The 2009 agreement between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the Federal Government was meant to be a turning point. It promised steady funding for repairs and equipment, an earned academic allowance to reward teaching and research, stronger university autonomy, and a framework for regular review. Those promises have not been kept in full. Today, that failure is not merely an academic quarrel; it is a national problem that deserves plain talk and honest action.
Recently, the ASUU and the federal government exchanged blows as the federal government, through its Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa, declared that the federal government never signed the 2009 agreement.
I write as someone who watches universities closely—not as a neutral observer but as a citizen who depends on the steady supply of doctors, engineers, teachers, and researchers that our universities should produce. Repeated strikes, missed semesters, and stalled research projects not only hurt students and staff. They damage the country’s ability to build homes, treat the sick, grow food, and run schools. This is why the 2009 agreement must stop being a reference document and start serving as a delivery plan.
Let’s state the facts. The 2009 text set out clear steps, a multi-year programme to revive federal universities, clearer pay and allowance rules for academics, and protections to help universities run themselves. Instead of steady implementation, we saw partial payments, delayed releases, and drafts that never moved to firm, legal commitments. Where money was promised, it often arrived late or in pieces. Where systems were proposed, the legal or institutional tools to sustain them were not put in place. That gap between what was promised and what was delivered is the root of repeated strikes.
ASUU’s grievances today are familiar because the problems are. The union asks for payment of earned academic allowances, release of revitalisation funds, clearance of promotion arrears, and the restoration of deducted sums. The union asks, in public and repeatedly, for a signed, costed timetable showing how the government will meet these obligations. The government’s position is also public: it must make fiscally sustainable, legally binding commitments and ensure any agreement is workable within the nation’s laws and budget.
Both sides make valid points. The union’s demand for clear, verifiable commitments grows out of long experience with unkept promises. The government’s insistence on legal and fiscal prudence reflects a duty to manage public money responsibly. Neither side is entirely wrong. But the longer the standoff continues, the worse the damage to students and the country.
The government should list what it will pay, how much each item costs, and the dates for disbursement. This is not a political stunt; it is basic accounting. When both parties see the numbers and the dates, progress becomes verifiable. A timetable also allows civil society, the National Assembly, and auditors to hold both sides accountable.
Second, establish a ring-fenced fund for university revitalisation. The 2009 agreement envisioned sustained funding for campus renewal. That vision failed because allocations were swallowed by competing demands during yearly budget cycles. A legally backed “University Revitalisation and Continuity Fund,” seeded by government capital and transparent top-ups, would protect vital projects from being rerouted in times of fiscal pressure. Ring-fencing is not a cure-all, but it creates the fiscal certainty universities need to plan and rebuild.
Sensitive items promotion, arrears, earned allowances, and project release funds should be placed in escrow accounts monitored by a joint committee that includes ASUU representatives, ministry officials, and independent auditors. Public dashboards tracking disbursements and project status would reduce suspicion and limit opportunities for diversion. Independent monitoring is a practical trust-building tool.
Beyond these steps, there are sensible reforms that both sides should support. Universities should be encouraged to diversify revenue through alumni contributions, research commercialisation, and regulated fee reforms paired with governance safeguards. A standing tripartite council should replace episodic bargaining; it would meet regularly to review pay, funding shortfalls, and sector performance, so negotiations are technical rather than crisis-driven.
This is not about appeasing one side or the other. It is about protecting the future workforce and the knowledge base the nation needs. Every year, a cohort lost to strike is a year of lost doctors, engineers, teachers, and innovators. That is not abstract; it is a measurable harm to health systems, food security, and industry.
Both parties have responsibility. ASUU should present its demands in clear, costed terms and be willing to accept phased delivery that protects core interests. The government must publish what it agrees to, commit funds where possible, and use law and oversight to make promises durable. If the government fears open costs, then disclose them and explain how they will be met. If ASUU fears diversion or delay, then insist on escrow and independent monitoring.
Fixing the 2009 agreement is not an act of charity. It is a national necessity. The solutions are straightforward and within reach, costed timetables, ring-fenced funds, and transparent oversight. What is missing, often, is political will and a shared readiness to make agreements binding in practice, not only in words.
Let us stop treating university funding as a headline fight and start treating it as national infrastructure. Do the simple, practical things that rebuild trust and deliver results. When that happens, students return to class, staff receive what is due, laboratories are repaired, and research resumes. The nation regains a key engine of growth. The choice is ours: keep cycling through strikes, or convert promises into systems that last. I know which side I’m on.
