EDUCATION, ASUU AND THE GLOBALIST AGENDA (1&2)

EDUCATION, ASUU AND THE GLOBALIST AGENDA (1)

When William Saint, the World Bank Education Consultant, came to Bayero University, Kano in 1999/2000, he hadn’t had the slightest idea that ASUU was ready for him. He was shocked by the level of mobilization and the ambush set to give him the terrifying welcome. The naive mindset people on such missions usually have about Africans being complacent, or having short memory and lacking a sense of history, was clearly visible in his mien. The apparent sudden realization that, contrary to his expectation, ASUU seemed to know the agenda they had been implementing in the last three decades (1970s, 1980s & 1990s), was, perhaps, what terrified him the more.

Let us take a short trip through these decades to see the picture that provides the logical context to this discussion. We shall return to Mr Saint to see who he was, what his mission in Nigeria was, how he planned to accomplish the mission, his encounter with ASUU at Bayero University, Kano, and part of his report recommendations to the World Bank.

All these may help to unravel the critical questions of why education has been systematically accorded diminishing national priority, and its role in Nigeria’s national development been consistently receding in the last 60 years. They would also help to deepen our insights into the trajectory that has shaped ASUU’s evolution and its struggles through the decades. Arising from all this may be the temptation to raise and tackle the following questions:

• Why has ASUU, of all the education stakeholders, decided to be the only consistent defender of education in Nigeria?
• Why do different Nigerian governments invariably respond to education crisis in the same pattern?
• What are the implications of government’s brazen hostility to education and the intermittent disruptions that follow as a consequence?
• What lessons could be learnt from ASUU’s consistent struggles for decades? The 1960s, the decade of Nigeria’s independence, was afflicted with crippling political crisis, so turbulent that the new nation was shaken to its very roots. Whether it was an inevitable corollary of colonial vestiges that characterized such emerging nations, education, especially university education, seemed to remain relatively insulated, and as robust as it was anywhere in the world. The university teaching and learning environment, infrastructure and facilities were of high standard and comparably as good as anywhere in Europe and North America. Conditions of service were equally good and attractive. Staffing policy, in terms of staff-students ratio and staff mix, was based on best-practice standards, which produced a cosmopolitan environment and a vibrant academic culture necessary for university to thrive.

Therefore, the need for coming together as a body to represent the academics was not felt until 1965 when the Association for University Teachers (AUT) was formed. AUT was not political. It was formed to cater only for the welfare of the academics. Other variables that define university seemed to have been taken for granted.

However, in the decade of prosperity and consolidation, as the 1970s were referred to, Nigerian Universities began to slide gradually, at the beginning, as the military consolidated their firm grips on the country. Suddenly, though consciously, as if jinxed to a morgaged future, Nigeria decided to embrace a policy that marked the beginning of the cascading crisis that has bedevilled education, particularly university education, to this day, and likely, to a distant future. AUT protested to the extent of a strike to press for the Government to address the deteriorating conditions of education – teaching and learning, and welfare of staff and students.

However, the Gowon Military Government responded ruthlessly and crushed the strike. That experience served as an eye opener for the academics, and they moved to change the dynamics.

Despite the relative obscurity of the policy’s source and contents, it triggered a warning from concerned visionary and farsighted Nigerian citizens, scholars and the ASUU, which was formed in 1978 from the National Association of University Teachers (NAUT). They warned that the policy was clearly meant to serve the master and to rule over the target with all ruthlessness, to forcefully impose its contents, and ultimately emasculate the university system and education in general. However, as the decade was largely characterized by military culture, and the government, itself remotely manipulated by the same forces that had designed the policy, the warning was ignored. This explains why Obasanjo Military Regime witnessed a lot of crises in the education sector.

The NPN civilian government under Shagari (1979-1983) was a bit cautious towards university education, although there were largely unsuccessful attempts to violate university autonomy in order to implement the same surreptitious agenda. ASUU’s spirited resistance thwarted the implementation of the agenda. As the dogged struggle deepened, the first agreement that gave the academic staff the USS scale with 20% differential relative to civil service scale, was signed in 1982.

The deepening contradictions in the Shagari Civilian administration provided the excuse that brought Buhari/Idiagbon military regime (Dec.1983- Aug. 1985) in a bloodless coup D’tat. Immediately they settled the military authoritarian culture began to manifest: the repressive policy mills were hastily deployed to launch a direct assault on the University and draconian decrees arbitrarily manufactured. Under this regime, the University was subjected to a torrent of attacks including:

• Termination of university cafetaria services
• Withdrawal of subsidies on accommodation in universities
• Workers retrenchment and wage freeze
• Transfer of university senate’s powers to NUC through Decree 16 of 1985
• Workers retrenchment and wage freeze

ASUU never relented in its strong resistence to these authoritarian policies despite all the harrassment and intimidation the union faced as a consequence.

