Connect with us

Opinion

 Why Owe ASUU?

Published

on

The dimension of the ongoing strike action by members of the Academic Staff Union of Federal Universities (ASUU) that is worth a second look is the Government policy of “no work, no pay”. The negotiating party on the Government side is insisting on taking advantage of this policy to deny the striking workforce (ASUU) the right to their salaries for the period of the work to rule action embarked upon by ASUU, since the 14th of February, 2022. On its face value, the government may appear justified in its attempt to deprive the striking workers the salary due to them, on the ground that they did not do the work they were engaged to perform in the first place. To state it more clearly, the lecturers did not go to class to teach students enrolled by the Federal Government into the various institutions of higher learning for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, which is the statutory responsibility of the lecturers. The lecturers did not teach the students for the period in contention, so how come they are demanding to be paid for a job not done? This is a simple logic: “no work, no pay!” On what ground could anyone fault the Government position here? In the first place, the primary responsibility of the aggrieved lecturers is to impart knowledge to the students placed under their custody by the Federal Ministry of Education. If the Federal Government can be seen as the defector employer of the “erring” lecturers, how would anyone expect the Government to pay salaries for work not performed? Are the lecturers contending this point? If so, on what grounds?
The logic in the Government’s  position on this subject matter is clear: ASUU is an employee of the Federal Government, assigned the sole responsibility of imparting knowledge to students placed under its tutelage. From the beginning of the strike action to date, the lecturers have not performed this contractual obligation, recognised by law. On the contrary, the students have been sent home to their parents and guardians. In search of what next to occupy themselves with, these hopeless victims of the strike action are daily roaming the streets of our cities. Some of them have reportedly, resorted to criminal activities; while the more responsible ones among them  have constituted additional burdens to their parents and the society at large. The presence of these idle students at home for this length of time (seven months, and still counting) does not in any way endear the rest of society to sympathise with the “noble” objectives of the striking lecturers, no matter what! Among the stated objectives of the striking workers is the quest to improve the lot of the students, in terms of the environment under which learning is imparted in the various public universities; ASUU also is seeking to improve the quality of education, through proper funding for research and other deliverables. These indeed, are commendable efforts which have, to a large extent, gained the support of the student population for the leadership role ASUU is playing in this direction.
On the other hand, the protracted nature of the strike action tends to dampen the hopes of the students; how long would it take to graduate from the university? What is the economic cost of overstaying one’s welcome in the various faculties to which these students have been enrolled? What happens to the academic calendar of the Nigerian universities? Higher education in Nigeria has become increasingly elusive, since a course of study originally billed to last for three academic years can now drag on to periods exceeding four to five years, due to incessant strike actions. Who pays the price for all these discrepancies in our university system? It is the common man who cannot afford to send his child to study abroad. It is the unfortunate student whose parent is not economically buoyant enough to send him abroad for higher education. It is the entire society that bears the brunt, when nothing is done to stop the elitist class from exploiting the nation’s wealth to train their children and wards in foreign institutions of higher learning, at the expense of the masses. What can be done to create a level playing ground for the education of our children in tertiary institutions? It is for government to legislate against the practice of sending our children to foreign universities for the purpose of tertiary education; especially to obtain the first degree certificate. Any child that graduates from the secondary school must be made to compulsorily take his/her first degree courses in a Nigeria institution of higher learning. Thereafter, parents who can afford it can send their children out  for higher degrees beyond the borders of Nigeria.
