ASUU STRIKE AND THE NIGERIAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: A FOCUS ON ASUU

AND UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN, 2001 - 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION PAGES

1.1 Background to the study 4-7

1.2 Statement of the problem 7-9

1.3 Aim and Objectives of the study 9

1.4 Scope of the study 9

1.5 Significance of the study 9

1.6 Research Methodology 10

1.7 Review of Related Literature 10 - 14

Key Notes 15 - 16

CHAPTER TWO

THE FORMATION OF ASUU IN NIGERIA

2.1 Historical Background of ASUU 17 - 22

2.2 ASUU and Nigerian Universities 22 - 25

2.3 Chronicles of ASUU Strikes 25 - 27

2.4 ASUU in University of Ilorin? 27 - 30

2.5 Causes and Effects of ASUU Strikes on Nigerian Universities 30 - 59

Key Notes 60 - 66

CHAPTER THREE

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN

3.1 Background to the Establishment of University of Ilorin 67 - 69

3.2 Growth and Challenges of the University of Ilorin 69 - 72

2
3.3 2001 ASUU Strikes: Before and After 72 - 87

3.4 Resolution of the 2001 Strike 87 - 91

Key Notes 92 - 96

CHAPTER FOUR

IMPACT OF THE UNILORIN 49 STRICKERS

4.1 Impact on the University Administration 97

4.2 Briefs on Each of the ‘49’ 97 - 99

4.3 Judicial Impact 99 - 101

4.4 Financial Impact 101 - 102

4.5 Impact on teaching and learning 102

4.6 General Summary 102 - 103

4.7 Conclusion 103 - 104

Key Notes 105 - 106

BIBLIOGRAPHY 107 - 110

3
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

We all live in a society which has its own set spoken/unspoken rules and one of them is

education. The society expects you to go to school followed by college, get a job, settle down

etc. In fact, education helps you become a useful member of the society. An educated member

certainly has a greater chance to contribute to his community. Education helps you become an

active member of the society and participate in the ongoing changes and developments. It

majorly affects our understanding of the difference between right and wrong. An educated

person is well aware of the consequences of wrong/illegal actions and he is less likely to get

influenced and do something which is not legally/morally right. Also, a number of uneducated

people who live a poverty-stricken life owning to lack of opportunities often turn to illegal ways

such as theft and robbery to solve their problems. An educated person is well aware of their

rights, the law and their responsibilities towards the society. Hence, education is an important

factor which contributes in social harmony and peace.

Australia, USA and Japan are few countries with very high literacy rates. These countries are

extremely prosperous and the citizens have a high per capita income.  On the other hand, in

underdeveloped and developing nations, where literacy rate is not as high, a number of people

are still living below the poverty line. Education is vital for the economic prosperity of a nation.
[1]

University education enables the graduates gain professional qualifications that are recognized

and respected worldwide and offered higher pay and greater financial stability. It enables and

empowers individuals the ability to fast-track their career with graduate study and exposes

4
students to new research and technology. It equally encourages creative and independent thought

and exposes students to other cultures and backgrounds. University education helps students

conquer intellectual challenges and develop a sense of achievement as well builds initiative and

leadership skills that can be used for life. It is where students build their first adult networks and

meet friends and mentors that become future contacts and colleagues and mix with inspiring

academic staff who are leading experts in their field.

The essence of education in a society cannot be overemphasized and university education is

arguably an important aspect of human capital development in every society. It is indispensable

to the building of thriving economies. Knowledge acquisition is a major factor in the economic

development of nations giving such nations a competitive advantage in the globalized economy.
[2]

It is important that citizens of a country are educated as this will go a long way in developing the

country and increasing its competitiveness in the international community. Okebukola states that:

higher education provides the much-needed human resources for

actively improving the economy of nations and guaranteeing
rapid changes.

He also asserted that:

the greater the opportunity given to the citizenry for higher

education, the more expansive the horizon for rapid social and
economic development. [2]

Education is undeniably an integral part of the human society which justifies the struggle of the

Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU]. ASUU is both a professional body and a labour

union. The four staff Unions in the University of Ilorin are Academic Staff Union of Universities

(ASUU), Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), Non-Academic Staff

5
Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU), National Association of Academic

Technologists (NAAT).

The Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU] was formed in 1978, it was successor to the

Nigerian Association of University Teachers formed in 1965. ASUU covers only academic staff

federal government-owned and state government-owned universities in the country. From its

inception, ASUU has been active in the struggle against the military rule during the 1980s. [3]

ASUU’s struggle pattern fits perfectly into that description as it has been engaged in fierce

confrontations with the Federal Government, especially the military, through prolonged strikes,

notably in 1988 (which led to its ban), 1992 (which earned another ban), 1994, 1998 (that lasted

six months) and 2001 among others. The Union’s resolve at all times could not be broken, just as

its unity had also strategically changed its name to University Lecturers‟ Association (ULA) in

1988, and to Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities (ASNU) in 1992, in order to survive and

keep the struggle alive. At various times, the authorities resorted to vicious reactions including

the arrest and detention of Union leaders and even outright dismissal as exemplified by the

famous case of the late Festus Iyayi in the University of Benin. Arikewuyo posits that from the

beginning, ASUU’s major demands include adequate funding of the university system,

university autonomy and academic freedom, as well as enhanced salary and conditions of

service, through collective efforts.[4]

The Nigerian universities have no doubt suffered in the hands of the federal government who are

doing very little to advance the Nigerian educational sector. This is the core contention between

the Nigerian government and the Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU] which has

lingered on for more than two decades and has generated the use of industrial action by the union

to express dissatisfaction with the mode of operation of the government as it relates to education.

6
However, after the return to democracy in 1999 with the Nigerian Fourth Republic, the union

was reinstated and continued their demand for the rights of the university academic workers as

against the opposition by the government of President Olusegun Obasanjo. ASUU union fights

for improved funding of the university system and better working condition of the lecturers

without which they are sparsely productive. ASUU demand was because of the poor university

funding and disparity in salary and retirement age [6]

The demands of the union covers both the interests of the students and lecturers. The union

struggles against the nonchalance of the government to the educational sector. The educational

sector is one important sector in any country. [7]

All over the world, for instance in USA, UK,

Germany, Japan, China, universities are seen as centres of excellence, where knowledge is not

only acquired but also disseminated as teaching and learning takes place. Therefore, this

important role that education plays in the society cannot be neglected. The university system is a

medium that conscientizes the entire society. What university education dishes out is an essential

factor that helps to maintain the structures of a society which are family, religion, education,

media, law, politics, and economy. These are understood as distinct institutions that are

interrelated and interdependent and together help compose the overarching social structure of a

society [8]

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Industrial actions have been the order of the day in Nigeria, particularly in the educational sector

of the country this is as a result of unresolved issues and unmet demands of organized labour as

regards education in the country. By this, it is obvious that the government pays little attention to

the needs of education in the country which we feel, is the pillar of every country. A look at the

Nigerian educational system creates a rather pathetic emotion as the education system in Nigeria

7
is largely underfunded, with dilapidating structures, overcrowded classrooms with little or no

ventilation, and underpaid lecturers with poor working conditions. These and more have led to

the strikes by the Academic Staff Union of Universities from its inception till now. The question

here is why is the government so reluctant to meet the needs for a better educational system in

the country? Facts have also proven that more than 1 trillion Dollars is spent by Nigerians who

search for better education in different parts of the world. The federal government instead of

meeting all the demands of ASUU at once and prevent any further strikes, the government rather

meets few out of the many demands just to call the union back to classes with promises to fulfil

the outstanding demands. An instance of this was the cause of 2003, 2011 and 2013 ASUU

strikes because of poor University funding and disparity in salary and reviewing of retirement

age of ASUU members from 65years to 70years.

1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to examine the ASUU strike and the Nigerian University

System, focusing on ASUU and University of Ilorin between 2001 – 2019. Other specific

objectives are:

1. To examine the causes and effects of incessant strikes in Nigerian Universities.

2. To describe the historical events that led to the persistent strike actions by the Academic

Staff Union of Universities.

3. To find out and understand the cause of the 2001 strike that led to the dismissal of 49

UNILORIN lecturers.

4. To document the sacrifices of ‘Unilorin 49’.

5. To examine the founding of the University of Ilorin.

8
 6. To identify the impact of the UNILORIN 49 on the university.

7. To interrogate the resolution of Unilorin 49

8. To identify the growth and challenges of the University of Ilorin.

1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study provides insight into the ASUU strike and the Nigerian University System using

ASUU and the University of Ilorin, 2001 – 2019 as a case study. The study seeks to elucidate

Unilorin ASUU. It examines Unilorin before 2001 and studies the causes and effects of 2001

strike. It answers the question; why Unilorin 49? And discusses the judicial resolution for the

Unilorin 49. It also stresses the tenacious life of Unilorin 49 and identifies the growth and

challenges of the University of Ilorin.

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This research will provide an insight on the reason for the suspension of UNILORIN from the

numerous strike actions by the Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU]. This is because

very little is known about this. The outcome of this study will constitute an important source of

literature for future researchers on the subject matter and related areas.

Also, this study is also significant as it will establish the notable impact of the UNILORIN 49 on

the university administration. It also provides a detailed account of the main disputes and

considers specifically factors responsible for ASUU strikes in Nigerian universities.

Furthermore, this study will add to the body of knowledge by giving an insight on the activities

of ASUU [Academic Staff Union of Universities] in Nigerian Universities.

9
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher made use of history research methodology which involves the use of primary and

secondary sources.

The primary sources employed in the course of this research includes oral interviews while the

secondary sources include; books, journals, magazines, newspapers, articles, thesis, dissertations,

and internet sources in multi-disciplinary history, economics, politics, sociology and labour

relations, etc.

1.7 LITERATURE REVIEW

Akah Augustine Ugar’s article on “ASUU strikes, the Federal Government and the Nigerian

educational system” states that the importance of education and the pivotal role it plays in the

human life cannot be overemphasized. It explains that for every economy to thrive, education

cannot be downplayed.

Ugar examines the factors that have served as obstacles to the smooth operation of Nigerian

universities which he listed to include:

Inadequate funding, inadequate resources, poor infrastructures as

well as outstanding payments owed to Academic Staff Union of
Universities (ASUU) members and other employees in the public
universities. [9]

The work of Ugar will be of important to this current research because it will serve as an eye-

opener to the research on the major obstacles to the smooth operation of Nigerian Universities.

10
Valentina Obioma Dimunah’s “Underfunding of Federal universities in Nigeria and perceived

impact on Administration” argues that adequate funded universities not only ensure a higher

standard of university but also gives the university the chance to compete with other universities

within and outside the shores of the country. However, since that has not been the case of

Nigerian universities, Nigerian universities have become underproductive. [10]

Ogbette Afamefuna Samuel’s, “Causes, Effects, and Management of ASUU strikes in Nigeria’’

examines the causes, effects and management of Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU)

strikes in Nigerian universities. It emphasizes that beyond the immediate causes of the strikes

which he lists are low wages, conditions of service, poor and erratic funding. He adds that

Nigeria’s macroeconomic policies contributed to the intensity of the disputes. It recommends

solutions such as dialogue with active government actors and active members of Academic Staff

Union of Universities [ASUU]. [11]

Ogbette’s work was limited to the causes, effect and management of ASUU strikes in Nigeria. It

generalizes the concept without taking apt details of the Unilorin 49, its causes, effects and

management which is a gap this current research tends to fill.

Jake Otonko’s “University Education in Nigeria”, investing in education and most importantly,

university education is the gateway for any society to succeed. This is because according to him,

it has been discovered over time that it is the development of the human person that invariably

trickles down to the development that Nigeria yearns for. The author asserts that an efficient

university educational system could be considered as one of the best asset a nation can have. [12]

This is related to Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU], ESUT Chapter against the

Enugu State Government. The thesis “an investigation into the root causes of conflict between

11
the ASUU, ESUT chapter and Enugu State government” discloses why the dispute between the

two parties remains unresolved. The writer, Ike Victor Chukwuemeka argues that while the

government should take urgent steps in funding the system which face the same problems in all

Nigerian Federal Universities, he also maintained that ASUU must show restraints in their

demands and agitations. [13]

Victor Etim Ndum “Conflict management in Nigerian Universities” examines the causes of

conflicts in Nigerian universities and methods adopted in managing them in such a way that the

productivity of Academic Staff of Universities is not affected. It also recommends that the

overall goals of the universities is to maintain peace and progress in the society [14]

The work of Victor provides an insight into the management of conflict in Nigerian Universities

which is related to this current research on ASUU strike and Nigeria University system.

However, his work was not able to pin-point on the cases of University of Ilorin and the sacked

49 lecturers. This gap is what the researcher tends to fill for better understanding.

Sylvester Azamosa Odiagbe “Industrial Conflict in Nigerian Universities: A case study of the

disputes between the ASUU and the Federal Government of Nigeria” provides a historical

account of the origin, development, causes, and the effects of industrial conflict in Nigerian

universities. It concludes that the Industrial conflict between Academic Staff Union of

Universities [ASUU] and the Federal Government of Nigeria entails both economic and political

factors. It concluded that the factors affecting the industrial dispute between ASUU and the

Federal Government have been largely propelled by historical, economic and political factors

12
which have become institutionalized and embedded in the Nigerian polity so that the disputes

will continue to be difficult to resolve. [15]

The work Sylvester is of relevance to this research because it encapsulates the causes and effects

of ASUU strikes and the Federal government of Nigeria in Nigerian Universities which is related

to this current research. However, a deep emphasis on the origin and impacts of Unilorin 49 was

not made in his work. This is a gap; this current research tends to fill.

Jones M. Jaja’s “Higher Education in Nigeria” argues that education is one of the most

enduring legacies that parents and the country can pass to its youths. It also recognizes the

benefits of higher education and the challenges faced in attempting to provide higher education.