The palace coup that toppled Buhari and brought Ibrahim Bodamasi Babangida (IBB) regime (1985 – 1993) was a continuation of the military and their repressive anti-intellectual culture. IBB regime never pretended that it was there to serve interests other than Nigerians’. Shortly after settling, the regime dropped the bombshell, unveiling a World Bank/IMF-packaged economic policy with fanatical determination to implement. While the regime initiated a national debate as to whether or not to take the IMF loan, it contemptuously ignored the process and silently took the loan with all the conditionalities before the public final verdict (a clearly overwhelming rejection). Nigerians were shocked by the regime’s stunning insensitivity in this reckless disregard for the far reaching and devastating socio-economic and political implications of this action.

ASUU became the intellectual light, in the forefront leading the resistance movement, providing an incisive critique of the regime’s economic policy and presenting simplefied but thorough analysis of the policy’s implications. The duo of ASUU and the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC), the former being an affiliate of the latter, became the most consistent and vocal critics of the policy, vigorously mobilizing the nation with the dogged insistence, to force the government to reverse its decision. As the government intentensified the commitment to the ruthless implementation of this anti-people economic policy, ASUU, NLC, NANS and other pro-people organizations turned the situation into a season of revolutionary activities: intellectually scathing public lectures and production of mobilizational publications to galvanize public opinion against government’s submission to the oppressive policy.

Sensing the massive public support and reaction and the obvious likely consequences, the IBB Regime bared its fangs, unleashing all the repressive instruments at their disposal. Barely one year into IBB’s tenure, the Regime started the full implementation of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) as a package of the IMF conditionalities. NLC, ASUU and NANS started to organize mass protest. NANS, using the Commemoration Day of “Ali-Must- GO”, staged a mass protest, in which many students were shot and killed in ABU, Zaria. The Government’s crackdown was widened and started in full swing:

• Arbitrary arrest of NLC leaders and “bombardment” of NLC offices started across Nigeria
• Plans to Weaken ASUU were hastily hatched and implemented (1) ASUU was de-affiliated from the NLC by Decree 16 of 1986 (2) Payment of check off dues was made voluntary for ASUU and NANS (3)The Abisoye Panel set up on ABU Crisis recommended sacking of lecturers for “…not teaching what they were paid to teach”
• A Year later (1987) UniBen VC, Prof. Grace Alele Williams, acting on the contrived report of visitation panel, announced the sack of ASUU President, Dr.Festus Iyayi, from the University. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017).

By the time Dr Attahiru M Jega (Dr Iyayi’s Vice-President) was elected ASUU President in an early NDC in 1988, the IBB regime, following the World Bank Agenda, had added more to the list of its atrocities. In fact, a reign of terror was unleashed:

• Government’s plans to retrench lecturers and rationalize courses had already reached advanced stages
• Dr. Patrick Wilmot (ABU, Zaria), a Scholar and vocal critic of Western imperialism, and Ms. Firinne N.C. Adelugba (BUK) had been covertly abducted and deported from Nigeria
• Government was blatant in its refusal to implement the earlier negotiated EUSS (Elongated University Salary Structure)
• As fuel prices were hiked by the Regime, students protested and the Government responded with massive crackdown on their leadership and on other activists across the country
• NLC was summarily dissolved and sole administrator appointed. (ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)

These constituted Dr Jega’s immediate challenges as the new ASUU President, and his EXCO set out to confront them head on. They formed Joint Action Committee (JAC) with the Senior Staff Association of University Teaching Hospital, Research Institutes and Allied Institutions (SSAUTHRIAI) to present a united front. JAC submitted its demands to Government, which were expectedly shunned. Joint strike commenced nationwide on July 1, 1988. Curiously, only ASUU was immediately banned. The leadership of SSAUTHRIAI immediately capitulated, dissociated itself from the JAC and called off the strike. ASUU continued with the strike under University Lecturers’ Association (ULA). Government immediately launched a crackdown on national and local leadership of ASUU. Drs Jega, Iyayi, and other national officers were arrested and taken to unknown location (which was later learnt to be Lagos) for over a month. Many branch chairmen, secretaries and activists of the Union were arrested across the nation. Yet, the declared strike was kept alive by, more or less, leaderless members; it lingered for sometime, but finally fizzled out unofficially.

Signature campaigns for the release of all the arrested ASUU leaders and members were initiated nationwide. A legal action was instituted in Kano High Court for their freedom. A day to the verdict, Dr Jega was produced and presented to the court; and all others were released. Case closed, but ASUU remained officially banned (1988-1990). Despite this situation, academics never ceased to organize. They continued to network and organize under different names. It was remarkable, given the circumstances, to be able to stop the World Bank University Sector Loan Facility and consequential staff rationalization.

The Loan Facility was carefully packaged to sow the seed for Nigerian University System Innovation Project (NUSIP), which popped up later as Obasanjo Administration’s initiative.

The occurrance of an interesting coincidence in 1990 helped to expose the desperation of the IBB regime to implement the IMF/World Bank policies. A day after the Association of University Teachers (AUT) – name adopted by the banned ASUU – had held a National Conference on the World Bank in OAU, Ile-Ife, the Orka Coup took place, April 22, 1990. In his coup speech, Major Gideon Orkar made apparently innocuous reference to the prevalent repressive tendencies of IBB and his Government. He adduced three reasons for the coup, part of which included:

“(d) The intent to cow the students by the promulgation of the draconian Decree Number 47.