It is frequently argued that those in government and public service in Nigeria who, ordinarily, ought to ensure that our university system works, are in the habit of sending their children and wards to foreign countries to pursue their post-secondary school education. Hence, they don’t really care what happens to our university system in Nigeria.  As a fall out of this ASUU strike, the National Assembly must see it as its statutory responsibility to investigate this trend, and put up an appropriate legislative constraint against this unpatriotic development. Now, does the demand of ASUU that Government pays all arrears of salaries denied its members for the period of the strike, as a condition for calling off the current strike action,  actually make  sense? If so, how? Yes, I see ASUU making a legitimate and sensible demand here. In the first place, they did not just wake up one day to embark on strike. And based on the numerous demands put forward by ASUU, no reasonable observer would dismiss their action as frivolous. The reasons postulated for their action have been overwhelmingly  upheld by various parties, and interest groups, in both the public and private sectors of the nation’s economy. Most significant is the warning strike executed in support of ASUU strike by the Nigeria Labour Congress, less than a month ago. The NLC did not mince words as to the legitimacy of the strike action embarked by ASUU, and has  gone a step further to threaten that it is ready to give full backing to the demands of ASUU, should the Government fail to do the needful within a reasonable time frame. Government officials dragging the strike have not come out with any concrete evidence of any falsehood or breach of trust committed by the leadership of ASUU in the course of prosecuting its  grievances. The argument proffered by the Government in insisting on the policy of “no work, no pay” is, to say the least, untenable.  Those orchestrating the Government’s position in this regard have not come out with any tangible reason for denying the striking lecturers their earned salaries. The position of the Government in this regard can best be described as frivolous.
In any trade dispute, there are procedures to be followed by the parties in conflict. Is there any critical procedure ASUU failed to observe in the course of prosecuting its grievances that would disqualify it to its entitlement to earn the salaries of its members? Could ASUU be single handedly held liable for the prolongation of the strike action? Did ASUU give adequate notice of its intension to go on strike?  Did it first embark on what is popularly termed “warning strike”? Did ASUU seek and follow through the prescribed arbitration process and procedures? If indeed ASUU followed due process in pursuing its legitimate grievances against the Government in the course of its strike action, then there is no basis for Government to refuse to pay the striking lecturers their earned salaries. The salaries indeed were earned; and the government’s  decision to stop their pay, in the first instance, was wrong and punitive in intent. If ASUU was not focused on its main objectives for the strike, one would have expected the leadership of the academic union to take the Federal Government and its agent to court over the protracted demand for the payment of members’ salaries withheld by the Government.
Nothing in the books would have stopped it from seeking legal redress against Government’s unilateral action in stopping the salaries of its members, in the course of their legitimate action. That ASUU is not considering this option is, indeed a demonstration of the highest level of patriotism by members of the academic union in the face of unprovoked aggression by the Government.  If salary stoppage was not aimed at primarily threatening the lecturers to abandon their legitimate demands, the best option left for government was to embark on mass retrenchment of the “rebellious” workforce. This should have been the appropriate way of letting the “erring” employees come to grip with the realities of their “ill-informed” action. The other alternative was for the Government to take the leadership of ASUU to court. I am sure that there is room for industrial court arbitration in disputes of this magnitude. Luckily, the FG has decided to toe the line at last. By experience, no genuine problem, in the public domain, ever gets solved through the committee system of conflict resolution. This is more so, if such a committee is the brain child of Government. It is an indirect way of allowing Government to arbitrate in a case preferred against it. In the light of all the factors ex-rayed in this write up, it may be safe to conclude that Government has an obligation to pay the striking lecturers their earned salaries.