It then notes that the government alone cannot provide the resources needed to provide

qualitative education. It also examines the challenges confronting universities in their desire to

meet the onerous responsibilities expected of them by government, parents, and society. [16]

Y. A. Quadri’s “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle” gives detailed information on the

establishment of the University of Ilorin, academic, infrastructural, economic, and sports

development in the university. It also entails the struggles and challenges; like the controversial

dispute between the University of Ilorin and the Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU],

and also the achievements of the university. [17]

Franklin Ohiole Ohiwerei “Effects of Asuu Strikes on The Academic Performance of University

Students”, this study examines the effects of ASUU strikes on the performance of the university

students. It went further to provide an historical background of the Academic Staff Union of

Universities [ASUU], as well as the objectives of the union which would be useful for this

13
research work. It also touches on the primary causes and effects of the industrial conflict between

the Academic Staff Union of Universities [ASUU] and the Federal Government of Nigeria. [18]

L. O Odia’s “Education system in Nigeria, problems and prospects” examines the problems and

prospects of education in Nigeria. The study asserts that education is the bedrock of

development. It posits that education in Nigeria is hampered with myriads of problems which

include poor funding thus, poor educational infrastructures, inadequate classrooms etc. it also

examines the social vices that plagues schools. [19]

S. N Aja’s “Overview of the progress and challenges of education for all in Nigeria” examines

the progress and challenges of in Nigeria. The writers state that Education for all Nigeria (EFA)

is a global initiative on education launched in Jomtien, Thailand, 1990 to guarantee Universal

Basic Education to every citizen irrespective of nationality, race, sex, age, status or disabilities.
[20]

Nnamdi Okoroma’s “education policies and problems of implementation in Nigeria” focuses on

the poor performance of the educational sector in Nigeria. According to the work, it has become

very worrisome. It questions whether it was “the educational policy that is faulty or if it is the

implementation that is faulty?” [21]

Amakri, Asikiya (PhD) and Igani Boma (M.A) “Confronting the challenges in the education

sector in Nigeria” focuses on the reason for the continuous check agitations concerning the state

of the educational system in Nigeria despite several policies that have been made and even

replaced with new ones. The work also sought to establish the fact that education is an invaluable

14
tool for the attainment of national development. Therefore, poor education equaled little or no

development in the country. [22]

Key Note

1. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-reasons-why-education-extremely-important-

mohamed-reda

2. Journal: Conflict management in Nigerian Universities.

3. Journal: Conflict management in Nigerian universities.

4. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Staff_Union_of_Universities, accessed 10-

11-2020.

5. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Staff_Union_of_Universities, accessed 10-

11-2020.

6. All Africa.com/stories/202010190129.html, accessed 10-11-2020.

7. All Africa.com/stories/202010190129.html, accessed 10-11-2020.

8. Journal: Effects of ASUU strikes on the academic performance of university students

9. Journal: International Journal of Education and Research, vol.6(2018), p.19

10. Valentina Obioma Dimunah (2017), “Underfunding of Federal Universities in Nigeria

and perceived impact on Administration: an exploratory case study”.

11. Journal: journal or research and development, vol.3 (2017), p.17.

12. Journal: International journal of technology and inclusive education, vol.1, issue 2

(2012), p.44

13. Ike Victor Chukwuemeka (2013), “an investigation into the root causes of conflict

between the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ESUT, Enugu State Government”.

14. Journal: Conflict management in Nigerian Universities.

15
15. Sylvester Azamosa Odiagbe (2012) “a thesis on the industrial conflict in Nigerian

Universities: A case study of the dispute between the ASUU and the Federal Government

of Nigeria”.

16. Journal: Global journal of Human Social Science, Linguistics and Education, vol.13,

issue 14 (2013) p.1.

17. N.Y.S Ijaiya et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40: The Soaring Eagle”

18. Journal: Effects of ASUU strikes on the academic performance of university students

19. Odia L.O and S.I Omofonmwan (2007) “Educational System in Nigeria, problems and

prospects”.

20. Ibid p.19

21. Nnamdi Okoroma (2006) “Education policies and problems of implementation in

Nigeria”.

22. Amakri et al (2015) “Confronting the challenges in the educational sector in Nigeria”.

Ilorin: Crown Hill Publishers Ltd, P.20

16
 ;/CHAPTER TWO

THE FORMATION OF ASUU IN NIGERIA

2.1 Historical Background of ASUU

The attempt by man to dominate the environment or to avert anarchy, lawlessness and acrimony

came through the evolution of complex socio-political management structures. Put more

succinctly, the goal of any management or administration is to maintain order through insistence

on set codes, regulations, rules or laws of management. In Nigeria, the spectrum for human

struggle for group and self-identification within an administration, came through the effort of

Henry Libert, a colonial administrator from which grew unionism (Enough is Enough, 2001).

The Civil Service Union was formed in 1912. The Academic Staff Union of Universities

(ASUU) grew out of the Nigerian Association of University Teachers (NAUT), formed in 1965.

The Association was been adjudged to be a non-ideological middle class fraternity with

viewpoints not too divergent from those of the post-colonial state. ASUU, with a more radical

posture, was registered as a trade union by Decree 19 of 1976.[1]

In any enterprise, there is a tricky and dynamic relationship between labour and capital,

represented by the workers and management respectively. This labour relations within the

framework of a University community is a peculiar one, given the universal idea that it is a

community/ conglomerate, an island of scholars, intellectuals and well-informed individuals

who converge to pursue goals that they cannot single-handedly achieve. In the relationship, the

University management, representing the Proprietor, is usually perceived to be stronger, in terms

of its position in the citadel, its economic strength and political connection. This invariably often

leads to a display of exploitative tendencies and managerial control over staff unions

(authoritarianism), high handedness, arbitrariness and corruption. The workers‟ reaction to this

17
is through unionism. Hence, unionism emerged in universities to promote and protect the

interests of its members. The popular and seemingly appealing method is through agitation

resulting in incessant ravaging bluffs and acrimonies in the system, a scenario that has gradually,

but sadly, shifted stakeholders‟ attention from the primary purpose for which universities were

established.

ASUU’s struggle pattern fits perfectly into that description as it has been engaged in fierce

confrontations with the Federal Government, especially the military, through prolonged strikes,

notably in 1988 (which led to its ban), 1992 (which earned another ban), 1994, 1998 (that lasted

six months) and 2001 among others. The Union‟s resolve at all times could not be broken, just

as its unity had also strategically changed its name to University Lecturers‟ Association (ULA)

in 1988, and to Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities (ASNU) in 1992, in order to survive

and keep the struggle alive. At various times, the authorities resorted to vicious reactions

including the arrest and detention of Union leaders and even outright dismissal as exemplified

by the famous case of the late Festus Iyayi in the University of Benin. [2]

From the beginning, its major demands include adequate funding of the university system,

university autonomy and academic freedom, as well as enhanced salary and conditions of

service, through collective efforts . ASUU is a trade union whose purpose of which is to
[3]

regulate the terms and conditions of the employment of workers. He went on to outline

principles guiding the ASUU as a Union, as follows:

• Integrity, transparency and accountability;

• Professionalism, objectivity and hard work;

• Courage, sacrifice and total commitment;

• Internal democracy, teamwork and group solidarity; and

18
• Patriotism, anti-imperialism and working-class solidarity [4]

A university is an institution which advances and diffuses consciousness for the entire society,

ASUU is expected to be a model and a standard guide to others within the civil society in

general. More importantly, the dialectics of unionism and university management should be well

handled and channeled through crafting between a balance that is capable of ensuring adequate

and effective educational service delivery.[5]

ASUU was formed in 1978, a successor to the Nigerian Association of University Teachers

formed in 1965 and covering academic staff in the University of Ibadan, University of Nigeria,

Nsukka; Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria; University of Ife and University of Lagos. ASUU was

formed at the beginning of decline in the oil boom, when the country faced the consequences of

failure of its rulers to use the oil wealth to generate production and a welfare system. Military

dictatorship had deeply eroded the basic freedoms in the society, academic freedom and

university autonomy were casualties of this military dictatorship. The funding of education, and

so of universities grew poorer. As a result, ASUU’s orientation became radical, more concerned

with broad national issues, and stood firmly against the oppressive, undemocratic policies of the

governments of the country.[6]

The assault on academic freedom was the subject of resistance by ASUU. In 1980, ASUU

declared a trade dispute and made autonomy an issue. In 1980 – 1981, ASUU had a struggle with

the Shagari government. Its concern were funding, salaries, autonomy and academic freedom,

the brain drain, as well as the survival of the university system.

During the military period, ASUU had problems with the government over; the survival of the

university system – This composed of the conditions of service (salary and non salary), funding

and university autonomy/academic freedom; the defense of the right to education; broad national

19
issues such as anti-military struggles, the struggle against military rule, the struggle against

privatization, against the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and the World Bank’s attempt

to take over universities. For example, the World Bank’s 120 million loan under Babangida’s

military government and the Nigerian Universities Innovation Project (NUSIP). During

Obasanjo’s regime, the struggle was against the re-colonization of Nigeria and debt peonage. On

the basis of the above, ASUU organized a national conference in 1984. The conference was on

the state of the Economy. ASUU diagnosed the ills of the Nigerian economy and proffered

solutions. What emerged out of the conference was “How to Save Nigeria”. ASUU rejected

privatization and offered solutions on economic development and planning, industrialization,

agriculture, debt servicing, taxation, labour and so on. ASUU had problems in 1985 with the

Buhari – Idiagbon regime when the regime clamp-down on the Nigerian Medical Association

(NMA) and the National Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) because of ASUU’s support,

the government then sacked doctors, arrested and detained NMA and NARD leaders as well as

ASUU leaders.[7]

Still in 1985, ASUU had problems with Buhari – Idiagbon regime over a number of issues:

termination of the cafeteria system and the withdrawal of subsidies on accommodation in

universities; the regime’s authoritarian Decree 16 of 1985, which transferred to the National

Universities Commission the power of the University Senate to determine, regulate and monitor

academic programs. It took accreditation of academic programs away from the professionals and

transferred it to the NUC. It therefore established what is called uniform standard and called

them “minimum” standards.[8]

In 1986, following the opposition of the Babangida regime by the NLC and NANS for imposing

Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and the harsh conditionalities of the International

20
Monetary Fund (IMF) loan in which during the protest some ABU students were murdered by

Mobile Police code named “Kill and go”, ASUU could not but join in the opposition. This was

especially so because of the introduction of harsh measures which caused crises in the economy,

education, health and all aspects of life. ASUU opposition to SAP made it a target for destruction

by the Babangida regime. However, the union took a principled position. The Abisoye Panel set

up by the regime to look into the issues recommended the “flushing out” of some lecturers in

ABU who were “teaching what they were not supposed to teach”. Mustapha Akanbi Panel was

set up to among other things, to determine the role of teachers in promoting the crisis. The

Akanbi Panel’s report never saw the light of day.[9]

Obviously, the military government did not get what it wanted. Therefore in 1988, the Babangida

government disaffiliated ASUU from the NLC and, to weaken ASUU, and made check off

voluntary.[10]

The Obasanjo government of (1999 – 2007) had a different plan which was to many people very

subtle. It had a plan, with the World Bank, to cancel central bargaining in the universities. The

aim was to repudiate the June 30, 2001 Agreement. Cancelling of collective bargaining, the

introduction of fees, the $68 million loan, retrenchment, and others which were aimed at by a

World Bank project called NUSIP. NUSIP was a reintroduction of the old $120 million loan

from World Bank for which Babandiga’s government seriously fought ASUU by terminating the

appointment of the President of ASUU illegally.

In 2007, ASUU went on strike for three months. In May 2008, ASUU held two one-week

warning strikes to press for a range of demands including improved salary scheme and

reinstatement of the 49 lecturers who were dismissed in University of Ilorin. In June 2009,

ASUU ordered its members in federal and state universities nationwide to proceed on an

21
indefinite strike over agreements it reached with the union about two and a half years earlier.

After about three months of strike, ASUU and other staff unions signed a memorandum with the

government in October 2009. ASUU is again on strike right now because the Federal

Government breached that 2009 agreements. This strike began on 1st of July, 2013.

ASUU strikes would be misunderstood if seen, only, from the point of view of salary increase by

university lecturers. No, this current strike is far from this. It is about the restoration of proper

universities in Nigeria. ASUU believes that the Nigerian government should undertake to

provide effective and efficient governance that is synonymous to measurable improvement in the

quality of life of the people; increased life expectancy. The FGN should undertake to run proper

universities and create enforceable code of conducts for university teachers. Of course, ASUU

has the welfare of the generality of Nigerian’s in all of her negotiations with government.[11]

2.2 ASUU and Nigerian Universities

There has never been an academic calendar year that ASUU has not embarked on strikes. The

union has embarked on 19 industrial actions in the last 33 years. There is hardly a full academic

session that these strikes will not result in delayed graduation for students, economic waste for

students and even their parents.[12]

In 1980, ASUU embarked on an initial industrial action arising from the need to resist the

termination of the appointment of six lecturers from university of Lagos, as a result of the report

of Justice Belonwu’s visitation panel report linked to university action and academic freedom.