(e) The cowing of the university teaching and non-teaching staff by an intended massive purge, using the 150 million dollar loan as the necessitating factor.”

Given the contemporary issues against which the ASUU, NLC and students were consistently united, and that which informed the core of their struggles against the government, it was easy for a sensitive government like IBB’s to perceive a connection between the coup and the conference. Hence, the conferene organizers, Prof. Omotoye Olorode and Dr. Idowu Awopetu (ASUU National Treasurer) were immediately arrested and detained as alledged coup suspects.They were subjected to military trials (Court Martial) but were found innocent and released. Yet, they were compulsorily retired “in public interest”. They were reinstated by the court when Prof. Aliu Babatunde Fafunwa became Education Minister.

After a long spell of unease between the Government and AUT (the former still defiant to address ASUU’s demands), September 1990 became a new dawn for ASUU as it was deproscribed. ASUU intensified its demand for collective bargaining – to negotiate the conditions of service and other work-related issues for its members. The IBB Gvernment remained adamant and invariably hostile whenever ASUU made attempt to push its demands, until May 1992, when Dr Jega was reelected President. After several failed efforts to get the Government to start negotiation, ASUU commenced the suspended strike. However, as if that was the Greenhouse conditions desperately needed, the Government readily submitted to start negotiation as the strike subsisted. What an irony! No sooner had the negotiation commenced than it was unilaterally suspended by the Government! ASUU had no option than to commence the strike.

On May 25, the strike commenced, but had to be suspended on May 30 as Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) stepped in. That marked the beginning of a series of crowded activities as ASUU responded to every Government move to arm-twist its way. ASUU continued to checkmate the Government’s unsavory litiny of absurdities until one by one they reached their climax and crumbled with a bang. Follow the labyrinth of tragicomedy of industrial relations as it unfolded:

• On June 1, the IAP found Dr Jega guilty of contempt of court, but the judge, apparently considering the weighty political implications, decided to waive it.
• On July 20, with Government irresponsibilty, ASUU had to commence the strike
• On July 22, ASUU was banned again, but the strike continued under Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities (ASNU)
• The situation remained until the Government was forced to negotiate through a committee it constituted
• On September 3, 1992, the two parties reached an agreement on Funding, Conditions of Service [with University Academic Salary Scale (UASS)], and Autonomy and Academic Freedom
• On September 4, the 4-month old strike was suspended and academic activities commenced.

Immediately the Agreement was signed, other university workers were instigated to ask for “parity”, insisting that whatever was given to ASUU must be given to them.

Even some of their members reasoned and questioned the basis of their leaders’ claims to parity, pointing out that they had been part of JAC when the struggle had begun, but unilaterally decided to ditch the JAC, capitulated and called off the strike when the chips were down. With our union preserved and intact, and without any collectively bargained agreement, what justification do we have to claim parity? – these SSANU members rationally queried.

However, as implementation of the ASUU Agreement commenced SSANU intensified its parity demand, which led to another round of the “Theatre of the Absurd”. The new vicious cycle started with the appointment of Professor Ben Nwabueze as Secretary (Minister) of Education. He contrived a new concept of “the Agreement of Imperfect Obligation”, meaning that the FG/ASUU Agreement was not (legally) binding on the Government to implement. He therefore directed universities to stop implementing the UASS/USS. Without any provocation, Prof Nwabueze continued his vicious attacks on ASUU with systematic breaches of the Agreement. It was obvious that he was deployed to do the hatchet job, and he was certainly doing it with utmost efficiency. ASUU’s voice of protest was drowned in a wirlwind of blackmail and intimidation. Its persistent demand to stop the breaches of the Agreement came up against a brick wall. With most aspects of the Agreement rolled back and no sign of de-escalating the breaches, ASUU had no option other than to take action.

• ASUU resumed the strike on May 3, 1993, and all member universities joined
• Three days later, the Government announced the dismissal of all striking lecturers and salary stoppage
• A Decree making teaching essential service, retroactively prohibiting teachers from going on strike, was enacted
• All lecturers on strike were given sack letters
• In some campuses, lecturers were ejected from their houses, despite the argument that residency of campus quarters was governed by the rental law.
• A particular case of UniAbuja Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Isa Muhammed, was pathetic. He went to the extent of sending the estate staff to tear off the roofs of lecturers’ houses, and then the security personnel to eject them.
• Even after the reinstatement of all lecturers later, Prof. Isa Muhammed refused to reinstate the EXCO of UniAbuja.

TO BE CONTINUED…..

Part 2

With the systematic devaluation of the Naira and the attendent deteriorating conditions of Nigerian universities under the regime, there was mass exodus of expatriate staff, leaving Nigerian universities. While the IBB Regime was bound by the IMF/World Bank’s conditionalities to wage an all out assault on the meagre salaries of the academics and of other workers, the regime was readily willing to continue implementing the World Bank/NUC Dollar Expatriate Supplementation Scheme (ESS). The Scheme provided supplementation in US Dollars in addition to salaries of expatriate academic staff as incentives to attract them to Nigerian universities. The amount individual staff was entitled to was based on their region of origin, classified as North America (US & Canada), Europe, Asia and Africa (Dollar value paid in that order). However, the scheme was short lived; it collapsed as the crisis in the sector further deepened. The eight years or IBB Regime were the years of meritorious service, loyalty, devotion, commitment and obedience to the IMF/World Bank, whose agenda constituted the framework of the regime’s programmes of action.