By: Pius Obute
Obute is an Abuja-based writer.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Ken Saro-Wiwa’s Unfinished Struggle (I)

Published

on

On November 10, 1995, the Nigerian military government of General Sani Abacha executed Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni leaders after a deeply controversial trial. Their deaths marked one of the darkest chapters in Nigeria’s history. At a time when fear silenced citizens and sycophancy flourished around military power, Saro-Wiwa chose to confront tyranny. Many Nigerians retreated into silence, while others praised the regime to secure favour. He knew the risks, yet refused to abandon a people whose land had been devastated by oil exploration and whose lives remained trapped in poverty. His courage arose from the conviction that public responsibility sometimes demands resistance to authority. Saro-Wiwa understood that speaking against a military government could lead to imprisonment or death.
Nonetheless, he believed the suffering of the Ogoni people demanded a courageous response. While oil was extracted from their land, they were left with polluted rivers, damaged farmland, declining livelihoods and an environment hostile to human survival. Fishing grounds and sources of livelihood were threatened, while the people struggled to secure basic amenities. The wealth beneath their soil brought neither adequate development nor a fair share of national resources. For him, silence in the face of injustice would have amounted to complicity. Through the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), he organised a peaceful campaign that took the Ogoni question to the international community. MOSOP gave ordinary people an organised platform through which to express their grievances and insist on recognition.
The Ogoni Bill of Rights, presented to the Federal Government in 1990, demanded political autonomy, economic justice, environmental protection and control over the people’s resources. The campaign exposed the human and ecological costs of oil operations, particularly those associated with Shell, and challenged the apparent alliance between corporate interests and an unresponsive State. The Ogoni struggle became a defining expression of minority rights and environmental justice in Nigeria and Africa. Saro-Wiwa’s writings and mobilisation drew attention to communities treated as expendable because of their limited population and political influence. He argued that numerical strength should never determine a people’s value or rights.
A minority community does not become less deserving of justice because it cannot command electoral numbers or political power. In Nigeria, every ethnic group deserves dignity, protection and a fair opportunity to benefit from the commonwealth. Rather than respond to peaceful agitation with dialogue, the Abacha regime resorted to repression. Ogoni leaders were harassed, detained and killed; others fled into exile. The crisis intensified after four Ogoni chiefs were killed in May 1994. Saro-Wiwa and other MOSOP leaders were arrested, tried by a special tribunal and executed despite international appeals for clemency and serious concerns about the trial’s fairness. The executions drew worldwide condemnation and intensified scrutiny of Nigeria’s human-rights record and oil companies in the Niger Delta.
They demonstrated the danger of using State institutions to suppress peaceful demands. The proceedings remain a reminder of the need for judicial independence and due process. Saro-Wiwa’s courage rested on the conviction that justice must be pursued despite the cost. His method combined non-violent resistance, public education and grassroots organisation. His struggle recalled the civil-rights campaign of Martin Luther King Jr. and the power of peaceful mobilisation against injustice. Saro-Wiwa linked environmental degradation to political exclusion, economic exploitation and the denial of democratic rights. Oil-producing communities, he insisted, should not remain zones from which wealth is removed to develop other parts of the country.
Their people must benefit through roads, schools, healthcare, jobs and clean water. Resource extraction carries a duty to protect host communities. His argument extended to the structure of the Nigerian federation. He challenged a revenue-allocation system that made oil-producing communities bear the environmental and social costs of extraction without commensurate benefits. Like advocates of fiscal federalism, he believed resources should be managed and shared equitably. He envisaged a society in which no community would be disadvantaged by its size, ethnicity, political affiliation, culture or religion. His vision was a country bound together by justice and equal citizenship. Saro-Wiwa was also a gifted writer, dramatist and public intellectual.
Through books, essays, plays and television, he documented Nigerian society’s contradictions and challenged abuses of power. His popular television series, Basi and Company, demonstrated his creative range, while his leadership of the Association of Nigerian Authors encouraged writers to engage national questions. He believed literature should not be detached from society’s struggles. His pen exposed environmental injustice, political repression and the dangers of silencing courageous voices. He used storytelling, satire and drama to shape public consciousness and expose social contradictions. His literary achievements gave his activism wider reach and made the Ogoni experience part of national conversation. His commitment to the Ogoni people extended beyond the oil question.
During the Civil War, he worked to protect his vulnerable community. He urged younger generations to reject subservience and complacency and pursue change through lawful, peaceful means. Citizens, he believed, must not surrender their responsibility to challenge wrong doing. An injury to one community threatens the rights and security of all. The return to democratic government in 1999 and the establishment of the Niger Delta Development Commission, the Ministry of Niger Delta Affairs and the Hydrocarbon Pollution Remediation Project (HYPREP) are among developments that have kept the region’s demands in public view. Saro-Wiwa did not create these institutions, but his movement helped expose the urgency of intervention and sustain pressure for redress.
His death made it harder to ignore the Niger Delta’s environmental and political grievances. Yet, interventionist institutions do not prove that the original demands have been met. Their effectiveness depends on competent leadership, transparent spending, measurable outcomes and community participation. Yet, thirty-one years after his execution, the central concerns of the Ogoni struggle remain unresolved. The HYPREP-led clean-up has offered hope, but many residents await meaningful improvements. Questions persist about the programme’s pace, quality and transparency, and whether its benefits reach ordinary people. A clean-up should be judged not by ceremonies or contracts, but by restored land and waterways, safe drinking water, improved livelihoods and better public health.
It must include long-term monitoring to ensure treated sites remain safe. Residents deserve information about contamination, remediation methods and completion timelines. Reports that water projects in Gwara and Ebubu Communities, in Khana and Eleme Local Government Areas respectively, failed weeks after commissioning have raised further concerns. If confirmed, the failures would indicate weaknesses in supervision, procurement and quality control.
To be continued in our next edition.