Subsequently in 1980 and 1981, ASUU embarked on further strikes to demand for funding for

the universities, the reversal of the problem of brain drain, poor salaries and conditions of

service, including the improvement of the entire university system. In 1983, there was

negotiation on the Elongated University Salary Structure (EUSS) and this became an issue of

22
dispute in 1988 because of the lack of implementation of this prior agreement. In 1984, ASUU

went on strike to oppose deregulation of the economy and to resist the military regime and its

authoritarian decree 16 of 1985 for allowing the National Universities Commission to take over

the responsibilities of the senate and allowing the external authorities to regulate programmes in

Nigerian universities. In 1986, ASUU went on strike to protest the introduction of Structural

Adjustment Programmes (SAP) by Ibrahim Babangida’s administration. At the same time, the

union opposed the killing of some students in Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria by mobile

police. In 1987, ASUU went on strike to demand the implementation of Elongated University

Salary Scale and to establish a joint negotiation committee between ASUU and the federal

government. In 1988 ASUU went on strike against the effects on the recently imposed Structural

Adjustment Programme. In 1990, ASUU was deproscribed. In May and July, 1992, ASUU went

on strike due to the failure of negotiation between the Union and the Federal Government over

the working conditions in Nigerian universities. In 1993, ASUU was banned again because it

refused the order of Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP) to suspend industrial action and return to

negotiation table. In 1994, ASUU embarked again on strike to demand renegotiation of

agreement reached in 1992, the reinstatement of over 80 lecturers whose appointments were

terminated by Prof. Isa Mohammed, the vice chancellor of the university of Abuja and to resist

the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, widely perceived to have been won by

M.K.O Abiola. In 1996, ASUU embarked on a strike due to the dismissal of the ASUU President

Dr. Assisi Asobie in 1999 and 2000. It was salary issue and the issue of government support for

the sector. In 2001, ASUU demanded industrial action on issues related to funding of universities

including the reinstatement of 49 sacked lecturers at the University of Ilorin for taking part in

previous industrial action in 2001. In 2002 because the government of Obasanjo refused to

23
implement the 2001 agreement. In 2003, ASUU embarked on further industrial action due to the

non-implementation of previous agreements, poor university funding and disparity in salary,

retirement age and non-implementation. Agreement with the federal government was due for re-

negotiation in 2004 but by 2005, ASUU’s cry out led to a strike action. In 2007, ASUU went on

another strike for 3 months. In May, 2008 ASUU had a two one – week “warning strikes” to

press on a range of demands. In 2009, ASUU embarked on an indefinite strike over disagreement

with the FG on an earlier agreement reached. After three months strike, in October 2009, an

MOU was signed and the strike was called off. The salary of lecturers is not anything to write

home when compared with other sectors of the Nigerian economy. At independence in October

1960, the salary of the Prime Minister or the Federal Minister of the federation of Nigeria was

only Eight Hundred Pounds (£800) more than that of the principal (that is the future Vice

Chancellor) of the University College, Ibadan. The principal certainly earned more than the

Nigerian Army commander and general. The Prime Minister’s personal emolument was put at

£4,500, while the principal of University College Ibadan was paid £3,750 and the Army Major

General and Commissioner £3,580.[13]

There is no doubt that the value for education has diminished over the year since the era of the

military and now politics, and the value for money and power has been on the ascendancy. Infact

worship of money that accompanied the military’s anti-interlectualism appears to have replaced

love for education. Paradoxically, a former military ruler, Ibrahim Babangida, whose tenure was

characterized by notable anti-intellectual measures, recently summed up the prevailing value

(less) order as follows: “knowledge has not value while money and power has more value” (The

Nation, November 25th, 2012). According to Ladipo Adamolekun even those who commit

resources to education today appear to be spurred on by love for money, that is, the ever-

24
increasing number of for-profit educational institutions from kindergarten, through primary to

secondary and tertiary education. Those whose duty it is to distinguish between the not for profit

and for profit institutions are busy compromising their stand and are guilty of cheating, another

form of corruption.

By 1966, the university professor was paid £3000. This was higher than the £2,700 paid a federal

permanent secretary. A federal cabinet minister took between £2,700 - £3,000. A federal top civil

servant of the rank of permanent secretary received between £2,500-£2,940. An Assistant

Lecturer (often first class or second class upper division) was offered £950, while his

counterparts who went into federal civil service received £720. [14]

2.3 Chronicles of ASUU Strikes

A brief chronicle of ASUU strikes since the return of democracy in Nigeria.

 1999 (5 months): Few months after Olusegun Obasanjo was elected as first

democratically elected president of Nigeria, ASUU embarked on a strike which lasted 5

months.

 2001 (3 months): After the five months of 1999’s strike, ASUU embarked on another

strike which lasted 3 months due to its anger over the dismissal of 49 lecturers by the

University of Ilorin.

 2002 (2 weeks): ASUU reacted December 29, 2002 due to federal government’s failure

to meet its agreement with the union.

 2003 (6 months): The strike of 2003 left students lazing around for 6 months. This strike

which ended 2004 was said to have been embarked on due to government’s failure to

implement previous agreements relating to poor funding of universities among others.

 2005 (2 weeks): This lasted for 2 weeks.

25
 2006 (1 weeks): This started as a 3 day warning and ended up as 1 weeks strike action.

 2007 (3 months): Nigerian public universities had to shut down on the 26 th of march

2007 and remained shut for a period of 3 months.

 2008 (1 week): ASUU pressurized for salary scheme improvement of its members and

embarked on strike. The body also wanted the re-employ of the 49 lecturers that were

dismissed 2001 which didn’t come to play.

 2009 (4 months): Lecturers in federal universities went on a strike which started June

and was called off October. The agreement between ASUU and federal government will

be a cause for a subsequent strike.

 2010 (5 months): This strike started on the 22nd of July 2010 and ended 2011 lasting for

5 months.

 2011 (1 month, 28 days): Federal government failed to comply with the agreement of

2009 which included funding of universities and implementing the 70 year retirement age

limit for members of ASUU. This strike was called off 2012.

 2013 (5 months, 15 days): Government failed to review the ASUU retirement age and

also revitalize university funding system. The strike started July 1, 2013 and was called

off on Tuesday, November 17, 2013 lasting 5 months and 15 days.

 2017 (2 weeks): ASUU embarked on another strike on August 17, 2017 and called it off

on September 1 of the same year.

 2018 (3 months): Again, as a result of government’s refusal to meet ASUU’s demands,

the union embarked on another strike on November 3 and it was called off after 3

months. The strike was suspended on February 8th, 2019.

26
 2020 (March 23rd, 2020 Till date): ASUU commences an indefinite strike over the non-

payment of salaries of their members who failed to enroll into the federal government’s

IPPIS, a payroll software mandated for all public officials. The IPPIS is the government’s

accountability software that has been made compulsory for all public institutions, mainly

for personnel payroll. The strike is ongoing.[15]

2.4 ASUU in University of Ilorin?

At its foundation, the University of Ilorin hit the ground running in its pursuance of academic

enterprise as it paraded top-flight scholars and intellectuals of international repute within a short

space of time. Unionism by the academic staff commenced in 1976, first as Nigerian

Association of University Teachers (NAUT). The Union soon after became outstanding for its

vibrancy and gained respectability at the national level as it provided valuable resource persons

for national assignments for its National Executive Council.[16]

Dr Saka Balogun (1976–1978) and Prof Oludare Olajubu (1978–1981) served as first and

second Presidents of the erstwhile Union – Nigerian Union of University Teachers.[17]

The period between 1981 and 1989 witnessed the building, growth and consolidation of a virile

academic staff unionism in the University. The early leaders were perpendicular as they kept

faith with the cardinal principles of the Union as articulated by the late Festus Iyayi, particularly

in the noble paths of integrity, hard work and constitutionality. Under them, the Union earned

respectability on campus, and together with successive university administrations, was able to

sustain peace and an enabling environment for the University to accomplish its objectives as an

academic institution of repute. As expected, although members at various times could hold

different viewpoints on issues, they were always focused in one direction: the overriding need to

build and defend a strong and united union.[18]

27
Prominent among the early leaders are (now) Professors Oduleye and Obafemi, who at different

times were Chairmen of the branch. The two, along with few others, were highly celebrated

firebrand radical socialists/leftists who were fondly or disparagingly, depending on who was

talking, referred to as „ASUU boys‟. Unknown to many on campus, Professors Oduleye and

Obafemi, along with a few others here in Ilorin, belonged to some leftist/socialist organisations

with national networks that provided organisational strategies and leaderships for various labour

movements, trade unions or professional bodies in Nigeria, including ASUU, Committee for the

Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Campaign for Democracy (CD), Nigeria Medical

Association (NMA), Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), etc., as front organisations. The higher

goal or objective of these leftist organisations was to kick out the military junta, which they

considered an objectionable aberration in governance. In effect, they had a higher and noble

mission, which was the institutionalisation of a democratic culture in Nigeria. The leaderships of

the front organisations were not only radicalised but intellectually equipped to meet the

challenges of the time. The members of these leftist organisations, in comradeship and total

commitment, were found on many campuses. Some of these members were Mahmud Tukur in

Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria; Festus Iyayi in the University of Benin, Benin;

Attahiru Jega in Bayero University Kano (BUK); Asisi Asobie in the University of Nigeria,

Nsukka; Lai Olorode and Idowu Awopetu in the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo

University), Ile-Ife; and Iyorchia Ayu in the University of Jos, etc. They were noted for their

disciplined lives and good grounding in Marxist/socialist literature and practice. Indeed, they

were the leading lights and intelligentsia for the society in the struggle to liberate Nigeria from

the claws of the military junta.[19]

28
This group formed the „core‟ of ASUU in Ilorin and for many years, it remotely and effectively

controlled the Union through, among other things, provision of its leadership in succession

through democratic ideals and support of the majority of academic staff members. Members

with potentials for leadership positions were normally identified by their performances in Union

activities, particularly contributions at Congresses and their levels of conviction, commitment

and courage for the cause of the Union. Parochialism or ethnic tendencies and affiliations were

strange and unpopular. One other strategy that continually strengthened the Union was the

manner of mobilisation more so as lethargy and cynicism pervaded the campuses. The

promotion of a sense of belonging and relevance through participation in Union assignments,

welfarism, and interventions at the level of personal interests were also useful tools of

mobilisation.[20]

Outside this inner core was a ring of passionate and committed members who belonged to the

„in-group‟. This group was driven by the concept of „group think‟, a sort of instinctive

conformity. Together, with self-appointed „mind guards‟ or „conformity police‟ defending the

values of the leadership, the cohesiveness of the Union was ensured. Thus, it had a total grip on

the Union, which in turn, became wellstructured, formidable and powerful. The group, through

the Union, could decide who became what on campus, especially the elective positions in the

Senate and Congregation, including Deanship of Faculties. However, the Union was kept

focused, responsive and responsible to its cardinal principles, especially those of selflessness,

hard work, democracy, courage and collectivism. It is to the credit of the „core‟ that a solid

foundation was laid for the Union in this University and many others.[21]

The contest for chairmanship of the Union by Dr Remi Medupin and, Dr (now Prof) Akinyanju

in 1991 was the smoke, which indicated there was fire underneath, suggesting a crack within the

29
„core‟. Both of them were not only members of the „core‟ but were seen as trench-mates and

die-hard loyalists of the Union who had always worked together. This sad development came

unexpectedly. At the Union level, it was the first event that eventually led to a division within

the rank and file. In spite of this and other new dimensions suggested by accusations and

counter-accusations, the Union managed to move, nay wobble on, till 1993, though things were

certainly not the same anymore including relationships. Dr (now Prof.) Akinyanju chose to

„abandon‟ his mandate in 1993 to go to Council, when the Federal Government increased

representation in Council from Congregation to two. Consequently, Dr Roy Ndom was elected

to finish the remaining part of his term till 1995.[22]

2.5 Causes and Effects of ASUU Strikes on Nigerian Universities

The causes and effects of Asuu strikes on Nigerian Universities are as follows:

2.5.1 Causes of Asuu Strikes on Nigerian Universities

Strikes are usually undertaken by labour unions when talks have broken down during collective

bargaining. The object of collective bargaining is to secure an agreement between the union and

the government or company management as the case may be. Clauses which may include a non-

strike clause which prevents strikes, or penalize the union or the workers if they walk out while

the agreement is in force may be inserted in the agreement. Characteristically, strike is reserved

as a threat of last resort during negotiations between the government and ASUU which may

occur just before, or immediately after the agreement/contract expires.[23]

The 1992 Agreement between ASUU and the Federal Government of Nigeria was a landmark

document. The signing of the agreements between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the

Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities (ASUU) took place on Thursday, 3 rd September 1992.

30
The Agreement was described by the Union as a “jewel of inestimable value” to the university

community and to the nation at large. According to the Union:

The Agreement halted the brain drain from the universities, at

least temporarily. It raised the quality of teaching and research in
the Universities at least for a while. It kept the mobile police and
soldiers out of campuses because student demonstrations and
protests against poor conditions of hostels, etc reduced drastically
in number and frequency between 1992 and 1995.[24]

Given its envisaged significance for the recovery of the university system that was neck deep in

crisis by the 1990s, the 1992 Agreement was to become a reference point in the ASUU struggles

of the 1990s and 2000s.

The Agreement entitled “Agreement between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the

Academic Staff of Nigerian Universities” was negotiated in two phases. The first phase began

on 31March 1992, and terminated in a deadlock in July 1992. The second phase began on

August 20, 1992, and ended in an Agreement on the 3 rd of September 1992. The Agreement was

signed on behalf of the Federal Government of Nigeria by Owelle Gilbert P.O. Chikelu, the

Honorable Minister of ‘Establishment and Management Services, and on behalf of the Academic

Staff of Nigeria Universities by the then President of ASUU, Dr. Attahiru M. Jega. President

Ibrahim B. Babangida also endorsed it on behalf of the Federal Government, while ASUU’s

National Executive Council (NEC) did the same on behalf of the Union. Thus the agreement

became a valid contract within the meaning of the Trade Dispute Act of 1976 and Cap. 437 of

the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria,1990. The signing of the document by the two parties

marked the end of the protracted negotiation between the government and ASUU, which was

aimed at revitalizing the university system.

