resort to this situation that we are now asking government to implement what they have willingly agreed to implement.
The implication to our mind, in terms of both positive and negative, the fact that students are at home and the lecturers are also at home is obviously not something that is desirable because productivity is affected; things that would have been done within the period of the strike are not being done. The academic work that would have been done within the period are not done, so the negative effect to the lecturers is that right now there is no work, no pay so the lecturers are not being paid. There is a psychological trauma as the university system is not working properly, people are beginning not to trust the system because it is being truncated. These are negative effects that you cannot quantify.
There is also the phenomenon that ASUU has been talking about over and over again: that is the brain drain in the Nigerian university system. You find that highly qualified lecturers and individuals who should support the universities and the country’s economy are being filtered away to other countries where things are properly done.
If government listens to ASUU and acts accordingly, the university system will become better tomorrow than what it is today.
The way forward is that government should do what they have agreed to do.
Omoniye Lulu-Pokubo, Political Scientist:
The ASUU strike is in its fourth month with students being the worse hit. The Federal Government and the ASUU members need to be cautious and sensitive on the plight of the students and the guardians/parents. The Federal Government must honour its part of the agreement arrived at in 2009. They need to implement the resolution made in the agreement.
On the part of the ASUU, they should avoid politics to creep into the demand and also be sensitive to the yearnings of their students. We hear the Federal Government has shifted grounds, it is also expected that ASUU should also shift grounds after it’s consultations to end the strike for the common good of the nation. The implication of the strike include delay of graduands and alterations of academic calendar as well as facilitates moral vices, such as prostitution, robbery, cultism etc.
There is loss of revenue on allied businesses around the university environment, and the resumption will definitely lead to rush in the curriculum thereby leading to lowering standards in the educational system.
On the way forward, federal and state governments need to inject a substantial amount of money into education (especially in the tertiary institutions). ASUU should also consider the plight of students and parents, as well as the overall interest of the nation, and come out with a reasonable concession in the face of competing needs of budgetary allocation to other sectors.
Nonetheless, Federal Government should also consider seriously the United Nations and other organisations advise on allotting about 26 per cent of a nation’s budget to their educational sectors. Each party should sheath their sword and arrive at a common ground to implement religiously what is agreeable instead to politicising the episode.
Nsiapu Eleki, a Civil Servant: I will say that the strike should continue pending when the Federal Government will be able to implement the agreement with ASUU. This is because it is an agreement that was signed in 2009. Nothing was done about it until ASUU embarked on strike so if the ASUU is prepared to collect the little Federal Government is willing to give them and wait for the remaining, there must be considerable commitment on the part of the Federal Government. This is because the only language government seem to understand before doing things right is when people embark on strike. That is why we see strike everywhere.
The same Federal Government say that we have half-baked graduates, ASUU is saying that the Federal Government should implement the agreement “we will give you the best students; why not try it.
My own opinion is that the Federal Government should be responsible about the whole issue. That means it must show concern over revamping the country’s education.
Deborah Daniel, self employed: Personally I’m not happy with the government because they actually agreed they were going to do what ASUU is demanding for. The Federal government is not standing by its words.
The things they are demanding for is not personal. The problem is all about obsolete equipment and sundry upgradements. Four months is a whole semester. The final year students should have finished and gone.
I would also suggest that as it is now, the Federal Government should come up with something for the lecturers to start on, and after now, Federal Government should as a matter of urgency make it up without waiting for the ASUU to embark on another strike. Waiting for such reminder portrays some level of irresponsibility.
Gift Adiele, Banker: It is a very bad and ugly situation because students are supposed to have graduated. Federal Government should come to terms with ASUU in order to allow students graduate,, others to continue their studies. We are talking about how Nigeria can grow, and education is one aspect of growth.
I was once a student, and I know that ASUU strike brings down the morale of students, and educational performance of students go down, while it also demoralised the students.
Consequently, ASUU being made up of parents should not be so mean in getting something. The government probably is finding it difficult to come to terms with ASUU because the agreement was not signed during the present administration, may be the demand is too much for the Federal Government to bear.
I will suggest ASUU suspends the strike for the betterment of the nation.
From all indications, Nigeria possesses enough human and material resources to become a true economic powerhouse in Africa. According to the National Population Commission (NPC, 2023), the country’s population has grown steadily within the last decade, presently standing at about 220 million people—mostly young, vibrant, and innovative. Nigeria also remains the sixth-largest oil producer in the world, with enormous reserves of gas, fertile agricultural land, and human capital.
Yet, despite this enormous potential, the country continues to grapple with underdevelopment, poverty, unemployment, and insecurity. Recent data from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS, 2023) show that about 129 million Nigerians currently live below the poverty line. Most families can no longer afford basic necessities, even as the government continues to project a rosy economic picture.
The Subsidy Question
The removal of fuel subsidy in 2023 by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has been one of the most controversial policy decisions in Nigeria’s recent history. According to the president, subsidy removal was designed to reduce fiscal burden, unify the foreign exchange rate, attract investment, curb inflation, and discourage excessive government borrowing.