On August 27, Ernest Shonekan Interim Administration was ushered in, and a new education minister, Prof. Abraham Imogie, was appointed. As soon as he settled he reaffirmed the binding nature of the FG/ASUU Agreement. He asked all the dismissed lecturers to return to work, but they insisted that since they had been individually served letters of sack, they needed to be individually served counter letters of recall. Without hesitation, he directed all Vice-Chancellors to formally write individually addressed counter letters of recall to all sacked lecturers. They did. Normalcy returned to the campuses and academic activities picked up in earnest.

However, as preparations were on to address other issues in dispute; the Shonekan Interim Government was toppled by General Sani Abacha on November 17, 1993. Dr M. T. Liman became the Minister of Education, while in January 1994; Dr. Assisi Assobie took over from Dr Jega as ASUU President. Indeed, ASUU did not change its position on all the issues, including their resolution through collective bargaining principles. That was the approach in presenting the case to the new Education Minister, but right from the outset he was not interested in ASUU’s case. He said it point blank that the FG would not address ASUU’s demands, would not even negotiate with ASUU. ASUU was frustrated after repeated, but unyielding attempts to get the Minister to address the demands. The only logical option was to commence the strike.

In 1996, the strike Started amidst widespread protests for the de-annulment of June 12, 1993 election. ASUU was in a moral dilema as to whether to include it in its demands. This posed a serious threat to the unity among the ASUU ranks, especially as the Government used it effectively to blackmail ASUU. The idea was immediately dropped. The key demands were renegotiation of the 1992 FG/ASUU Agreement and reinstatement of ASUU members sacked by UniAbuja VC, Prof. Isa Muhammed.

• The strike lasted 6 months with salaries of all academic staff stopped
• Negotiations began, but broke down after ASUU refused to accept tuition fee
• Government dissolved the ASUU national EXCO and asked branches to negotiate with their Governing Councils
• Branches refused and the attempt failed
• Government directed the NUC Executive Secretary, Dr. Munzali Jubril, to write to all VCs to remove ASUU leaders
• President Assisi Assobie, Dr. Ogban Ogban-Iyam, Alex Nze and all the branch EXCO at Uni-Nsukka were sacked.
• Aminu Aliyu (BUK Branch Secretary) was also sacked on the flimsy excuse that he had breached protocols in writing to the Chairman of BUK Governing Council

After Gen. Abacha’s demise in 1998, Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar took over

• The new Education Minister, Chief Olaiya Oni facilitated the reinstatement of all sacked staff, coinciding with High Court ruling in favour of ASUU
• On May 25, 1999, the administration signed a limited agreement with ASUU, as its tenure was short. (See ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)

On May 29, 1999, Obasanjo Civilian Administration was inaugurated. Although Obasanjo was a retired Army General, there were expectations that a civilian administration would be different in terms of civility and the rule of law. The expectations were shattered. It was only in October that the FG agreed to sign another limited Agreement with ASUU, with the understanding to continue the negotiation “within 4 weeks”. With ASUU’s unrelenting efforts, it took ten months to commence the negitiation on August 28, 2000.

It was around this time William Saint, the World Bank Education Consultant, arrived Nigeria. He was on a World Bank’s mission to meet and interact with the Nigerian Authorities and key education stakeholders. Part of his itinerary included Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-ife and Bayero University, Kano. Each university he was to visit had been directed to invite selected parents/guardians, students, traditional leaders and anyone they considered key education stakeholders. He was to address them on the role of World Bank as a stakeholder in Higher Education, specifically on NUSIP (Nigerian University System Innovation Project). NUSIP was a World Bank’s project essentially designed to serve as policy guidelines for funding of higher education, specifically universities, in Nigeria. Its ultimate objective was to make universities self-funding institutions, fully commercialized, if not privatized, with all the attendent consequences, including high tuition fees and course and staff rationalization.

Following the trend of World Bank’s persistent attempts to take over education policy and decision-making, not just in Nigeria but in Africa, ASUU resolved to picket the occasion Mr Saint was going to address. The NEC of ASUU directed the concerned zones (South-East and North-West Zones, as the ASUU zonal structure was then) to which the branches belonged to organize inter-zonal picketings with all the branches in the zones, at the venues of the interaction.

Members of the North-West Zone, comprising Uni-Maid, ATBU, FUTY, ABU Zaria, UDUS and the host, BUK, arrived early at the Senate Chamber, the venue of the meeting, as guests were arriving. The Emir of Kazaure, HRH Alh. Najib Hussaini Adamu as the Royal Father of the occasion had already arrived and seated. The Senate Chamber, located on the 3rd and last floor of the building, was filled up to capacity anxiously waiting for Mr Saint to arrive.