Shortly after the signing of the document, it became evident that the Federal Government was

bent on violating several aspects of Agreement. According to ASUU (1996):

31
 The first attack was launched on Chapter Six of the Agreement.
The University Academic (Staff) Salary Scale (UASS) was first
Surreptitiously, the openly and more brazenly, merged with the
Elongated University Salary Scale (EUSS). Second, the
Agreement was declared by the Secretary of Education as a Mere
“gentleman’s agreement” – a contract of “imperfect Obligations”
which would be implemented “only so long as Overriding public
interest or other compelling circumstances do not make it
impracticable or inexpedient to do so”. The third assault on the
agreement was in 1994. The areas attacked this time were
chapters four (dealing with funding of universities) and five
(concerning university autonomy and academic freedom).

On the UASS for instance, a communiqué of the meeting of Ibadan zone of ASUU held at the

University of Maiduguri, on Saturday February 27, 1993, ASUU communicated in strong terms

the objection of the union to the unilateral cancellation of the university academic staff salary

(UASS) by the Secretary for Education and Youth Development, Professor Ben Nwabueze. The

Union described the cancellation as a breach of Section 6.1 of the Agreement with the Federal

Government and that the action would impede the ability of the nation to protect the endangered

academic and to halt the brain drain, which had devastated the universities. The Union drew

attention to the fact that "the importance of a separate academic salary structure does not lie in its

monetary value. Its value, we state categorically, is its guarantee of a base from which to sustain

and protect the essential function of the university, to attract and to retain academic staff now

and in the future. It has nothing to do with denigrating other workers in the university sector, or

with denying other categories of workers whatever they deserve." Consequently, a widely

publicized communiqué issued by the Union after the meeting stated among others that:

the decision by the Secretary for Education and Youth

Development to cancel the UASS is unjustifiable, unacceptable
and totally condemnable... In pursuance of this, we call on the
government to act to avoid a needless crisis in Nigerian
universities. We, therefore, expect the government to correct the

32
 error of breach of the agreement within four weeks from the date
of this announcement.[25]

Little surprise, therefore, that a major conflict ensued between ASUU and the Federal

Government that led to a long strike in 1996. The remote causes of the 1996 ASUU strike,

however, preceded but embraced the issues related to the ASNU/FGN 1992 Agreement. The root

causes lay in unresolved grievances in previous ASUU-Government conflicts spanning from

1970s – which became issues for dispute in the 1992 strike and led the 1992 ASUU/Federal

Government Agreement. However, the dominant authoritarian tendency of the Federal

Government in industrial relations led to violations of the Agreement by the Government –

which precipitated further strikes. This section will endeavour to trace these remote links with

the 1992 strike as the issues relate to the three traditional areas of conflict between the Federal

Government and ASUU as follows: funding, conditions of service and university autonomy and

academic freedom.[26]

Writing on the university crisis in Nigeria, a former Vice Chancellor of two federal universities

in Nigeria stated:

Central to decay and desecration is funding and it does not need a

gift of prophetic wisdom to surmise that unless this is addressed
positively and aggressively there can be no turnaround in the
status of Nigerian universities.

The history of university education funding in Nigeria can be traced back to the establishment of

the University College Ibadan in 1948, which marked the beginning of university education in

the country. In his historical outline of university funding in Nigeria Ibadan was funded initially

from two main sources. First, the Nigerian government provided 70 percent of the funds while

the United Kingdom provided 30 percent of the total recurrent cost. In addition to the above

sources, private sector organizations also made financial contributions to the university. [27] The
33
Nigerian Cocoa Marketing Board, for instance, made an endowment to the Faculty of

Agriculture at Ibadan which was used for the Faculty building while the United African

Company (UAC) Ltd, made donations that were utilized for the building of Trenchard Hall in the

University of Ibadan. With the establishment of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, on 7 October

1960 as the first regional university, the institution received its funding from the then

government of Eastern Nigeria. The Eastern Nigerian Marketing Board also complemented the

government’s funding.[28] Nsukka was followed by the establishment of three more universities in

Lagos, Zaria and Ile-Ife – the first as a federal university and the rest regional – following the

Ashby Commission’s Report. In 1972, the Mid-West Region established the University of Benin

and this brought the universities in Nigeria to six – two federal universities and four regional

universities.[29] The six universities that later became known as "first generation universities"

were well-funded. In the case of the Ahmadu Bello University Zaria, for instance, Ukeje

observed that:

from the beginning in 1962 to 1975, there was no substantive

difference each year between the amount requested by the
university and the amount received from the Regional
Government. In fact it was reported that there were years in
which the amount received was slightly more than the amount
requested.

With adequate funding, the universities were able to maintain internationally reputable standards,

as graduates from Nigerian universities were easily admitted into post-graduate studies in

reputed universities abroad. Then in 1975, the Federal Government unwisely established seven

more universities at Jos, Sokoto, Kano, Maiduguiri, Ilorin, Calabar and Port Harcourt and went

further to take over the four existing regional universities. Hence, while the establishment prior

to 1975 was based on rational considerations related to need, as indicated by the various

34
commissions that recommended them, the post 1975 universities were established more or less

by military fiat. The year 1975 thus marked the beginning of the problem of university funding

in Nigeria. The case of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria. is a case in point. After the

1975-76 session, for the first time ABU recorded a shortfall of 20 percent in the amount

requested, and since then the funding of the Nigerian universities has been on the decline (Ukeje

2002). This was followed up in 1978, with the abolition of tuition fees for undergraduate studies

in Nigerian universities by the Federal Government. The above situation was made worse by the

third phase of university expansion in Nigeria, which resulted in the establishment of seven more

federal Universities of Technology and eight State-owned universities by the Second Republic

politicians between 1979 and 1983. This expansion was guided by political considerations;

funding implications were rarely given due consideration.[30]

By 1986, the funding of Nigerian universities had declined by between 30 percent and 35 percent

at a time when inflation had risen between 400-500 percent. University funding dropped from

N416 million in the 1985/86 session to N316 million in the 1986/87 session, leading to the

payment of salaries being in arrears.[31] The effects were stifling for university administrators. At

the University of Ibadan, for instance, the administration invited the staff unions on December

10, 1987 to inform them of an impending retrenchment of staff due purely to lack of funds to

appropriately run the university.

The government grants for the current academic

year were put at about N31 million and internally
generated revenue at N4 million. The N35 million
revenue was estimated to be N11 million short of
what the university required to maintain a
reasonable standard of operation.[32]

35
The above experience was not limited to Ibadan, but was universal to the Nigerian universities.

Hence, by 1991, the gap between the request of the National University Commission (NUC) that

dispenses funds to Federal universities and the Federal Government budgetary allocation to the

universities was as high as 87.2 percent (FOS, 1995). This was associated with collapse in

teaching and research facilities and activities and led to frustration of teachers and students. The

high increases in student intake, which rose by almost 100 percent between 1987 and 1991,

without commensurate expansion in facility, also exacerbated the problem.[33]

The issue of funding is compounded by the assertion of the World Bank and the International

Monetary Fund that the public sector in Nigeria was over-bloated, resulting in high wage bills.

This informed their insistence on gross reductions in public sector expenditure by the Federal

Government as part of the conditionality for debt re-scheduling and financial assistance. With

particular reference to Nigerian universities, the Bretton Woods Institutions argued that African

countries do not need universities, since their brilliant students could always embark on their

university training abroad, in Europe and America.[34] There was also the claim by the Bank:

that the reduction of the number of universities /polytechnics will

help to channel resources to intermediate level technical
manpower development which is lacking in much of Africa. Such
rationalization might also enable resources to be freed for support
to the primary education sector.[35]

Confirming the above, Ade-Ajayi (2001:2) stated:

Since the 1970s the World Bank has been pushing the heretical
idea that the return to the state as compared to the return to the
individual beneficiary is highest in elementary education and
lowest in higher education. And, therefore, the state must, in the
name of structural adjustment, increase the allocation of
resources to elementary education at the expense of higher
education.

36
University funding was also adversely affected by lack of accountability, misappropriation of

public funds, wasteful spending, corruption and the misplacement of priorities by the ruling

(military) classes and university administrators in Nigeria.[36] The funding aspect of the

agreement covered the recurrent, capital, stabilization and education tax funds.

Considering the recurrent vote, for instance, while the calculation of required monies for the

recurrent fund was made in 1992 on the basis of a 60 percent rise in basic salary for academic

staff, the government went ahead to extend the 60 percent pay rise to other categories of staff in

the university without providing the additional funds to back the pay rise. An additional 15

percent pay rise was granted to academics in line with the Longe Report and the white paper on

it, again without the provision of additional funds to back this increase. This led to a severe

shortfall of funds meant for recurrent spending. In the case of the Education Tax Fund ASUU

alleged that Government was not sincere in the management of the funds. Contrary to the

Government’s claim that it had not been collecting the tax, ASUU discovered that several

companies had been paying the tax as far back as 1992. This included the Nigerian Breweries

PLC that paid 18.357 million in 1992, and 35.46 million in 1993. The implication of poor

funding exacerbated by the above scenario for the occupational health of staff and students is

noteworthy:

Many of our laboratories are health hazards to our students. Fume

chambers are non-functional, exposing the students to toxic
fumes. Students and staff are exposed to ultra violet rays when
working with inoculation chambers, for example. Lecturers and
students are exposed to agents that cause cancer and trigger
mutation in genes. Students come to study and earn degrees but
leave permanently damaged.[37]

Part of ASUU’s demand that led to the 2002-3 and 2009 strike was that the Government should

emulate other developing countries to work towards achieving a 26 percent budgetary allocation

37
to education as recommended by UNESCO - a demand regarded by the Obasanjo administration

as impossible. This was irrespective of the fact that countries such as Ghana had almost attained

that target as early as 1991.[38] As late as 2001 under the Obasanjo Administration, the

Committee of Vice Chancellors observed:

From the beginning of this year, the universities have received

only 40 percent of what is required to pay salaries monthly.
Consequently, universities have been unable to pay salaries and
allowances as and when due. Many universities have exhausted
their reserves and borrowed money from financial institutions in
order to sustain payment of emoluments. Moreover, only 30
percent of year 2001 capital grant had been received by the
universities. The result of these is that many projects are stalled,
abandoned or put in hold (CVC 2001).
The problem of conditions of service in the Nigerian university system can be traced back to the

immediate post-independence era. With regard to basic salaries in the Nigerian public service

and the university system.[39]

At independence in October 1960, the salary of the Prime Minister of the Federation of Nigeria

was only eight hundred pounds (£800) more than that of the Principal (that is the future Vice

Chancellor) of the University College, Ibadan, while the latter certainly earned more than the

Nigerian Army Commander and General. The Prime Minister’s personal emolument was put at

£4,500, while the Principal of University College, Ibadan, was paid £3,750, and the Army Major

General and Commissioner £3,580.[40]

From the above it is easy to deduce that employees in the university system occupied a high

status in the pay hierarchy relative to their counterparts elsewhere in state bureaucracy. A

combination of the 15 January 1966 coup that marked military occupation of Nigerian polity and

the bubble of new oil wealth started "distorting both the old parities and relativities in the system

of rewards as between the various occupational groups" producing status incongruence. By 1966,

irrespective of salary reviews that tended to favour the military, the university professor was paid

38
£3,000. This was higher than the £2,700 paid a federal Prime Minister or a Federal Permanent

Secretary (group 4). A federal Cabinet Minister took between £2,700 and £3,000. A federal top

civil servant of the rank of Permanent Secretary, Group 4, received between £2,500 and £2.940.

An assistant lecturer (often first class or second class upper division) was offered £950, while his

counterparts who went into the federal civil service received £720.[41]

The 1970s were marked with events that may have remote bearings with the 1996 ASUU strike

in the area of the condition of service. These include the trade dispute between the Governing

Councils of Nigerian universities and the local branches of the National Association of

University Teachers in 1973, which led to a strike by the university teachers. The dispute was

about the review of conditions of service. In spite of the efforts of the university councils to

secure improved pay and conditions centrally, the Federal Ministry of Education prevaricated.

Even after the Councils and individual local teachers’ associations had agreed on specific

increases in 1973, the Ministry refused to accept the outcome of this collective bargaining. The

violation of the power of the Council to negotiate and determine the conditions of employment at

the local level became the point of contention in the strike of April 1973.[42]

The government’s handling of the 1973 conflict was coercive. The then Head of State would not

differentiate between the functions of the Visitor and those of the Head of Government and

Council. The university teachers were ordered back to work during the conflict and the widely

reported humiliation engendered by this had a profound effect on the morale of the university

teachers. University professors had to queue up to sign registers, and write their VCs, promising

to be of good behaviour at the pain of being sacked or ejected. The sense of security and of total

commitment to academic pursuit was irretrievably shattered. That was the beginning of the loss

experienced by the university teachers in their relative position in the pay structure of Nigeria.

39
That loss was to be formalized in 1974 when the university teachers’ conditions of service was

brought under the civil service structure following the recommendations of the 1974 Udoji

Commission Report on the Review of the Public Service.[43]

Udoji was a former distinguished public servant and his views seemed to tally with those of a

crop of influential civil servants – the so-called Super Permanent Secretaries. Discussions

regarding the evaluation, comparison and remuneration of the respective responsibilities of civil

servants and university staff paid from the same government coffers led to the view among the

Super Permanent Secretaries that the responsibilities of senior civil servants were a lot heavier

than those of university professors. This view that seemed to be a product of rivalry (by this crop

of civil servants) with the university professors may have influenced the Udoji Commission

Report.

As part of the review, the government offered public sector pensions to the university employees

in place of the Autonomous University Superannuation Scheme responsible to the university

staff themselves. Such a major steering away of the autonomy of universities was not even

debated in the universities, much less being resisted. Ade-Ajayi (2001:3) pointed out the

implications:

In accepting Government pension without so much as even a

debate, university staff ceased to be employees of different
autonomous University Councils, and became in effect, second-
class civil servants. The universities ceased to be autonomous
self-regulating corporations, and became Government parastatals
monitored by Government Ministries, with conditions of service
that thenceforth had to be negotiated with the government.

