Opinion
Buhari’s Assent And NOUN Law Graduates
Precisely, on 6 December, 2018, President Muhammadu Buhari revived the hopes of law graduates of the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN) through his assent to the NOUN (Amendment) Act 2018 after it was passed by the National Assembly. It must be noted that these innocent trapped students did not beg the federal government to establish the Faculty of Law in the university. Government at will did and advertised for admission openly to the general public.
When they were undergoing the programme, nobody raised objection and sadly, they were taught by qualified law lecturers from other accredited universities in the country, including Professor Itse Sagay (SAN) who developed NOUN’s Constitutional Law 1 & 2 Course material.
Other highly respected lecturers include; Professor Abiodun Amuda-Kannike (SAN) who is presently Dean, Faculty of Law at Kwara State University (KWASU), among others. Again, NOUN and all universities in the country use the same course outlines approved by the National Universities Commission (NUC). Is it then possible that these lecturers taught NOUN law graduates in a different way?
When President Buhari intervened, the entire nation rejoiced and hailed the intervention hoping that the crisis which held these law students of the federal government-owned and accredited Open and Distance Learning (ODL) institution to ransom since 2013 when the first set of the Faculty of Law graduated had come to an end. But the plotters and schemers are resolute and vow to frustrate these students until they go into their graves.
The amendment by the Senate under the leadership of Dr. Bukola Saraki, after a public-hearing, was to remedy the controversial clause “Correspondence” in the hitherto NOUN Act and changed it to “Full-time” which the Council of Legal Education (CLE) and Body of Benchers (BOB) capitalized on to deny the graduates of the university admission quota into the Nigerian Law School for their vocational training like their counterparts from other universities in and outside the country.
Prior to the legislative review process, the CLE which was represented by the Director-General of the Nigerian Law School told the Senate at the public hearing that the Act must be amended to remove the term, ‘Correspondence’ as a mode of learning of the institution and acknowledged that the institution doesn’t study by ‘Correspondence’ but found wanting by the clause. This made the Senate to put the machinery in motion for the amendment to enable innocent citizens that are trapped to be set free.
Nobody knew that the demand for the amendment of the clause was a delay tactic to keep prolonging the matter. Eventually, after going through the rigorous legislative processes, the clause was reviewed as demanded to ‘Full-time programme’ to be on the same pedestrian with other universities in Nigeria. From record, these same bullied students defeated their counterparts in just one opportunity offered to them in a national competition when allowed to participate, and in the remarks of the panel of judges, may continue to win on account of a good margin in their performance. It is, therefore, believed that the concealed grievance is that NOUN law graduates broke the record and emerged star-prize winners just in its first participation which was unprecedented, hence disqualified from further contests out of malice. Suffice it to say that some persons are merely witch-hunting the institution over excellence. What a hostility?
But two years counting after President Buhari’s assent, nothing has changed. Could a Presidential assent be thrown into the wastebin so simple? By this time last year, 2019 when the presidential assent was approaching one year, to douse tension that almost led to uproar, some gimmicks were played during the Nigerian Bar Association Annual General Meeting which looked as if the admission of these law graduates was on the agenda. From reports in the media, all manner of gimmicks from secret meetings to suggesting a strange Bar Part 1 for students that studied in a home university and duly accredited by the NUC were stage-managed and displayed.
The most disgusting part is that the arrowheads are mostly appointees of President Buhari that gave assent to the NOUN Act. For example, the Director-General of the Nigerian Law School, Professor Isa Hayatu Chiroma (SAN); Chairman, Council of Legal Education, Chief Emeka Ngige (SAN), and the Minister of Justice/ Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami, are all appointed by President Buhari. Yet, their principal and the government they are part and parcel of is being subjected to scorn.
Could it be said that the government is inept and doesn’t have capacity on administration and leadership? Ridiculously, this is a government with the legislative and executive arms headed by the same political party, APC. Could the National Assembly; Senate and House of Representatives claim that these intimidations being meted on innocent helpless students have not come to their ears and notice? Or does the government want these students to resort to lawlessness?
Buhari and the National Assembly must resist such bullying, discriminations and intimidations against these NOUN law students. Education cannot be subjected to such partisanship and hostility. The endless and innumerable flimsy excuses from these government bodies cannot continue. This issue on NOUN law graduates and admission into the law school has overlingered, and must be resolved forthwith before things get out of hand.
The Nigerian Law School is a facility of the federal government and doesn’t belong to any persons. It is, therefore, instructive that the authorities intervene to resolve the matter without further delay before the second anniversary of the presidential assent; December 6, 2020 to prevent chaos in the society. These students cannot continue to be waiting in futility or roaming the streets for no wrongdoing other than that some persons are hostile against NOUN. A stitch in time saves nine. Let the gimmicks stop!
Isowo, a public affairs analyst, writes from Ilorin, Kwara State.
Yakubu Isowo
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