Immediately Mr Saint, in the company of BUK Vice-Chancellor (VC), Late Prof. Musa Abdullahi, appeared, walking to the venue, ASUU picketers, numbering about 100, moved to positions and took every available space on the narrow way to block their passage. As they sighted the picketers, both of them were visibly alarmed, and momentarily stopped and made as if to retreat, but summoned courage to proceed, as they apparently sensed the harmlessness of the picketers, perhaps on recognition by the VC of some of the picketers. As they came closer, the picketers surged forward to show them the limit to where they could go. The atmosphere was tense, and everyone was sweating as the crowd was crammed in the narrow alley about 40 meters to the Senate Chamber.

William Saint, tall enough to pass for a Forward in an NBA Basketball team, and a bit lanky without being malnourished, stood there transfixed and face-to-face with ASUU picketers. He looked at the VC, as if to say (but without saying it): “who the hell are these?” The VC seemed to have got the body language; he introduced the picketers as ASUU (in full) members.

Mr Saint’s long hands flew in the air, apprently to say Hi to everyone, and all the time his robbing eyes scanning the picketers in an end-to-end probing search, possibly to detect danger or sense the unexpected. Nothing happened. The VC then pleaded to allow them pass; silence followed. He repeated his plea, and the terse answer was that only he would be allowed to pass. His repeated attempts to plead for his guest hit a brick wall. Sensing the VC’s dilemma, Mr Saint asked him to go and address the invitees about the situation. He was allowed to pass through the thick picket line.

Mr Saint stood with the picketers, apparently calm, but obviously seething with rage within. Nevertheless, he made attempt to address the picketers, but the shouts of no! no!! no!!!, drowned his voice. He withdrew. One of the picketers from Uni-Maid, a towering figure, a bit taller and more atheletic than Mr Saint, stepped forward. He stood before him to make a point: “Mr Saint, respect the picket!” he said. Like boxers about to start a boxing bout, they stared directly into each other’s eyes in a who-blinks-first posture. Mr Saint seemed to have got the message, and decided to retreat. He stepped back a little and stood aloof, looking furious and dejected, yet still sizing the the picket strength as if to force his way through into the venue. His mind, seemingly working on all possibilities, appeared to have perceptively analyzed the scenario and concluded that it was more than a picket line; it was a gathering of a motely crowd of young academics ready to take their destiny in their hands. He recoiled and finally decided, with an obvious sense of disappointment written all over his face, to resign and wait for the VC to come and move to the latter’s office.

Then came the plea message from the Emir of Kazaure to allow Mr Saint in. It was politely declined. As it came again and again, the reason for the picketing was explained to him. He understood, but was reluctant to be convinced. He gave up only when he realized it was already getting late. Most of the the invited stakeholders had dispersed. For William Saint, it was a mission aborted, but certainly not abandoned! At least, the minds of the picketers were alert to that fact.

William Saint, we came to learn, wrote his report, including recommendations, to the World Bank. Part of his recommendations was speculated to have included the following:

Campus unions are powerful and a serious obstacle. For NUSIP to succeed in Nigerian universities, the World Bank should find a way to handle campus unions.

Nigerian Government is generally noncommittal. The Bank should support and push a willing government to, at least, start implementing NUSIP.

Information, media campaigns, propaganda should be stepped up and maintained. Various media outfits, individuals and organizations should be mobilized and effectively used for enlightenment (veiled term for propaganda).

Is post-Saint actually post-NUSIP? NUSIP is only a sub-item on the neo-liberal agenda: a Nigerian version of a larger higher education policy for weak nations. Saint was only a messenger to supervise its implementation and report to the agents of the globalists, the Bretton-Woods institutions, that work in tendem to ensure the policy design, formulation, implementation and success. It is, therefore, these institutions that act on the Saint’s and similar reports as a process of sustained policy implementation. Therefore, for them, NUSIP or any equivalent policy they may design has come to stay and to be implemented at any cost. To implement such a policy the core essence of university system must be violated, if not completely destroyed i.e., from education as a public good, public service, to education as economic commodity, centralized, privatized and uniformly controlled by the oligarchs, and not by the true representatives of the people.

The climate seemed to be good to achieve the NUSIP objectives, as President Obasanjo was a “Good Boy”, an old soldier with a military dictator’s mind set, a veteran in the game, and now a civilian heading a “democratic” dispensation. Around May 2000, in an apparent attempt to calm nerves in the academic community, President Obasanjo quickly moved to make a jumbo unilateral offer, increasing salaries of university staff across the board by over 300%. However, ASUU made it clear that they would rather prefer less but negotiated salaries through collective bargaining process, to the arbitrary, unilateral offers, which could be arbitrarily withdrawn.

Therefore, ASUU continued the push for negotiation under Obasanjo. It started on August 28, 2000 and dragged for almost a year. A comprehensive Agreement was reached and agreed to be signed December 2001. - The FG, represented by the Education Minister, Babalola Borishade, inexplicably refused to sign, despite all entreaties.