The apathy with which the change was accepted may be a reflection of the 1973 "defeat" of the

academics. Ade-Ajayi posits that:

40
 The capitulation of the universities without even a contest was
probably due to the continuing trauma of the treatment they had
received in 1973 when they dared to go on strike. The Minister of
Education was an experienced university man, a university
Registrar, who knew the Achilles’ heel of the universities and
advised the government to use troops if necessary, to eject
striking staff from their government-provided university
accommodation. The strike became a rout as the university staff
rushed to dissociate themselves from the strike so as to beat the
deadline of the Government ultimatum and secure their families
from the threat of forced ejection from their houses. It then
followed as a matter of course that the purge of the Civil Service
in 1975 was applied to the universities. In order that this
centralized management should be more effective, the Federal
Government took over the control of all the state universities in
1975 and established more in 1976-7 under the aegis of the new
NUC, without the benefit of the usual consultations and planning
committees.

Adekanye made a noteworthy observation on the reversal in the pay structure and status

relativities between the universities and the public bureaucracy in the post 1975 era:

Harmonization of the universities with the civil service under the

"unified public service", which had been recommended by Udoji
and Williams & Williams, was responsible for this. Thus, by the
end of the first period of military rule in 1979, the university
professor’s basic salary was fixed at £11,568 which placed
him/her at par with the permanent secretary on grade level 16 at
the State level, but on a lower salary scale than the latter’s
counterpart at the Federal level. A Federal permanent Secretary
formerly on group 3, who had been converted to GL 17, post-
Udoji was placed on the salary of £12, 996 with effect from April,
1, 1979.

According to Adekanye (1993:18)

Nigerian academics were to fight for and get the university

system "deharmonized" from the unified public as a first step
towards re-establishing the pre-1966 relativities in status, pay and
conditions of service vis a vis the civil service bureaucracy. But
the improved salaries and conditions of service won by the
university staff under the Cookey Commission in 1981 proved
short-lived. By the end of the Shagari civilian presidency, the top

41
 echelon of the civil service bureaucracy had succeeded in wiping
out those modest academic gains of 1981 and re-established
themselves as an occupational group with superior salary claims.

In comparison with the remuneration of the members of the armed forces the erosion of the pay

of the university staffers become clearer:

At Nigeria’s independence in 1960, an Assistant Lecturer was

paid more than both a Sub-Lieutenant and Lieutenant; a Lecturer
II more than captain; a Lecturer I more than a Major, a Senior
Lecturer more than a Lieutenant Colonel, a Reader/Associate
Professor more than a Colonel and Brigadier.
The Major General’s salary placed him a few incremental steps
on top of the University Professor, but certainly lower than the
University’s Chief Executive, the Vice Chancellor.[44]

The overturn was evident in the 1975 post-Udoji period, as an:

Army Captain was now being paid more than the university
Lecturer I, a Lieutenant-Colonel more than Senior Lecturer, a
Colonel more than a Reader/Associate Professor; an army
Brigadier, whose salary in 1966 had been lower than that of a
Reader/Associate Professor, now earned more than even a full
Professor. The salaries of both the Lieutenant General and full
General out-distanced that of a Vice Chancellor.[45]

The reversal in the conditions of service of the university staff was to be the starting point of the

implementation of a class ascendancy project of the Nigerian military class in the wider Nigerian

society. The Cookey Commission of 1981 was to reverse the uniform salary structure created by

the Udoji awards by establishing a separate (more attractive) pay structure for the university

employees, through the University System Scale (USS), partly to shield the system from the

exigencies of the wider economy. But this was to be distorted in the course of the management of

the economic crisis and Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) under the Elongated University

Salary Structure (EUSS) implemented by the Babangida regime (1985-1993). The wage crisis

42
that accompanied SAP (Onyeonoru 2001a) led to a situation in which corporate private sector

wages became more attractive than those of the public sector, thus defeating the whole essence

of the USS.[46]

One of the attempts in the 1980s to rescue the university system from imminent collapse was

made through the 1988 strike of the university teachers in which the conditions of service of

university staff reverberated One of the demands of the university teachers that led to the strike

was that the 20 percent differential in the University Salary Structure (USS), enjoyed by

university staff comparative to other public sector employees but which was largely eroded by

the implementation of SAP, should be restored. ASUU’s position was to be confirmed by all

Accreditation and Visitation Panels on the university crisis set up by the Federal Government,

including the Longe Commission Report, which stated that "the problem of brain drain was

primarily a result of the erosion of the status and income of academics in the unified salary

grading systems in the 1970s". What was left of the disparity, which served to attract bright

minds to the system was closed up in the Elongated University Salary Structure (EUSS), then

implemented by the Babangida administration. Hence, conflicts located in the loss in pay and

status of the university employees consequent upon the Udoji awards were to reoccur in the 1983

negotiations with the Federal government and became a matter for dispute between the Federal

Government and the university teachers in 1988.[47]

One of the demands of the university teachers that led to the 1988 strike was the restoration of

the pay differential in the USS, which served to attract bright minds to the university system –

contrary to the Elongated University Salary Structure (EUSS) then implemented by the

government. Not much resulted from the 1988 strike, as the Babangida administration succeeded

in coercing the strikers back to work. The affiliation of ASUU with the Nigeria Labour Congress

43
(NLC), obviously to increase the former’s power base, was resisted by the Federal Government

through the promulgation of Decree No. 17 of 1986.[48]

Poor conditions of service, heavy workloads and inadequate facilities and working environment,

all led to a state of frustration for university staff. Poor pay of academics was pinpointed by the

Report of the Study Group on Brain Drain in Nigerian Universities (1982-1993), carried out by

the World Bank Project Implementation Unit of the National University Commission. The

development was clearly epitomized in the popular ASUU slogan of the 1990s: "My Take Home

Pay Cannot Take Me Home".[49]

Before the 1992 ASUU-FGN Agreement, the average Nigerian Professor’s pay as a percentage

of his counterpart in Botswana stood at an embarrassing level of 0.005 percent. As a result of the

Agreement, the corresponding relative percentage came to 32 percent. But by 1996, inflation and

related unfavourable socio-economic environment relegated the Nigerian professor’s relative

position to about 4 percent of his colleagues’ pay in Botswana. The claim by Nigerian academics

that their condition of service was the worst in Africa was driven home through a comparison

with that of their colleagues in West African countries. While a Ghanaian Professor earned about

228,534.00 per annum, his Nigerian counterpart earned 49,922.00.[50] As a result, some lecturers

engaged in moonlighting and private practice (some completely outside their training, such as

scurrying for supply contracts) to subsidize their income. Hence, while the depletion of lecturers

due to brain drain continued, even those academics that were in the system were not really

available.[51]

The conditions of service were to improve first under the Abubakar regime and then with the

Obasanjo administration following the new national minimum wage of 6,500,000, such that a

Nigeria university professor now earns a minimum of 100,000. Part of the reason why ASUU

44
insists on a separate salary scale is the historical experience with falling public sector wages that

engender corruption in Nigerian institutions.[52]

University autonomy and academic freedom are highly significant substructures that are integral

to the idea of a university. Professor Ayo Banjo, formerly a Vice Chancellor of a first generation

University in Nigeria, noted this significance as follows:

If we accept that one of the most important functions of any

university is to seek the truth, any constraint on that search
reduces the value of the university. If also we agree that a
university has a duty constantly to reduce the area of the
unknown socially and physically, a university is excellent to the
degree that it is not only free but also empowered to do so.[53]
The Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has always insisted on the sanctity of

university autonomy and academic freedom, and that state responsibility in the area of university

funding must not translate into undue government interference and meddling in university

affairs:

Education has to do with the unfettered acquisition of knowledge

and its use for the benefit of society. Universities as schools of
education should be committed to this twin freedom in relation to
the search for and use of knowledge. To be faithful to this
commitment, a university worth its salt is duty bound to
recognize the connections between knowledge and the
innumerable dimensions of the concrete realities of our time, by
allowing a free interplay of different opinions in the pursuit of
learning.[54]

The forgoing views are widely held. According to the Dearing Report which reviewed Higher

Education in Britain:

Institutional autonomy should be respected. While we take it as

axiomatic that government will set the policy framework for
higher education nationally, we equally take it as axiomatic that
the strategic direction and management of individual institutions
should be vested wholly in the governance and management of
autonomous universities.[55]

45
The essence of insisting on university autonomy is that in certain circumstances governments

tend to place unnecessary limits on the scope and/or the nature of knowledge acquisition in the

universities to the detriment of scholarship – as the case of Canada historically shows. [56] This

tendency is higher under military regimes, as the Nigerian case discussed below indicates.

The nature of events that created the university crisis in Nigeria was initiated in the 1960s, with

the unsuccessful attempt of the First Republic politicians to change the pre-independence

sanctuary image of the university system by bringing universities system under undue

government control. This bid was, however, successfully carried out by the military regimes in

Nigeria. Three aspects of the violation of university autonomy are particularly noteworthy: the

violation of procedures for the appointment of University Vice Chancellors; the erosion of the

powers of the university councils as statutory employers, and the erosion of the powers of the

senate as the supreme organ in academic matters.[57]

Following the strike embarked upon by the university teachers in 1973 for improvement in the

conditions of service in the aftermath of the deplorable conditions left behind by the Nigerian

civil war (1967-1970), the then Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, in a national broadcast,

ordered the striking university staff to return to work or face dismissal and ejection from their

official residences. That singular incident epitomized the most fundamental aspect of the

university crisis. Its socio-psychological and symbolic implication was national humiliation

ruinous both for the system and the staff, resulting in the lowering of prestige, self-esteem,

dignity of labour and job security. The event signaled the beginning of the bid by the military

ruling class to "capture" the university terrain.[58]

The altering of the enabling laws of the universities in Nigeria, especially in the area of

appointment of Vice Chancellors, which has implications for other aspects of university

46
autonomy, began in the Yakubu Gowon era. In 1975 when the Federal Government took over the

regional universities it promulgated Decree No. 23, which vested the power to appoint Vice

Chancellors on the Head of the Federal Military Government, in contrast with the Joint

Committee of Council and Senate which was exercising the responsibility on behalf of the

Council in the universities.

In the case of the then University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), for instance, the

law providing for the establishment of the Provisional Council of the University was passed by

the Legislature of the Western Region on June 8, 1961, and on June 26, 1961, the Provisional

Council of the University was formally inaugurated. On June 11, 1970, the University of Ife

Edict, 1970 was promulgated by the Government of the Western State to replace the Provisional

Council Law of June 8, 1961. Thus far, the appointment of the Vice Chancellor remained the

primary responsibility of the university community, as provided for in the enabling laws.[59]

The scenario, however, began to change in the post-1970 era. The Federal Government amended

the 1970 University of Ife Edict. By the University of Ife (Amendment) Edict No. 11 of 1975

and the University of Ife (Transitional Provisions) Decree No. 23 of 1975. The new Decree,

which effected a takeover of the University of Ife by the Federal Government, also vested in the

Head of the Federal Military Government the power to appoint the Vice Chancellor. In the same

vein, Schedule 1 Section 2 (2) of the University of Port Harcourt Decree 1979 provided among

others that "the Vice-Chancellor shall be appointed or removed from his office by the Supreme

Military Council after…" Similar provisions existed in other Nigerian universities until the 1992

ASUU strike when the question of university autonomy became one of the major issues of

contestation.

47
After the Governing Councils of universities lost their power to appoint and remove Vice

Chancellors, the role of the visitor became substantially altered from a largely ceremonial one to

one of intervening in the day-to-day running of the universities. As a result of this change, Vice

Chancellors over time became increasingly accountable to the Head of Government (Federal or

State) instead of the university community as expressed in such institutions as the congregation,

senate and council.[60]

The Federal Military Government (FMG) in 1978 (under the General Obasanjo government)

made wholesome changes on matters relating to students’ welfare without reference to the

university authorities. From the beginning of the 1977/78 academic year, the Federal

Government, through the National Universities Commission (NUC), reduced the fees payable for

meals from between 70k and 75k per day to 50k per day and accommodation from between

36.00 and 72.00 per session to 30.00 per session. Six months later the NUC recklessly raised the

corresponding fees threefold to 1.50 per day for meals and 90.00 per session for a room. The

result was that the hopes of both students and their sponsors, which had earlier been raised so

high, were dashed badly. To add salt to injury, the FMG about the same time announced its

decision to shelve its direct commitment to the students’ loan scheme and transferred the

responsibility to State Governments. This led to a nationwide student protest, as a result of which

the FMG set up the Mohammed Commission of Inquiry into the crisis.[61]

Following the Commission’s report on the incident, the Federal Government on August 25, 1978

announced the dismissal of eight staff of Nigerian universities.[62]

Out of these, five were from the University Ibadan, namely Dr. Bade Onimode, Wale Adeniran,

Dr. Amafume Onoge, Dr. Akin Ojo, and Comrade Ola Oni. At its meeting of August 29, 1978,

the Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities (ASNU) set up a committee headed by

48
Professor F.M.A. Ukoli to explore all peaceful means of convincing the FMG to reverse its

decisions. The dialogical perspective rather than conflict was the organizing principle of the

Union as was evident in the Committee’s letter dated September 1, 1978, to the Vice Chancellor

which stated the resolve of the union: "The most effective reaction is not confrontation with

Government but the exploration of all avenues to persuade Government to review its decision".
[63]
In pursuance of the above the ASNU Committee wrote letters to the Chief of Staff Supreme

Headquarters; through the Vice Chancellor and Chairman of Council; the Chairman of Council,

University of Ibadan, through the VC and, and the Vice Chancellor.