While these objectives are theoretically sound, the reality for ordinary Nigerians has been severe hardship. Fuel prices more than tripled, transportation costs surged, and food inflation—already high—rose above 30% (NBS, 2023). The World Bank (2023) estimates that an additional 7.1 million Nigerians were pushed into poverty after subsidy removal.
A Critical Economic View
As an economist, I argue that the problem was not subsidy removal itself—which was inevitable—but the timing, sequencing, and structural gaps in Nigeria’s implementation.
- Structural Miscalculation
Nigeria’s four state-owned refineries remain nonfunctional. By removing subsidies without local refining capacity, the government exposed the economy to import-price pass-through effects—where global oil price shocks translate directly into domestic inflation. This was not just a timing issue but a fundamental policy miscalculation.
- Neglect of Social Safety Nets
Countries like Indonesia (2005) and Ghana (2005) removed subsidies successfully only after introducing cash transfers, transport vouchers, and food subsidies for the poor (World Bank, 2005). Nigeria, however, implemented removal abruptly, shifting the fiscal burden directly onto households without protection.
- Failure to Secure Food and Energy Alternatives
Fuel subsidy removal amplified existing weaknesses in agriculture and energy. Instead of sequencing reforms, government left Nigerians without refinery capacity, renewable energy alternatives, or mechanized agricultural productivity—all of which could have cushioned the shock.
Political and Public Concerns
Prominent leaders have echoed these concerns. Mr. Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, described the subsidy removal as “good but wrongly timed.” Atiku Abubakar of the People’s Democratic Party also faulted the government’s hasty approach. Human rights activists like Obodoekwe Stive stressed that refineries should have been made functional first, to reduce the suffering of citizens.
This is not just political rhetoric—it reflects a widespread economic reality. When inflation climbs above 30%, when purchasing power collapses, and when households cannot meet basic needs, the promise of reform becomes overshadowed by social pain.
Broader Implications
The consequences of this policy are multidimensional:
- Inflationary Pressures – Food inflation above 30% has made nutrition unaffordable for many households.
- Rising Poverty – 7.1 million Nigerians have been newly pushed into poverty (World Bank, 2023).
- Middle-Class Erosion – Rising transport, rent, and healthcare costs are squeezing household incomes.
- Debt Concerns – Despite promises, government borrowing has continued, raising sustainability questions.
- Public Distrust – When government promises savings but citizens feel only pain, trust in leadership erodes.
In effect, subsidy removal without structural readiness has widened inequality and eroded social stability.
Missed Opportunities
Nigeria’s leaders had the chance to approach subsidy removal differently:
- Refinery Rehabilitation – Ensuring local refining to reduce exposure to global oil price shocks.
- Renewable Energy Investment – Diversifying energy through solar, hydro, and wind to reduce reliance on imported petroleum.
- Agricultural Productivity – Mechanization, irrigation, and smallholder financing could have boosted food supply and stabilized prices.
- Social Safety Nets – Conditional cash transfers, food vouchers, and transport subsidies could have protected the most vulnerable.
Instead, reform came abruptly, leaving citizens to absorb all the pain while waiting for theoretical long-term benefits.
Conclusion: Reform With a Human Face
Fuel subsidy removal was inevitable, but Nigeria’s approach has worsened hardship for millions. True reform must go beyond fiscal savings to protect citizens.
Economic policy is not judged only by its efficiency but by its humanity. A well-sequenced reform could have balanced fiscal responsibility with equity, ensuring that ordinary Nigerians were not crushed under the weight of sudden change.
Nigeria has the resources, population, and resilience to lead Africa’s economy. But leadership requires foresight. It requires policies that are inclusive, humane, and strategically sequenced.
Reform without equity is displacement of poverty, not development. If Nigeria truly seeks progress, its policies must wear a human face.
References
- National Bureau of Statistics (NBS). (2023). Poverty and Inequality Report. Abuja.
- National Population Commission (NPC). (2023). Population Estimates. Abuja.
- World Bank. (2023). Nigeria Development Update. Washington, DC.
- World Bank. (2005). Fuel Subsidy Reforms: Lessons from Indonesia and Ghana. Washington, DC.
- OPEC. (2023). Annual Statistical Bulletin. Vienna.
By: Amarachi Amaugo
-
Business5 days agoNDDC Unveils Naval Facilities To Boost Region’s Security
-
News5 days agoRIVERS PEACE EFFORTS YIELDING RESULTS, SAYS FUBARA ….Promises Rehabilitation Of Internal Roads, GSS Akabuka
-
Sports5 days ago“Nigeria will go to World Cup”
-
Niger Delta5 days ago
Partnership With Security Chiefs’ Excites Ogbuku … As NDDC Unveils Naval Outpost In Bayelsa
-
News5 days agoN’Assembly Committee Approves New State ForS’East
-
Maritime5 days agoNIWA Launches Operations To Tackle Water Hyacinth Menace
-
Rivers5 days agoReps’ Committee On Health Lauds RSG On Primary Healthcare Delivery
-
Sports5 days agoLagos Women Race set to empower participants