• This resulted in 2001 strike, which led to the sacking of 49 ASUU members in UniLorin
• On June 30, negotiations resumed and the Agreement was signed
• FG refused to implement the signed Agreement, and for more than a year ASUU was relentlessly engaged in agitating for the Agreement to be implemented. Nothing was forthcoming.
• ASUU resolved to commence the Strike Dec. 29, 2002 that lasted 6 months (salaries withheld) to June 2003 amidst massive government’s propdganda and blackmail against ASUU. (See ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)

When all failed, the FG took ASUU to Industrial Arbitration Panel. The court ordered status quo ante for both parties. The case dragged for long after ASUU had suspended its strike with little change in the situation despite the government’s promises to address the situation. ASUU spent two years pursuing the FG to address the issue but nothig was forthcoming. A Warning strike was declared on February 23, 2005. Since then the hide-and-seek game between Obasanjo Government continued on the review and implementation of the FG/ASUU Agreement and reinstatement of the Unilorin 49. The FG’s adamant position on these issues resulted in: - 2007: Three-month strike, suspended to pave way for negotiation - 2008: FG betrayed ASUU, sponsored an Association of Nigerian Professors to undermine ASUU

• 2009: Indefinite strike in both Federal and State universities that led to 2009 FG/ASUU Agreement, which was signed in October. The same year marked the beginning of the proliferation of private universities as President Obasanjo had earlier threatened ASUU, as if that was done specifically to hurt ASUU more than the Nigerian nation.
• 2012: Indefinite strike for non-implementation of the 2009 Agreement, which led to Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which led to the emergence of the NEEDS ASSESSMENT of NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES. The Needs Assessment Reports gave rise to the recommendation for the funding of revitalization of Nigerian universities at the cost of 1.3 Trillion Naira as at that time.

The refusal of the FG to implement and renegotiate the Agreement led to a series of strikes in the subsequent years: 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020 (the longest strike for 9 months, because of COVID-19) and 2022 (for 8 months, February 14 – October 14). (See ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)

The two pieces have presented the complex labyrinth through which ASUU has conducted its patriotic struggles for five decades, with the last taking a breather just yesterday. In a country where literacy rate is still an estimate, perhaps less than 50 percent, with about 15 million out-of-school children and significantly low access to education, especially higher education, the trend certainly presents a frighteningly bleak future.

The next and last of the 3-part article will attempt to discuss the four questions raised in the first part of the presentation, and tackle some of the whys, the hows and the whats of the issue as they pop up in the different trending narratives.

(TO BE CONTINUED…)

EDUCATION, ASUU AND THE GLOBALIST AGENDA (2)

L. I. Diso

BUK

With the systematic devaluation of the Naira and the attendent deteriorating conditions of Nigerian universities under the regime, there was mass exodus of expatriate staff, leaving Nigerian universities. While the IBB Regime was bound by the IMF/World Bank’s conditionalities to wage an all out assault on the meagre salaries of the academics and of other workers, the regime was readily willing to continue implementing the World Bank/NUC Dollar Expatriate Supplementation Scheme (ESS). The Scheme provided supplementation in US Dollars in addition to salaries of expatriate academic staff as incentives to attract them to Nigerian universities. The amount individual staff was entitled to was based on their region of origin, classified as North America (US & Canada), Europe, Asia and Africa (Dollar value paid in that order). However, the scheme was short lived; it collapsed as the crisis in the sector further deepened. The eight years or IBB Regime were the years of meritorious service, loyalty, devotion, commitment and obedience to the IMF/World Bank, whose agenda constituted the framework of the regime’s programmes of action.

On August 27, Ernest Shonekan Interim Administration was ushered in, and a new education minister, Prof. Abraham Imogie, was appointed. As soon as he settled he reaffirmed the binding nature of the FG/ASUU Agreement. He asked all the dismissed lecturers to return to work, but they insisted that since they had been individually served letters of sack, they needed to be individually served counter letters of recall. Without hesitation, he directed all Vice-Chancellors to formally write individually addressed counter letters of recall to all sacked lecturers. They did. Normalcy returned to the campuses and academic activities picked up in earnest.

However, as preparations were on to address other issues in dispute; the Shonekan Interim Government was toppled by General Sani Abacha on November 17, 1993. Dr M. T. Liman became the Minister of Education, while in January 1994; Dr. Assisi Assobie took over from Dr Jega as ASUU President. Indeed, ASUU did not change its position on all the issues, including their resolution through collective bargaining principles. That was the approach in presenting the case to the new Education Minister, but right from the outset he was not interested in ASUU’s case. He said it point blank that the FG would not address ASUU’s demands, would not even negotiate with ASUU. ASUU was frustrated after repeated, but unyielding attempts to get the Minister to address the demands. The only logical option was to commence the strike.

In 1996, the strike Started amidst widespread protests for the de-annulment of June 12, 1993 election. ASUU was in a moral dilema as to whether to include it in its demands. This posed a serious threat to the unity among the ASUU ranks, especially as the Government used it effectively to blackmail ASUU. The idea was immediately dropped. The key demands were renegotiation of the 1992 FG/ASUU Agreement and reinstatement of ASUU members sacked by UniAbuja VC, Prof. Isa Muhammed.