Taneh Beemene

Continue Reading

Opinion

Reforming NYSC For Practical National Service

Published

on

The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) was established in 1973, after the Nigerian Civil War, to promote national unity, reconciliation and integration. By deploying graduates beyond their States of origin, its founders hoped to encourage understanding among Nigeria’s diverse peoples and help rebuild a divided country. However, the difficulties confronting corps members and their families now demand a comprehensive review. For many graduates, national service has become a period of uncertainty, financial pressure and exposure to risks. Parents who have spent years financing their children’s education must still find money for transportation, camp necessities, accommodation, feeding and other expenses. The monthly allowance may provide some relief, but often cannot meet the cost of living, especially where the place of primary assignment offers no accommodation or support.
Security is another serious concern. Corps members may be posted to communities affected by kidnapping, communal violence, insurgency or other threats. Government cannot eliminate every danger, but it must assess locations, provide reliable security information and avoid deployments where safety cannot reasonably be assured. National service should promote patriotism, not expose graduates to preventable harm. There is also the problem of securing meaningful places of primary assignment. A graduate trained in engineering may perform duties unrelated to engineering; a journalist may spend the year in an office with no opportunity to practise journalism. Graduates in agriculture, health, education and other specialised fields may likewise be assigned routine tasks that contribute little or nothing to their professional growth. Some depend on personal contacts or incur expenses to obtain suitable placements.
A year is significant for a young graduate entering a competitive labour market. National service should not be merely a compulsory waiting period before the search for employment begins. It should help bridge the gap between academic learning and practical work. The time has therefore come to review the structure of NYSC, not necessarily abolish it. I propose that the one-year programme should become vocational and professionally oriented. Graduates should, as far as practicable, be posted to institutions where they can gain supervised experience in their fields of study. Teachers should serve in schools; health graduates in suitable health facilities; engineers in technical organisations and public works departments; agricultural graduates in farms and extension services; and communication graduates in media and public information establishments.
NYSC should partner with ministries, state and local governments, private companies, professional bodies, universities, hospitals, schools and credible organisations to identify genuine training opportunities. Each member should have defined duties, a supervisor and clear learning objectives. At the end of the year, each should receive a record of duties performed and competencies acquired. The reform must also address remuneration and welfare. Corps members should receive fair pay that reflects the demands of their placements, while host organisations should provide reasonable support where possible. Government must establish transparent funding arrangements so that the new system does not become another burden imposed on employers or parents. Transport or accommodation assistance should be considered for difficult postings.
Graduates seeking jobs after service would have more than a discharge certificate: they would possess practical experience, workplace discipline and demonstrable skills. Employers would gain access to young people who have received supervised preparation. However, professional relevance should not erase the scheme’s founding objective of national integration. Inter-State deployment can remain, provided it is balanced with security, suitable placements and the availability of basic facilities. Where a safe and meaningful placement cannot be guaranteed outside a graduate’s State, an alternative should be considered. Orientation and community development activities can continue to promote cultural exchange, citizenship and service.
The Federal Government and NYSC management should convene consultations involving corps members, parents, universities, employers, security agencies and State Governments. Decisions should be based on evidence and the experiences of serving and former corps members. NYSC was created to help rebuild a nation divided by war. Its ideals remain important, but institutions must adapt to changing realities. Success should not be measured only by the number of graduates mobilised or certificates issued. It should also be measured by the skills acquired, the contribution made and whether young Nigerians complete their service safely and with dignity. It can better preserve the scheme’s founding ideals while meeting today’s economic and professional needs. A vocationally driven; adequately remunerated NYSC would turn national service from a costly obligation into a bridge between education, employment and national development. The purpose should not simply be to occupy graduates for twelve months, but to prepare them to work, serve and contribute meaningfully to Nigeria’s future.

Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

Continue Reading

Opinion

Protecting Nigeria’s Democratic Space 

Published

on

Quote: “Democracy is not secured by the silence of opponents, but by their freedom to organise, speak and compete without fear. When intimidation replaces argument, the whole nation loses.”