But despite the fact that all these letters were delivered by hand (by the Chairman and another

member of the Committee) there was no response, either from the Government and University

officials to whom the letters were addressed or from other influential members of the society that

were contacted by ASNU to mediate in the crisis. In the circumstance, and in view of an

emergency meeting of the University Council where the decision to implement the FMG’s

directives was to be taken, the ASNU Committee approached members of the Ibadan Council

directly. The members, however, expressed the view that the Council was powerless to influence

the FMG’s decision on the affected staff. Ultimately the Chairman of Council effected the

directives, notwithstanding the fact that it was impossible for the Council to form a quorum at

the meeting.[64]

Given the orientation to dialogue adopted by the Union, ASUNU Ibadan branch took the case of

the dismissed staff to the university Senate, which observed among others: that the removal of

the affected members of the teaching staff was in gross violation of section 4 of the University of

Ibadan Act on the function of the Council and section 1 Sub-Section 3 of the Act dealing with

the removal from office of staff, and that the action had adverse effect on the morale of the

49
 university academic staff and was capable of having long-term adverse effects on the high

standard of the university that had gained worldwide recognition at the time. The Senate also

expressed dismay at the Council’s abdication of its responsibility on the sensitive issue,

observing that Council’s readiness to implement FMG’s directives without charging the affected

lecturers with any offence, giving them the opportunity to defend themselves or even setting up a

joint committee of Council and Senate to investigate the matter according to the University Act,

had generated a genuine feeling of insecurity among members of the teaching staff. The Senate

also expressed surprise that the honorable mediatory role played by some of the affected

lecturers during the crisis, which had earned them commendation by the Vice Chancellor

Professor Tamuno on the floor of the Senate, ironically earned them dismissal from the FMG

through the Council. The Senate therefore resolved:

1. To convey to Council its deep appreciation of the meritorious contributions of the aforesaid five

members of the academic staff, and

2. To express dismay at the unsatisfactory way in which Council handled the Government’s

directives.[65]

The foregoing event, shocking as it was at the time, was to become an albatross of the university

system – an illegitimacy legalized by the relative ease of enacting decrees. The dismissal

incident was one of the deliberate attempts by the FMG to discredit the universities and reduce

them to a state of cowed subordination. The frustration that resulted from the 1978 incident for

the academic community, and which in the following decades led to a more militant academic

staff union in Nigerian universities, was evident in the following lamentation:

This is how much the peaceful approach of the University of

Ibadan Branch of the ASUNU has achieved. In the final analysis
the future of university education in this country depends on the

50
 amount of interest shown to university affairs by the public. We
will not get a better university system than we all deserve.[65]

With the advantage of hindsight, the foregoing observations, predictions and resolutions of the

Academic Staff Union and the Ibadan Senate in 1978 can be viewed as "prophetic" of the events

of the 1980s and 1990s: the deplorable state of staff morale, institutional decay and poor state of

facilities and infrastructure in Nigerian universities (Bollag 2002) by the turn of the 21 st century

which led to the six-month strike of ASUU in 2002/2003. The erection of governmental power at

the citadel of learning resulted in the systematic politicization and gross corruption of the

university system, particularly under military rule.

Chiding the relentless efforts of Government to reduce academic freedom in Nigerian

universities, Professor Ayo Banjo taunted the idea of a nationally agreed set of minimum

standards for the nation’s universities as "good though not enviable". He emphasized that where

such explicit formulations were considered necessary, care must be taken to express them in

more abstract terms than virtually handing down syllabuses to the universities. An institution that

lacks the capacity to innovatively design its own curricular and syllabuses, he emphasized, does

not deserve the title of a university. The senate of a university is capable of performing the duty

without detracting from the status of a university or distorting its historic mission. The fear of

"abuse" that may result from academic freedom could be handled by the council of the

universities within established laws.[66]

In 1980, in the University of Lagos an internal dispute between the Vice Chancellor and about

six professors led to all of them (and the registrar) being fired by the government, again without

due process. In 1990 one of Africa’s most outstanding historians (Professor Obaro Ikhime) was

arrested and detained because of what he said in a pulpit in church. When he was released from

51
detention, his appointment with the university of Ibadan was terminated; again no formal charges

were brought against him. A professor of botany and a senior lecturer were similarly detained,

and their appointment terminated at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. In such cases

ASUU’s insistence on the rule of law in dealing with disciplinary matters is hinged on the fact

that people have freedom of speech, and where they break the law, formal charges should be

brought against them through the law court or lawful disciplinary process, rather than treat them

arbitrarily.[67]

The arbitrary conduct of the FMG with regard to staff matters was replicated in several Nigerian

universities as vice chancellors increasingly took laws into their hands, provided they had the

support of the FMG. At the University of Abuja , the Vice Chancellor, Professor Isa Baba

Mohammed turned himself into a demigod, with his arbitrary employment, suspension and

dismissal of staff (and students), disobedience of court orders, vandalization of houses and

property of staff adjudged disloyal to the Vice Chancellor, and a forced oath of staff allegiance.
[68]
Similar events were recorded at the Ogun State University (now renamed Olabisi Onabanjo

University), where ASUU complained of the dismissal of 200 academic staff without due

process – mainly those perceived to be critics of the Vice Chncellor, Professor O.Y. Oyeneye.[69]

The National University Commission (NUC) especially under military rule severely violated

university autonomy. The NUC was established in 1962 following the recommendation of the

Ashby Commission of 1952. The primary objectives were to ensure an orderly development of

university education in Nigeria, maintain standards and ensure adequate funding. Since then,

however, the NUC has undergone major reconstruction that has expanded its scope of influence

over the universities. With time, the government gave wide supervisory powers to the National

University Commission through which it perpetuated its interference mission. As part of the

52
takeover of regional universities in 1975, the NUC was reconstituted, through Decree No. 1 of

1974, as a statutory body with the added responsibility of receiving block grants from the

Government for disbursement to the universities and inter-university organs. Decree 16 of 1985

promulgated by the Buhari/Idiagbon regime led to a highly centralized university system that

invariably gave the government power to arbitrarily dictate what to teach and the number of

students to be admitted into Nigerian higher institutions. With this the government insisted on a

change in university laws, with the Federal Ministry of Education calling the shots. The Decree

(and its 1988 amendment), therefore, nailed the coffin of university autonomy by expanding the

function of NUC by the provision in section 10 of the Decree the vesting in the Commission, the

"power to lay down minimum standards for all universities and other institutions of higher

learning in the federation and the accreditation of their degrees and other academic awards", after

obtaining prior approval through the Minister of Education from the Head of the Federal Military

Government – the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.[70]

This provision, which was viewed by the University of Ife Senate as in conflict with the law

establishing the University, accepted the Report of its Legal Review Committee which stated:

The Committee was of the opinion that the National University Commission (NUC) might not be

able to carry out its statutory assignment satisfactorily under the Decree. It suspected that the

NUC, in its present set up, might be so overstretched and thus become inefficient and ineffective

in the discharge of its functions under the Decree. The Committee then recommended that Senate

might wish to make representations to Government on the matter by pointing out the conflict…

and by proposing an amendment to the Decree so as to designate the Committee of Vice

Chancellors (CVC) as the prescribed authority to lay down minimum standards for universities,

53
in the belief that CVC would have access to, and in fact, make use of the expertise available in

the exercise of the powers under the Decree.[71]

By the early 1990s the crisis had reached an alarming proportion. Between 1992 and 1998, for

instance, sole administrators were appointed for the following Nigerian Universities: Ahmadu

Bello University (ABU) Zaria (a retired General), University of Nigeria Nsukka (UNN), Federal

University of Technology (FUT) Minna, University of Maiduguri, Ladoke Akintola University

(LAUTECH) Ogbomosho, and Edo State University, Ekpoma. The decrees that brought the sole

administrators into power conferred upon them wide powers which, according to one of the Vice

Chancellors, enabled them to combine the roles of Senate and Council with that of the Vice

Chancellor.[72]

With the incremental expansion of the scope of operation of the NUC, the powers of the

university senate to regulate the content and structure of curricula in the universities have been

usurped by the Commission. In several areas, universities have lost their power to develop new

programs, realign their courses and the content of their curricula to match labor market

requirements. Changes in undergraduate programs, introduction of new degree programs and

even changes in the names of university departments must attract the approval of the NUC.

According to Adesina, where the NUC’s position conflicts with that of the senate and experts in

the field within the universities, the opinion of NUC will prevail – no matter how wrong or

unappreciative of rapid development in the field. The foregoing is corroborated by Ade-Ajayi

who stated: The Government refashioned the NUC as the weapon of its centralized control. The

NUC was originally an Advisory Committee to act as consultant to the Government on

university policy. To accord it necessary high profile, it was not placed under any Ministry but in

the Presidency, and the Chairman operated like a Minister for Higher Education, with direct

54
access to the Head of the Government then called the Prime Minister. The Government enacted a

new NUC Decree in 1974-75, making the NUC initially, like the universities, an autonomous

body. The aim was that the NUC should protect the autonomy of the universities by acting as the

buffer between the universities and the government especially in matters of funding. But the

manipulation started immediately.[73]

Professor Akinkugbe in Nigeria similarly noted:

The epidemic of amendments to erstwhile well-intentioned

Decrees has wreaked havoc on the sanctity of academic freedom

and institutional autonomy in many areas.[74]

Take the National University Commission Decree 1 of 1974 that took care to spell out the spirit

and intent of an ideal intermediary between government and universities, whereas subsequent

amendments, embodied in Decrees 49 of 1988 and 10 of 1993 consolidated its powers. The

Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions Decree 16 of 1985 and a subsequent

Amendment of this in 1993 further empowered the NUC and eroded university autonomy. Then

there is the classic case of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), regarded through

the 90s as a thorn in the flesh of government. Decree 26 of 1988 proscribed it, Decree 36 of 1990

revoked that proscription, and Decree 24 of 1992 again proscribed and forbade it from

participating in trade union activities.[75]

The Government could not get itself to act in line with the above. Instead, pressures put on her

by the university teachers’ union to relinquish its authoritarian tendencies and its insistence on

unduly controlling the universities, were often viewed as "insubordination" and hence, resisted:

Academic freedom and university autonomy, these two phrases seemed before 29 May 1999 to

55
be an anathema to government, and to express them vigorously in the 90s was to attempt to

throw the red rag to the bull.[76]

Chiding the relentless efforts of Government to reduce academic freedom in Nigerian

universities, Professor Ayo Banjo taunted the idea of a nationally agreed set of minimum

standards for the nation’s universities as "good though not enviable". He emphasized that where

such explicit formulations were considered necessary, care must be taken to express them in

more abstract terms than virtually handing down syllabuses to the universities. An institution that

lacks the capacity to innovatively design its own curricular and syllabuses, he emphasized, does

not deserve the title of a university. The senate of a university is capable of performing the duty

without detracting from the status of a university or distorting its historic mission. The fear of

"abuse" that may result from academic freedom could be handled by the council of the

universities within established laws.[77] The truism that every freedom goes with responsibility is

applicable. The fact that the issue of university autonomy is far from settled is evident in the fact

that university autonomy was one of the knotty issues in the ASUU strike and the inability of the

government to implement the ASUU- FGN agreement of 2003.[78]

2.5.2 The Effects of ASUU strike on Nigerian Universities

The impact of strikes on higher education in Nigeria is diverse. Several scholars have listed

many. Ige observed that incessant strikes in tertiary institutions in Nigeria have had negative

effects with government, parents, and educational institutions’ administrators having their share

of the effects. [79]. Generally, incessant strikes have adverse effect on the economy [80] these effects

include, the suspension of academic activities, and disruptions of academic calendar, conflicts

between the government and trade unions, government and academics, corruption, laziness of

students, increase in crimes in the society, degrading the academic profile of Nigeria, loss of

56
jobs, inactive economic activities and delay in registration of graduate students with NYSC, just

to mention few.

The physical state of the university is impacted by strikes; University structures and equipment

are left without use. Vandals use this time to vandalize university property worth millions and

the university is not maintained as workers take part in strike actions. Structures, facilities and

environment dilapidate when strike suspends daily maintenance. The image of the university

continues to wane before members of the society. Parents become fed up with their ward’s

inability to complete their education.[81]

Humanly, the impact of strike on the University is great. Strike prevents human resources that

work at the university from working. It prevents them from developing in any of the areas of

their duty. The human brains that are trained at the university are set loose of every level of

culturization. These human brains are students who are forced to go on a break, the end of which

these no one can tell as the time for the conflict resolution is never known. The impact of such

phenomenon is that the society fails to benefit from the trainers, the human resources and brains

which are the students, “When an academic process gets interrupted with strike, all ongoing

research get abandoned or delayed; students keep their books in shelves and when the strike is

called off, both students and lecturers are mentally weak. “At the end of the day, they graduate

with mere certificates instead of knowledge that could impact on the economy. There is a

common saying that ‘When two elephants fight, the grasses will suffer’. Students have been at

the receiving end of strikes in Nigeria”.[82]

The economy suffers because of the strike. The economy in this study is divided into three: the

University economy, the local economy and the state economy. The University economy

dwindles as economic activities become inactivates, yet there are even more expenses but no

57
income. University workers would be paid, electricity, water and security would be paid for,

more travels for university officials as they engage in travels for endless negotiations to achieve

the aim of going for strike. Strike imposes cost on the employees, the employers and the entire

economy. The employees may suffer loss when they are not paid during the strike period. On the

part of the employers; cost may be indicated by lost output, lost customers and lost management

confidence.[83] This has several adverse effects on the Universities growth and achievements.

The local economy where the university is found and operates, benefits economically from the

University. The housing business flourishes as university staff and students hire houses to live in.