• The strike lasted 6 months with salaries of all academic staff stopped
• Negotiations began, but broke down after ASUU refused to accept tuition fee
• Government dissolved the ASUU national EXCO and asked branches to negotiate with their Governing Councils
• Branches refused and the attempt failed
• Government directed the NUC Executive Secretary, Dr. Munzali Jubril, to write to all VCs to remove ASUU leaders
• President Assisi Assobie, Dr. Ogban Ogban-Iyam, Alex Nze and all the branch EXCO at Uni-Nsukka were sacked.
• Aminu Aliyu (BUK Branch Secretary) was also sacked on the flimsy excuse that he had breached protocols in writing to the Chairman of BUK Governing Council

After Gen. Abacha’s demise in 1998, Gen. Abdusalami Abubakar took over

• The new Education Minister, Chief Olaiya Oni facilitated the reinstatement of all sacked staff, coinciding with High Court ruling in favour of ASUU
• On May 25, 1999, the administration signed a limited agreement with ASUU, as its tenure was short. (See ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)

On May 29, 1999, Obasanjo Civilian Administration was inaugurated. Although Obasanjo was a retired Army General, there were expectations that a civilian administration would be different in terms of civility and the rule of law. The expectations were shattered. It was only in October that the FG agreed to sign another limited Agreement with ASUU, with the understanding to continue the negotiation “within 4 weeks”. With ASUU’s unrelenting efforts, it took ten months to commence the negitiation on August 28, 2000.

It was around this time William Saint, the World Bank Education Consultant, arrived Nigeria. He was on a World Bank’s mission to meet and interact with the Nigerian Authorities and key education stakeholders. Part of his itinerary included Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-ife and Bayero University, Kano. Each university he was to visit had been directed to invite selected parents/guardians, students, traditional leaders and anyone they considered key education stakeholders. He was to address them on the role of World Bank as a stakeholder in Higher Education, specifically on NUSIP (Nigerian University System Innovation Project). NUSIP was a World Bank’s project essentially designed to serve as policy guidelines for funding of higher education, specifically universities, in Nigeria. Its ultimate objective was to make universities self-funding institutions, fully commercialized, if not privatized, with all the attendent consequences, including high tuition fees and course and staff rationalization.

Following the trend of World Bank’s persistent attempts to take over education policy and decision-making, not just in Nigeria but in Africa, ASUU resolved to picket the occasion Mr Saint was going to address. The NEC of ASUU directed the concerned zones (South-East and North-West Zones, as the ASUU zonal structure was then) to which the branches belonged to organize inter-zonal picketings with all the branches in the zones, at the venues of the interaction.

Members of the North-West Zone, comprising Uni-Maid, ATBU, FUTY, ABU Zaria, UDUS and the host, BUK, arrived early at the Senate Chamber, the venue of the meeting, as guests were arriving. The Emir of Kazaure, HRH Alh. Najib Hussaini Adamu as the Royal Father of the occasion had already arrived and seated. The Senate Chamber, located on the 3rd and last floor of the building, was filled up to capacity anxiously waiting for Mr Saint to arrive.

Immediately Mr Saint, in the company of BUK Vice-Chancellor (VC), Late Prof. Musa Abdullahi, appeared, walking to the venue, ASUU picketers, numbering about 100, moved to positions and took every available space on the narrow way to block their passage. As they sighted the picketers, both of them were visibly alarmed, and momentarily stopped and made as if to retreat, but summoned courage to proceed, as they apparently sensed the harmlessness of the picketers, perhaps on recognition by the VC of some of the picketers. As they came closer, the picketers surged forward to show them the limit to where they could go. The atmosphere was tense, and everyone was sweating as the crowd was crammed in the narrow alley about 40 meters to the Senate Chamber.

William Saint, tall enough to pass for a Forward in an NBA Basketball team, and a bit lanky without being malnourished, stood there transfixed and face-to-face with ASUU picketers. He looked at the VC, as if to say (but without saying it): “who the hell are these?” The VC seemed to have got the body language; he introduced the picketers as ASUU (in full) members.

Mr Saint’s long hands flew in the air, apprently to say Hi to everyone, and all the time his robbing eyes scanning the picketers in an end-to-end probing search, possibly to detect danger or sense the unexpected. Nothing happened. The VC then pleaded to allow them pass; silence followed. He repeated his plea, and the terse answer was that only he would be allowed to pass. His repeated attempts to plead for his guest hit a brick wall. Sensing the VC’s dilemma, Mr Saint asked him to go and address the invitees about the situation. He was allowed to pass through the thick picket line.

Mr Saint stood with the picketers, apparently calm, but obviously seething with rage within. Nevertheless, he made attempt to address the picketers, but the shouts of no! no!! no!!!, drowned his voice. He withdrew. One of the picketers from Uni-Maid, a towering figure, a bit taller and more atheletic than Mr Saint, stepped forward. He stood before him to make a point: “Mr Saint, respect the picket!” he said. Like boxers about to start a boxing bout, they stared directly into each other’s eyes in a who-blinks-first posture. Mr Saint seemed to have got the message, and decided to retreat. He stepped back a little and stood aloof, looking furious and dejected, yet still sizing the the picket strength as if to force his way through into the venue. His mind, seemingly working on all possibilities, appeared to have perceptively analyzed the scenario and concluded that it was more than a picket line; it was a gathering of a motely crowd of young academics ready to take their destiny in their hands. He recoiled and finally decided, with an obvious sense of disappointment written all over his face, to resign and wait for the VC to come and move to the latter’s office.

