The National President of the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), Comrade Mohammed Haruna Ibrahim, in this interview with CHRISTIAN APPOLOS, spoke about lessons Nigeria can draw from global university systems, need to prioritise education, security on campuses, and why sustainable national development begins with investing in education. Excerpts:
YOU participated in the sessions of the International Labour Conference in Geneva alongside university workers from across the world. What lessons does global engagement offer Nigeria’s university system?
Let me begin by putting everything into its proper perspective. The International Labour Conference of the International Labour Organization (ILO) is one of the largest global gatherings of workers, employers and governments. For those of us in the university sector, gatherings like this are particularly significant because universities are universal institutions. Whether you work in a university in Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, the United States or Europe, there are internationally accepted standards that define quality education, institutional governance, research excellence and service delivery. Universities may operate in different countries, but the principles that drive excellence are largely the same. One of the greatest benefits of participating in conferences such as this is the opportunity to learn from colleagues who operate under different systems. We have interacted with university workers from various countries and discussed how their institutions are managed, how research is funded, how administrative structures function and how continuous staff development is used to improve efficiency and service delivery.
No university worker should be disadvantaged simply because of the country in which he or she works. Unfortunately, when you compare Nigeria with many of the countries represented here, one challenge stands out above every other challenge, poor funding of education. No university system can consistently deliver quality teaching, cutting-edge research, innovation or efficient service delivery without adequate and sustained investment. Universities cannot fulfil their mandate when they are expected to operate with insufficient resources. Funding remains the lifeblood of every successful higher education system. People often assume that universities revolve only around lecturers and professors. That perception is inaccurate because a university is a complete ecosystem comprising several interdependent units working together to achieve one objective:quality education.
Our members, who constitute the non-teaching workforce, provide the administrative, technical and professional services that keep universities functioning every day. We support academic staff in delivering their responsibilities. We serve students, who remain the primary beneficiaries of the university system, while also providing essential services to researchers, visitors, development partners and every other stakeholder within the university community. Take the administrative arm, for instance. From the Vice-Chancellor to the Deputy Vice-Chancellors, the Registrar and other principal officers, effective administration is indispensable to the smooth running of any university. There are internationally recognised standards for governance, record management, institutional planning and service delivery.
The same applies to the bursary department, where prudent financial management, budgeting, revenue generation, payroll administration and accountability are critical to institutional stability. Likewise, the works and maintenance departments are responsible for ensuring reliable electricity, water supply, infrastructure maintenance, environmental sanitation and the overall physical condition of the campus.
Apart from inadequate funding, insecurity has become a growing concern across Nigerian universities. How serious is the situation?
The security situation has become one of the greatest threats confronting not only Nigeria’s university system but the country’s overall development. As affiliates of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), we have consistently drawn the government’s attention to the worsening insecurity across the country because education cannot thrive in an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty. Educational institutions have now become soft targets for criminal elements. Many federal and state universities still lack basic security infrastructure. In several institutions, you may find perimeter fencing only around the main entrance while vast portions of the campuses remain completely exposed. Yet these universities often occupy thousands of hectares of land, sharing boundaries with surrounding communities, villages and forests. Such vulnerabilities make them easy targets for kidnappers, bandits and other criminal groups. Over the years, we have witnessed disturbing incidents where armed criminals invaded university campuses, abducted students and members of staff and subjected entire academic communities to fear and uncertainty.
The consequences go beyond the immediate victims. Students who should ordinarily spend long hours in lecture theatres, laboratories, studios or libraries are now reluctant to remain on campus after dark because they are unsure of their safety. This undermines academic excellence, weakens research activities and negatively affects the quality of learning. No nation can build a globally competitive university system under such conditions.
The renegotiation of agreements between government and university unions appears to be nearing completion. How far has the process gone?
We are now approaching what I believe is the final stage of a process that has lasted for almost seventeen years. I must particularly acknowledge the current negotiating team. From our engagements, they have demonstrated a good understanding of the issues before them. They have shown commitment, experience and, most importantly, a willingness to engage constructively with the unions. That has made a significant difference. For us in the non-teaching unions, we are also very close to concluding the process. We have held numerous meetings, both at the technical level and during plenary sessions, where every issue has been carefully examined. However, one concern we have consistently raised is the need for the government to demonstrate greater respect for the collective bargaining process.
Take the 25 per cent and 35 per cent salary adjustments, for example. Although they were approved, arrears have remained outstanding for well over a year. The wage award is yet to be fully settled, while several earned allowances legitimately due to university workers also remain unpaid. These are not new demands being introduced at the negotiating table. They are obligations that have already been acknowledged by the government but are still awaiting full implementation. Despite these challenges, we remain optimistic. Our expectation is that this process, which has taken almost two decades, will finally produce an agreement that not only addresses the welfare of university workers but also strengthens the capacity of our universities to deliver quality education.
One recurring challenge with government agreements has always been implementation. What assurances do university workers have that this agreement will not suffer the same fate?
That is perhaps the most important question because, ultimately, an agreement is only as meaningful as its implementation. Over the years, we have seen situations where agreements were painstakingly negotiated and signed, only for implementation to become slow, selective or, in some cases, completely stalled. This time, however, we deliberately approached the issue differently. While I may not be able to disclose every detail of the negotiations until the agreement is formally concluded, I can say that one of our major priorities was to build implementation and accountability mechanisms directly into the agreement itself. We recognised that signing a document is only the beginning. To achieve that objective, we proposed the establishment of an implementation and monitoring committee that will bring together all the critical institutions responsible for translating agreements into action. The committee is expected to include representatives of the Budget Office of the Federation, the Office of the Accountant-General of the Federation, the Federal Ministry of Education, the National Universities Commission and representatives of the university unions. The idea is simple but very important. Once all the relevant institutions are represented on the implementation committee, there will be a coordinated mechanism for monitoring progress, resolving emerging issues and ensuring that every aspect of the agreement is implemented as intended. Encouragingly, the government did not reject that proposal. That gives us reason to believe that there is a genuine appreciation of the need to avoid the implementation failures that have characterised previous agreements. Another factor that gives us cautious optimism is the timing. Nigeria already has an approved national budget. We therefore expect that once the agreement is signed, there should be no unnecessary delays in commencing implementation, particularly in areas that have direct budgetary implications.