As the 2027 general elections draw nearer, reports of attacks on opposition supporters, disrupted meetings and restrictions on political activities raise serious concerns about Nigeria’s democracy. From Akwa Ibom and Cross River to Enugu, Kaduna, Sokoto and Kebbi, recent developments test citizens’ freedom to organise and campaign. Each incident requires impartial investigation; together, they demand national attention. In Akwa Ibom, police ordered political parties and groups to suspend and reschedule rallies, meetings and processions approved for October 1, citing intelligence about possible security threats. The directive affected a planned two-million-man march in Uyo organised by the Obidient Movement in support of Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) presidential candidate, Peter Obi, and running mate, Rabiu Kwankwaso.

Organisers said they had prior approval and spent over N20 million mobilising supporters across the state’s 31 local government areas. Police described the measure as precautionary and applicable to all groups. Although public safety matters, restrictions must be necessary, proportionate and must not deny a fair platform to all and sundry. Cross River presented a disturbing picture on November 4. Peter Obi’s NDC convoy was reportedly attacked around Watt Market in Calabar, where suspected hoodlums threw stones and other objects at vehicles and supporters. Windscreens were damaged and supporters reportedly injured. Police confirmed the attack and arrested a 27-year-old suspect, while investigations continued. That day, tension also arose when NDC supporters and an APC group conducting a road walk converged around Metropolitan Hotel.

Police intervention reportedly prevented a wider confrontation. There were suggestions that the convoy’s  attack, arose from internal disagreements within the NDC. All that require impartial investigation. In Enugu, suspected armed hoodlums reportedly stormed an NDC ward meeting at Ndiuno-Obuoffia, Nkanu West, on September 12 and opened fire, injuring two attendees. That day, a separate Peoples Democratic Party gathering at Agbani was disrupted, with canopies and chairs destroyed. Police confirmed both incidents and ordered investigations, although they said organisers had not requested security coverage. The attackers’ political affiliation had not been established.

In Kaduna, the ADC accused security personnel and others of intimidating supporters during a September gathering. Police said tear gas was used only after protesters blocked a major road and public order deteriorated. These conflicting accounts make transparent inquiries essential. Sokoto and Kebbi have added to the alarm. Ahead of the ADC’s November 4 campaign rally in Sokoto, the party alleged its office was sealed, delegates’ accommodation disrupted and supporters subjected to hostility. The state government disputed key claims, citing a property dispute over the office and denying it directed hotels to reject ADC guests. Amnesty International reported that at least two suspected ADC supporters were allegedly shot along the Wurno-Sokoto Road and vehicles conveying supporters attacked in Tambuwal.

These claims require prompt verification and accountability where wrongdoing is established. On November 5, the ADC campaign convoy of Atiku Abubakar was attacked in Birnin Kebbi. Amnesty International said footage it reviewed showed armed men attacking vehicles, striking people with cutlasses, blocking roads and targeting journalists’ equipment. Cameras, tripods and recording tools were reportedly destroyed. The organisation warned that such violence threatens opposition parties’ rights to association and peaceful assembly. Coming a day after the Calabar attack, the incident reinforces the urgency of protecting political activities nationwide. These are not merely partisan disputes. Section 40 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and association, including the right to form or belong to a political party, while Section 39 protects expression.

These rights apply equally to government supporters and opponents. Democracy cannot flourish if only the powerful or popular can assemble. Public safety must not become a pretext for arbitrary restrictions. Governors must keep state institutions and security outfits neutral. Police and other agencies must protect lawful gatherings, prevent attacks and investigate allegations without fear or favour. Where threats exist, authorities should provide security and engage organisers rather than impose blanket restrictions. Political parties must discipline supporters, reject thuggery and avoid inflammatory language. The media and civil society should distinguish facts from allegations while demanding accountability. Political intimidation discourages participation, deepens distrust and drives voters into apathy. It can also create conditions for disputed results and violence.

No ambition, party or candidate is worth a Nigerian life. The 2027 elections must be a contest of ideas, competence and public service, not fear. Every attack should be investigated consistently, transparently and without political favour, perpetrators brought to justice and citizens’ rights protected. Safeguarding democratic space is not a favour to the opposition; it is a constitutional obligation owed to all Nigerians. The ballot must decide political contests, not thugs, threats or abuse of state power.

By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi

 

Continue Reading

Trending