Then came the plea message from the Emir of Kazaure to allow Mr Saint in. It was politely declined. As it came again and again, the reason for the picketing was explained to him. He understood, but was reluctant to be convinced. He gave up only when he realized it was already getting late. Most of the the invited stakeholders had dispersed. For William Saint, it was a mission aborted, but certainly not abandoned! At least, the minds of the picketers were alert to that fact.

William Saint, we came to learn, wrote his report, including recommendations, to the World Bank. Part of his recommendations was speculated to have included the following:

Campus unions are powerful and a serious obstacle. For NUSIP to succeed in Nigerian universities, the World Bank should find a way to handle campus unions.

Nigerian Government is generally noncommittal. The Bank should support and push a willing government to, at least, start implementing NUSIP.

Information, media campaigns, propaganda should be stepped up and maintained. Various media outfits, individuals and organizations should be mobilized and effectively used for enlightenment (veiled term for propaganda).

Is post-Saint actually post-NUSIP? NUSIP is only a sub-item on the neo-liberal agenda: a Nigerian version of a larger higher education policy for weak nations. Saint was only a messenger to supervise its implementation and report to the agents of the globalists, the Bretton-Woods institutions, that work in tendem to ensure the policy design, formulation, implementation and success. It is, therefore, these institutions that act on the Saint’s and similar reports as a process of sustained policy implementation. Therefore, for them, NUSIP or any equivalent policy they may design has come to stay and to be implemented at any cost. To implement such a policy the core essence of university system must be violated, if not completely destroyed i.e., from education as a public good, public service, to education as economic commodity, centralized, privatized and uniformly controlled by the oligarchs, and not by the true representatives of the people.

The climate seemed to be good to achieve the NUSIP objectives, as President Obasanjo was a “Good Boy”, an old soldier with a military dictator’s mind set, a veteran in the game, and now a civilian heading a “democratic” dispensation. Around May 2000, in an apparent attempt to calm nerves in the academic community, President Obasanjo quickly moved to make a jumbo unilateral offer, increasing salaries of university staff across the board by over 300%. However, ASUU made it clear that they would rather prefer less but negotiated salaries through collective bargaining process, to the arbitrary, unilateral offers, which could be arbitrarily withdrawn.

Therefore, ASUU continued the push for negotiation under Obasanjo. It started on August 28, 2000 and dragged for almost a year. A comprehensive Agreement was reached and agreed to be signed December 2001. - The FG, represented by the Education Minister, Babalola Borishade, inexplicably refused to sign, despite all entreaties.

• This resulted in 2001 strike, which led to the sacking of 49 ASUU members in UniLorin
• On June 30, negotiations resumed and the Agreement was signed
• FG refused to implement the signed Agreement, and for more than a year ASUU was relentlessly engaged in agitating for the Agreement to be implemented. Nothing was forthcoming.
• ASUU resolved to commence the Strike Dec. 29, 2002 that lasted 6 months (salaries withheld) to June 2003 amidst massive government’s propdganda and blackmail against ASUU. (See ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)

When all failed, the FG took ASUU to Industrial Arbitration Panel. The court ordered status quo ante for both parties. The case dragged for long after ASUU had suspended its strike with little change in the situation despite the government’s promises to address the situation. ASUU spent two years pursuing the FG to address the issue but nothig was forthcoming. A Warning strike was declared on February 23, 2005. Since then the hide-and-seek game between Obasanjo Government continued on the review and implementation of the FG/ASUU Agreement and reinstatement of the Unilorin 49. The FG’s adamant position on these issues resulted in: - 2007: Three-month strike, suspended to pave way for negotiation - 2008: FG betrayed ASUU, sponsored an Association of Nigerian Professors to undermine ASUU

• 2009: Indefinite strike in both Federal and State universities that led to 2009 FG/ASUU Agreement, which was signed in October. The same year marked the beginning of the proliferation of private universities as President Obasanjo had earlier threatened ASUU, as if that was done specifically to hurt ASUU more than the Nigerian nation.
• 2012: Indefinite strike for non-implementation of the 2009 Agreement, which led to Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which led to the emergence of the NEEDS ASSESSMENT of NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES. The Needs Assessment Reports gave rise to the recommendation for the funding of revitalization of Nigerian universities at the cost of 1.3 Trillion Naira as at that time.

The refusal of the FG to implement and renegotiate the Agreement led to a series of strikes in the subsequent years: 2013, 2015, 2017, 2019, 2020 (the longest strike for 9 months, because of COVID-19) and 2022 (for 8 months, February 14 – October 14).

(See ASUU Leadership Training Manual 2017)

The two pieces have presented the complex labyrinth through which ASUU has conducted its patriotic struggles for five decades, with the last taking a breather just yesterday. In a country where literacy rate is still an estimate, perhaps less than 50 percent, with about 15 million out-of-school children and significantly low access to education, especially higher education, the trend certainly presents a frighteningly bleak future.

The next and last of the 3-part article will attempt to discuss the four questions raised in the first part of the presentation, and tackle some of the whys, the hows and the whats of the issue as they pop up in the different trending narratives.

(TO BE CONTINUED…)