Opinion
Much Ado About FG/ASUU Agreement
There has been so much
fuss about the on-going strike by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU). So much that at some point it has either been ridiculously personalised, politicised or made to look cynically unbecoming of supposedly respected intellectuals.
It is, in fact, most dishearteningly difficult to view it otherwise. Particularly when one considers that someone as highly, strategically and respectfully placed as the Senate President could so sarcastically declare that the Federal Government (FG) and ASUU representatives which voluntarily agreed on the way forward for Nigeria’s comatose education sector are nonentities. His reason being that they should have known ab initio that the terms of the agreement were impossible to implement.
It is however, reassuring that the consensus is for ASUU to sheathe its sword and go back to the classroom while negotiation continues. In most cases, calls in this direction are made with the innocuous belief that ASUU should understand that no one can win a case against the Federal Government. This is why many see ASUU as taking the issue unnecessarily too far.
No one seems to ask why it took this long or, worse still, no one seems to pause to ponder why it has to take a strike by the lecturers for the 2009 Agreement to be revisited and implemented. Even those who have over the years complained bitterly about the poor state of the country’s education sector now blame ASUU for the continued stand-off.
Beyond this, if most of the hullabaloo on the ASUU strike can be dismissed as the wranglings, of the uninformed or ill-informed, the same can hardly be said of the Senate President, whose privileged position affords him the opportunity of getting firsthand knowledge on national issues like the Federal Government, ASUU Agreement.
It is, therefore, unexpected that the Senate President, should make assertions about such sensitive issue as the ASUU strike, which has kept Nigerian children, tomorrow’s workforce, at home for over five months, in such derogatory terms by showing disdain to the calibre of persons involved in the 2009 FG/ASUU Agreement.
Events leading to the 2009 Agreement actually started on Thursday, December 4, 2006, when the then Minister of Education, Dr. Obiageli Ezekwesili, on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria inaugurated the FG/ASUU Re-negotiation Committee.
The Committee, comprising the Federal Government Re-negotiation Team, was led by the then Pro-Chancellor of the University of Ibadan, Deacon Gamaliel O. Onosode (OFR), while the ASUU Re-negotiation Team was led by the then President of ASUU, Dr. Abdullahi Sule-Kano.
The ASUU team submitted a position paper at the meeting titled, “Proposal for the Re-negotiation of the 2001 Agreement between the Federal Government of Nigeria/governments of the States that own Universities and the ASUU,’ which reflected the views of ASUU on various issues in the 2001 FGN/ASUU Agreement.
The position paper proposed a single term of reference, which was to renegotiate the 2001 FGN/ASUU Agreement and enter into a workable agreement.
Both teams agreed on four issues as their focus: (i) condition of service, (ii) funding, (iii) university autonomy and academic freedom, (iv) other matters.
Unanimously, the Agreement was targeted at ensuring the viability of the country’s university system, with one, rather than a multiple, set of academic standards; and whereas it was recognised by the Negotiating Teams that education is in the Concurrent Legislative List, and by the Agreement, the FG does not intend to and shall not compel the State Governments to implement the provisions of the Agreement in respect of their universities.
The parties were unanimous that State Governments would be encouraged to adopt the Agreement as benchmarks; details on the Agreement such as the breakdown of lecturers’ salary structure, staff loans, pension, overtime and moderation of examinations.
It was also agreed that entitled academic staff shall be paid earned allowances at the rates undertaken in the listed assignments, as well as that Decree 11 of 1993 and the Pension Reform Act (2004) should be amended.
It is noteworthy that the above negotiation was done in a peaceful manner, and in an atmosphere devoid of rancour, unnecessary politicking and blackmailing in order to enforce contractual positions.
It therefore behoves the Federal Government, which, as it were, has an upper hand in the arrangement to, at least, propose a reasonable meeting point if it feels the 2009 Agreement was done in error, and not to blame ASUU for drawing attention to the Agreement.
One of such reasonable meeting points that readily comes to mind is for the Federal Government to use its good offices to institute the Agreement using people it can trust, since the bone of contention seems to be lack of trust on how the proposed sum of money can be judiciously expended by the leadership of ASUU.
For the sake of Nigeria’s educational system, this Mortgage of the future of the country’s tomorrow’s leaders and generations yet unborn must stop. But there must also be a reasonable way forward, and only the Federal Government can set the tone by treading the path of honour that would bring about lasting peace and harmony in the country’s universities.
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