Markets in this local area benefit as they become the closest point of call for the exchange of

goods and services. Small and medium scale enterprises that are established to supply the

demands of the individuals that comes to the area because of the university. Strike actions

however, bring immediate crippling of the patronage of business and if the duration of the strike

extends for a long time, some businesses will fold up. The economic lives of those whose

business activities depend on the tertiary institutions for survival are affected.[84]

In case of the state economy, the loss of productivity affects the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

This constitutes the most significant quantitative cost to society. [85] Instability of the academic

calendar has led so many youths to leave the country to study at other countries. Presently so

many Nigerian students study abroad and spend so much in order to get a university degree. The

researches of the academicians which have the capability to cause an increase in the state to

advancement and development are lost within the period of strike. So many scholars lose their

jobs; strikes have led to the dismissal and retirement of members of trade unions. In 1985, the

management of the University of Benin (one of the universities in Nigeria) dismissed a former

President of ASUU, over his role in the strike in the university and the country as a whole. Forty

58
nine (49) academic staff of University of Ilorin, Nigeria was dismissed in 2001 for taking part in

a nationwide strike, embarked upon by members of ASUU. [86] The dismissal of staff further

aggravates the unemployment crisis in the country and the crime rate, because many among the

dismissed individuals often end up in robbery to keep the body and soul together.[87]

The societal impacts of strike are many; it affects the family, the nation’s image, the government

and the quality of education. The family is a basic unit of every society and it represents and

reflects the image of everything that is going on in the society. Every family unit desires to see

their offspring succeed, get educated and influence the family for good. But strikes of higher

education institutions prolong these dreams. The periods of strikes send the students on a break

and some them misuse these breaks and get into many ills that distorts their future. Strikes also

cause strains on the family relations as students that are expected to be in school come home and

become extra responsibilities.[88]

The national image is also smeared by these strikes as they display poverty of leadership

responsibility. As the nation gets lock up in unending negotiations of strike with the body that

trains and qualifies its literate work force, it casts a shadow of underdevelopment on this country.

Over the years, there have been growing concerns about the fall in the standard of education in

Nigeria.[89] One factor that can be attributed to this is the incessant strikes and the associated

closure of institutions.[90] All these phenomena affect our country in the scheme of things in the

international arena. This strike becomes a reoccurring event with every administration of

government; it shows inability on our leaders and our teachers.[91]

The government is also exposed. The major reason for strikes in higher education institutions

have always been unfulfilled agreements, lack of adequate academic sponsorship,

mismanagement of academic funds, non-payment of staff salaries and obnoxious government

59
policies. These are all leadership challenge that affects us in Nigeria. The citizens both literate

and illiterate would not appreciate much any government that allowed its relationship with stake

holders in higher education to get into strike. Soon the strike becomes a factor that brings about

other problems that become even greater challenge to the government.[92]

An academic institution disrupted with so many strikes cannot produce quality education. The

time that is to be spent learn and carrying out research is spent in crisis and conflict, yet strikes

take place more than once in every four years. While quoting the verdict of International Labour

Organisation (ILO), the Governor of Ekiti State (one of the States in the South West in Nigeria),

recently lamented that a sizeable number of graduates in Nigeria are half-baked and

unemployable in a formal employment setting. [93] This is a case of bad system producing a bad

product. This however would continue to be the trend in Nigeria’s higher education system as

long as strikes continue to disrupt academic calendars and activities. The number of institutions

in Nigeria’s higher education continue to be on the increase despite the deadly treat of strikes on

the system. In 1960, there were just two universities and five collage of education. The federal

government and the state governments were previously the only bodies licensed to operate

universities. Recently, licenses have been granted to individuals, corporate bodies and religious

organizations to establish private universities in the country.[94] Today there over (315) tertiary

institutions in Nigeria, private and government inclusive. This shows resilience of our

educational sector. But this strength should be well channeled to ensure we get to excellence, as

growth does not mean development.[95]

Key Notes

60
1. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

2. Ibid p.200

3. Ibid p.201

4. Ibid p.202

5. Ibid p.203

6. https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Staff_Union_of_Universities, accessed 29-

11-2020.

7. Ibid

8. Ibid

9. Ibid

10. Ibid

11. Academic Staff Union of Universities (2001). Assessment of graduates in the market

Place: Excerpts from Labour Market Prospects of University Graduates in Nigeria' (The World

Bank/NISER Document). The Scholar, June, PP. 10-11.

12. Ibid

13. Ajibade, E.S. (1992). Redesigning and redeterming administrative roles for improved

productivity in Nigerian universities. Ife Journal of Education. 12, PP.76-84

14. Ibid p.87

15. Ibid p.90

16. Babarinde Kola , (2012) “evolution, development, challenges and prospects of Nigeria’s

higher educational system” AVCNU educational dialogue. pg 3, pg 8-24

61
17. Dabaleen, A., Oni, B,. & Adekola, A.O. (2000). Labour market prospects for university

graduates in Nigeria. Background study conducted to inform the design of Nigerian University

System’s Innovation Project. Washington D.C: World Bank

18. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/301339-timeline-how-nigerian-

university-teachers-asuu-embarked-on-strike-for-over-three-years-since-1999.html Accessed

date 26/11/2020

19. Ibid

20. Ibid

21. Ibid

22. Enomah. S. “Joseph Omoregbe‘s Philosophy of Civil Disobedience and the

Imperativeness of 2009 ASUU Strike: (2010) Implications for a Sustainable Higher Education

in Nigeria”. Continental Journal of Arts and Humanities, 2, pp. 32-37,

23. Fafunwa, A.B. (1978). A history of Nigerian higher education. Lagos: Macmillan

Nigerian limited.

24. 1bid p17

25. Ibid .22

26. Fashoyin, T. (2009). Industrial Relations in Nigeria Lagos: Longman Nigeria

27. Federal Republic of Nigeria. (2003) “National Policy on Education (Revised)” Abuja,

Nigeria: Federal Ministry of Education,

28. Mr Emeka Oraba, a Social Commentator.

http://leadership.ng/news/379074/economicconsequences-workers-strike-actions

29. Ibid

62
30. Obe. (2003, 31st March). The University and the Development of Nigerian Society.

Paper presented at the Universities’ Stakeholders forum at Abuja, Nigeria

31. Okebukola, P. A (2002 )“State of University Education in Nigeria” National Universities

Commission, Abuja, Nigeria,

32. http://educationgist.com/history-of-asuu/ Accessed date 28-11-2020

33. Ibid

34. Ibid

35. Oyekanmi, R. (2001). "How government lost N20 billion in ASUU Strikes. The

Guardian, April 11, PP. 37

36. Saint, W., Hartnett, T.A., & Strassner, E. (2003) “Higher Education in Nigeria: A Status

Report”. Higher Education Policy, 16 (259-281),

37. Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria, (2012 ) “Statistical Digest of Teachers in

Nigeria (2011/2012)”. Teachers Registration Council of Nigeria,

38. Timilehin, E.H., Esohe, K.P., Osalusi, F.M., & Babatope, A. (2010)“Towards Redressing

the Brain Drain Syndrome in Nigeria Universities”. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific

Research, 5(3), 156-160

39. https://www.pulse.ng/communities/student/all-the-times-asuu-has-gone-on-strike-since-

1999/5jtb8cs

40. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/383371-just-in-asuu-begins-indefinite-

strike.html

41. Adamu I. and Ngwo A. (2014), Impact of Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU)

strike on Quality of University Education in Nigeria. ATBU Journal of Science, Technology and

Education Vol 2, No2 [Online]. Access date 27/11/2020.

63
42. Adavbiele, J. A. (2015), Implications of Incessant Strike Actions on the Implementation

of Technical Education Programme in Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice Vol.6, No.8,

2015 134, www.iiste.org ISSN 22221735 (Paper) ISSN 2222-288X (Online), Access Date:

28/11/2020.

43. Ibid

44. Ajayi, J. O. (2014), ASUU Strikes and Academic Performance of Students in Ekiti State

University Ado-Ekiti. Int. J. Manag. Bus. Res., 4 (1), 19-34, Winter 2014 © IAU [Online].

Access Date: 28/11/2020.

45. Ibid

46. Ibid

47. Albar A. A (2016), The Influence of University Strikes on Educational Systems: An

Exploratory Pilot Study on Nigerian Students. International Journal of Business, Humanities

and Technology Vol. 6, No. 3; page 45 [Online] Access Date: 28/11/2020.

48. Ameh, C. G. ( Daily Post, August 19,2017), ASUU: Strike continues- Nigerian lecturers

[Online]. Access Date: 2/9/2017. Retrieved from: dailypost.ng/2017/08/19/asuu-strike-

continues-nigerian-lecturers/

49. ASUU (1978), The Constitution and Code of Practice of Academic Staff Union of

Universities. Ebonyi State University.

50. Ibid

51. ASUU (2013), ASUU Speaks: Real Reasons Why We Went on Strike Posted: 04-Jul-2013

[08:31:07] into General by animost for school. Accessed 26/11/2020

64
52. Chand, S. (2016), Industrial Disputes: Definition, Forms and Types. Available on:

www.yourarticlelibrary.com/industries/industrial-disputes-definition-forms-and types/35453

Access Date: 27/11/2020.

53. Chijioke, U. (2013), Why does ASUU “always” go on Strike? Sahara reporter.

54. Ibid

55. Ibid

56. Doublegist.com (2013), Industrial Conflict – Causes and Effects in Universities/Colleges.

Ebonyi State: DoubleGist Publisher. Available on: www.doublegist.com/industrial-conflict-

effects-universitiescolleges Access Date: 27/11/2020.

57. Ebele, O. (2013, September 12), Stakeholders Proffer Solutions to ASUU/FG face-off.

Vanguard

58. Isamiah, H. (1986), Professional Unionism in Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

University of Ibadan: Ibadan.

59. Ibid

60. Ibid p.12

61. N.A.U.T. (1978), Reports Presented at the Emergency Meeting of the National Council

of University Teachers NAUT News- letter Vol.2 No.1.

62. Nwala, U. (1994), Academic Freedom in Africa; the Nigeria Experience. Academic

Freedom in Africa. Page 176, D.Mamadou & M. Mamdani (eds). Senegal: CODESRIA.

63. Odubela, M. (2012), Collapse of Ogun State Educational Sector. Ogun State: thisisayus.

64. Osabuohien, E.S.C and Ogunrinola, I.O (n.d), Causes and Effects of Industrial Crisis in

Nigeria: Some Empirical Clarifications [Online]. Covenant University Repository: Nigeria.

Access Date: 27/11/2020.Retrieved from: http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/id/eprint/4400

65
 65. Otobo, P. (1988), State and Industrial Relations in Nigeria. Lagos: Melthus press.

66. Waterman, U. (1976), Management and Organizational Attitude. London: Pitman

Publishing. Wogu, A. (1969), Trade Union Movement in Nigeria. London: C. Hurst Company.

67. Ackers, P. (2002). Reforming employment relations: The case for neo-pluralism. New

York: Industrial Relations Sage.

68. Amali, E. (2007). Gendernomics: Of women, work, and economics (Eight-third

inaugural lecture). Ilorin: Library and Publications Committee, University of Ilorin.

69. Budd, J.W. and Bhave, D. (2008). Values, ideologies, and frames of reference in industrial

relations. New York: Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations.

70. Ibid p.23

71. Ibid

72. ibid

73. Clarke, R.O.; Fatchett, D.J and Roberts, B.C. (1972). Worker’s participation in management in

Britain. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

74. Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1979). Understanding industrial relations. New York: Macmillan

Publishing Co. Inc.

75. Ibid

76. Flanders, A. (1975). Management and unions. London: Faber and Faber.

77. Ibid p.42

78. Ibid

79. Fox, A. (1966). Royal commission on trade unions and employers’ associations research papers

3. Industrial sociology and industrial relations. London: H.M.S.O.

66
80. Fox, A. (1993). Industrial relations: A social critique of the phiralist ideology. London: Allen

and Urwin, Man and Organisation.

81. Osad, O.I. and Osas, U.E (2013). Harmonious Industrial Relations as a Panacea for Ailing

Enterprises in Nigeria. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 3(3): 229-246.

82. Puttapalli, A.K. and Vuram, I.R. (2012). Discipline: The tool for industrial harmony.

International Journal of Multidisciplinary Educational Research, 1(1), 146-151.

83. Tamuno, T.N. (2013). Nigeria‟s first century: Critical pluses and minuses. In: Moses Akinola

Makinde (Ed.) Nigeria in evolution, pp. 1-44. Ibadan: Nigeria Academy of letters.

84. The Constitution and Code of Practice of ASUU. (2012). Abuja: ASUU

85. Yusuf, N. (2014). Work, industry and society: The synergy that mirrors the reality of our

everyday existence (Inaugural lecture). Ilorin: Library and Publication Committee, University of

Ilorin.

86. Senior Staff Association of Nigeria Universities, Constitution and Order of Procedure (3 rd

Edition) 2011

87. SSANU LASU Executive 2013 http/sl.ennov8.comng/aboutssan/, on Thursday, 23 rd July, 2015

Accessed 26/11/2020

88. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015. Published

by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

89. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015. Published

by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

90. Ibid p.233

91. Ibid p.222

92. Ibid p.219

67
93. Ibid p.241

94. Albar A. A (2016), The Influence of University Strikes on Educational Systems: An Exploratory

Pilot Study on Nigerian Students. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology

Vol. 6, No. 3; page 45 [Online] Access Date: 28/11/2020.

95. Ibid

CHAPTER THREE

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILORIN

3.1 Background to the Establishment of University of Ilorin

In meeting the dictates of the Third National Development Plan, which aimed at providing

expanded educational opportunities to Nigerians, the Federal Military Government by a decree

established seven universities in Nigeria in August, 1975, to be located in Calabar, Jos,

Maiduguri, Sokoto, Kano, Port-Harcourt, and Ilorin. The University of Ilorin is hosted by the

ancient city of Ilorin, Kwara State in the North Central geo-political zone of Nigeria. The historic

town is about 451 kilometres by road via Bida from Abuja, the Federal Capital. Ilorin is a

transitional zone and a geographical and cultural confluence of the Northern and Southern

Nigeria. The University has a large land mass. Akinkugbe (2010) observed that “the land size

was 15,000 hectares. The huge terrain was going to be the largest university permanent site in all

of Africa… this scenic expanse of territory with the River Oyun traversing it in its northerly

course towards the River Niger” [1]

University of Ilorin, is located in Ilorin, the capital city of Kwara State on latitude 8.4799° N and

longitude 4.5418° E, covering an approximate land mass of 5,000 hectare. University of Ilorin is

located at about 500km apart from Nigeria national capital (Abuja) and about 300km away from

the Nation’s economic capital (Lagos).[2]

68
University of Ilorin was one of the seven institutions of higher learning established by a decree

of the Federal Military Government in August, 1975. This step, taken to implement one of the

educational directives of the country’s Third National Development Plan, was aimed at

providing more opportunities for Nigerians aspiring to acquire university education and to

generate high level man-power, so vital for the rapidly expanding economy. The University

began as a University College affiliated to the oldest university in Nigeria (University of Ibadan)

in 1975 under the leadership of the then principal, Dr. T.N. Tamuno. The first set of 200

students, selected following an entrance examination, were admitted into residence on 23

October 1976, while academic work started on 25 October after the Principal’s address. The

University College started with three academic faculties of Arts, Science and Education. In

October 1977, the institution attained full autonomous status with appointment of the then

Principal, Professor O.O Akinkugbe as first vice chancellor.[3] 

The University started off on a portion of the temporary campus of the Kwara State Polytechnic

known as the mini campus. This was the site of academic programmes in the Faculties of Arts,

Science, Education, Engineering & Technology, Business and Social Sciences, and basic clinical

sciences of the Health Sciences Faculty. It was the only campus of the university until January

1982 when more than 1000 students studying science were moved following completion of new

Faculty blocks and residences for Natural Sciences and Engineering on the permanent campus

site. From 1983, the law programme was started as a department in the Faculty of Business and

Social Sciences. Following a 6-year hiatus, it was re-established in 1993 as a full-fledged

Faculty. The university now has 15 faculties: Arts, Agriculture, Environmental Sciences, Life

Sciences, Management Sciences, Physical Sciences, Social Sciences, Communication and

Information Sciences, Education, Engineering and Technology, Pharmaceutical Sciences,

69
Veterinary Medicine, and Law; a College of Health Sciences (with 2 Faculties-Basic Medical

Sciences and Clinical Sciences); two institutes (Institute of Education and Unilorin Sugar

Research Institute); and the Postgraduate School. These faculties have over 60 academic

departments. Undergraduate degree programmes are run for 3-5, or 6 years, depending on entry

qualifications and discipline.

The University now possess a staff strength of about 4,474, with over 48,000 undergraduate and

over 5,000 postgraduate students in 90 academic programmes across fifteen (15) faculties.

Furthermore, the school of Preliminary Studies with Remedial and JUPEB programmes has over

3600 students.   University of Ilorin is one of the foremost universities in the sub-Saharan

African with uninterrupted academic programme for over 16 years. Its products have excelled in

several sectors nationally and internationally.[4] 

3.2 Growth and Challenges of the University of Ilorin

Aspects of growth achieved by the university in recent years include high admission quota, high

graduate and postgraduate output, increased staffing and training, enhanced funding access

(intervention funds, STEP-B research funds, Tertiary Education Trust Fund, Association of

African Universities Fund, etc.), Webometric ranking, programme expansion all which made the

University to attract A+ institutional accreditation from the regulatory National Universities

Commission (NUC).[5]

Others include improved learning facilities (white boards, smart boards, waist band amplifiers,

etc.), contributions to the informed society through Unilorin Bulletin (weekly, non-stop),

Senate Digest and Unilorin 89.3 FM, the first broadcast station to operate 24 hours in the North

Central Nigeria. Other developments that signpost the quality of the University are high staff

publications turn-out, Annual Reports, re-tooling of the institutional research infrastructure

70
(appointment of research managers, creation of research groups and research niches and creation

of the Office of a Deputy Vice-Chancellor for Research, Innovation and Technology) and high

staff development ratio making the University one of the seven universities in Nigeria with 60%

of academic staff having a doctoral degree.[6]

Additionally, hallmarks of the University of Ilorin of today include hosting of hundreds of

conferences, public lectures, seminars and workshops, diversity and internationalization,

collaborations and networking (with such organs and bodies as Committee of Vice-Chancellors

(CVC)/ Association of Vice-Chancellors of Nigerian Universities (AVCNU), Association of

West Africa Universities (AWAU), Consortium of Six Universities (U6), Association of African

Universities (AAU), Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU), Global Universities

Network for Innovation (GUNI) and International Association of Universities (IAU), among

others).[7]

Moreover, the University is powered by a robust Information and Communication Technology

(ICT) infrastructure which reflects in the increase in bandwidth, the introduction of Computer-

Based Test (CBT), the provision of e-library facilities, the development of courseware, the

digitization of University activities (i.e. the cultivation of e-culture through paperless Senate, e-

discussion fora, e-conferencing, tele-conferencing), interactive website, university mobile apps,

staff and student official e-mail addresses, portals (for staff and students), multipurpose ID cards

and patenting of research and inventions.[8]

The University has also upgraded its existing hostel facilities while new student hostels are

being constructed on a regular basis. The hosting of the West Africa University Games in 2012

and other sporting events has made the University to have one of the best stadia in African

universities and a major destination for sporting events. The University also promotes physical

71
fitness through a standard Fitness Centre, a monthly fitness walk and other facilities aimed at

health and physical wellness. There is also a modern, well-equipped Zoo, which a tourist

attraction in Kwara State with the complement of an extended canopy walk way, the first in an

African campus. The University zoo has such animals as carnivores (male and female lions),

ungulates (duiker, camel, donkey, etc.) aves (ostriches, geese, ducks, parrots, pigeons, etc.) and

reptiles such as pythons and crocodiles.[9]

Furthermore, the University of Ilorin is characterized by milestones as campus banks, modern

buildings (Senate Building, Auditorium, new Multi-purpose Hall, new Faculty buildings and

Centres (CPSS, CIE, CREDIT, CPSS, TEC, CILS, CODL, UHDC, etc. including the newest

Centre for Renewable Energy, etc.) Institutes, Schools and special research support

establishments such as the National Geological Research Resort in Ara-Orin and International

Geological Camp at Share. Other milestones are the plantations (such as Teak, Citrus, Jatropha,

Moringa, Date palms, etc.), ultra-modern Dental Clinic as well as a breath-taking Lakeside

Resort and University fountain.[10]

Also, there are the beautification and landscaping of environment, regular power supply with the

exploration of alternative energy sources, intra-campus link roads, enterprise and

entrepreneurship (Unilorin Table Water, Unilorin Honey, Unilorin Press, Unilorin Moringa

products, etc.) rewarding excellence (researcher of the year and merit awards), maintenance of a

cult-free campus and promoting a conducive atmosphere for teaching, learning and research.

In a brief interview with the Researcher on the growth and challenges of the University of Ilorin,

Professor Samuel Aghalino from Department of History and International Studies, University of

Ilorin noted:

University of Ilorin is one of the fast-growing Universities in

Nigeria. There is no doubt about that. Unilorin is virtually a

72
 construction site with good internet compliance where the
students have access to internet though it fluctuates which is its
challenges but at least it is available. Just that the classes are not
smart classes yet and with time, classes will be smart. There is
growth in infrastructure, learning facilities, with lots of lecture
theatres and workshops springing up. There are engineering
facilities all over the campus. But again, the students are more
than the facilities. The rate of admission is higher than the
available facilities and that is why you see that most of the
classes are filled to capacity and it stresses lecturers because they
will be teaching large classes. The challenge essentially has to do
with the fact that everybody wants to come here and because
everybody wants to come here, facilities are stretched to optimum
capacity. The prospect is that it is a very peaceful school. No
known cases of cultism, students are disciplined, the University
has dress code, crime is virtually nonexistence and to a very large
extent, the lecturers are disciplined. The level of corruption in
lecturers is limited. Corruption may not be ruled out, it is not
institutionalized that is to say it is not at the level of crises like
what you see in other universities where you see a lecturer seize
on getting money on students before graduating them. I don’t
think that is very common in the University of Ilorin. There may
be isolated cases, but it is not really common. The University also
has some semblance of a Federal structure. There is ethnicity
here just like every other facet of the Nigerian society but it has
not really gotten so deep that will affect the universal nature of
the University. There is staff diversity from all over the country.
[11]

3.3 2001 ASUU Strikes: Before and After

The period between 1981 and 1989 witnessed the building, growth and consolidation of a virile

academic staff unionism in the University. [12] The early leaders were perpendicular as they kept

faith with the cardinal principles of the Union as articulated by the late Festus Iyayi, particularly

in the noble paths of integrity, hard work and constitutionality. Under them, the Union earned

respectability on campus, and together with successive university administrations, was able to

sustain peace and an enabling environment for the University to accomplish its objectives as an

academic institution of repute. As expected, although members at various times could hold

73
different viewpoints on issues, they were always focused in one direction: the overriding need to

build and defend a strong and united union.[13]

Prominent among the early leaders are (now) Professors Oduleye and Obafemi, who at different

times were Chairmen of the branch. The two, along with few others, were highly celebrated

firebrand radical socialists/leftists who were fondly or disparagingly, depending on who was

talking, referred to as „ASUU boys‟. Unknown to many on campus, Professors Oduleye and

Obafemi, along with a few others here in Ilorin, belonged to some leftist/socialist organisations

with national networks that provided organisational strategies and leaderships for various labour

movements, trade unions or professional bodies in Nigeria, including ASUU, Committee for the

Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), Campaign for Democracy (CD), Nigeria Medical

Association (NMA), Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), etc., as front organisations. The higher

goal or objective of these leftist organisations was to kick out the military junta, which they

considered an objectionable aberration in governance. In effect, they had a higher and noble

mission, which was the institutionalisation of a democratic culture in Nigeria. The leaderships of

the front organisations were not only radicalised but intellectually equipped to meet the

challenges of the time. The members of these leftist organisations, in comradeship and total

commitment, were found on many campuses. Some of these members were Mahmud Tukur in

Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria; Festus Iyayi in the University of Benin, Benin;

Attahiru Jega in Bayero University Kano (BUK); Asisi Asobie in the University of Nigeria,

Nsukka; Lai Olorode and Idowu Awopetu in the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo

University), Ile-Ife; and Iyorchia Ayu in the University of Jos, etc. They were noted for their

disciplined lives and good grounding in Marxist/socialist literature and practice. Indeed, they

74
were the leading lights and intelligentsia for the society in the struggle to liberate Nigeria from

the claws of the military junta.[14]

This group formed the ‘core’ of ASUU in Ilorin and for many years, it remotely and effectively

controlled the Union through, among other things, provision of its leadership in succession

through democratic ideals and support of the majority of academic staff members. Members

with potentials for leadership positions were normally identified by their performances in Union

activities, particularly contributions at Congresses and their levels of conviction, commitment

and courage for the cause of the Union. Parochialism or ethnic tendencies and affiliations were

strange and unpopular. One other strategy that continually strengthened the Union was the

manner of mobilisation more so as lethargy and cynicism pervaded the campuses. The

promotion of a sense of belonging and relevance through participation in Union assignments,

welfarism, and interventions at the level of personal interests were also useful tools of

mobilisation.[15]

Outside this inner core was a ring of passionate and committed members who belonged to the

‘in-group’. This group was driven by the concept of ‘group think’, a sort of instinctive

conformity. Together, with self-appointed ‘mind guards’ or ‘conformity police’ defending the

values of the leadership, the cohesiveness of the Union was ensured. Thus, it had a total grip on

the Union, which in turn, became wellstructured, formidable and powerful. The group, through

the Union, could decide who became what on campus, especially the elective positions in the

Senate and Congregation, including Deanship of Faculties. However, the Union was kept

focused, responsive and responsible to its cardinal principles, especially those of selflessness,

hard work, democracy, courage and collectivism. It is to the credit of the ‘core’ that a solid

foundation was laid for the Union in this University and many others.[16]

75
The contest for chairmanship of the Union by Dr Remi Medupin and, Dr (now Prof) Akinyanju

in 1991 was the smoke, which indicated there was fire underneath, suggesting a crack within the

„core‟. Both of them were not only members of the „core‟ but were seen as trench-mates and

die-hard loyalists of the Union who had always worked together. This sad development came

unexpectedly. At the Union level, it was the first event that eventually led to a division within

the rank and file. In spite of this and other new dimensions suggested by accusations and

counter-accusations, the Union managed to move, nay wobble on, till 1993, though things were

certainly not the same anymore including relationships. Dr (now Prof.) Akinyanju chose to

„abandon‟ his mandate in 1993 to go to Council, when the Federal Government increased

representation in Council from Congregation to two. Consequently, Dr Roy Ndom was elected

to finish the remaining part of his term till 1995.[17]

The crack in the Union got widened in 1998. Contrary to situations on other campuses, the

Federal Government/ASUU impasse of 1998 gave birth to an ‘executive’ of the local branch on

September 2 1998, after the Abacha regime lifted the ban on the Union. It came through a

„nomination and unopposed‟ chorus exercise mediated by the Internal Mediation and

Reconciliation Team and the ASUU NEC Team led by Dr Kola Babarinde. This development

was strange to the administration of the Union on campus and was seriously contested by the

erstwhile Bayo Lawal-led Executive Council that was on ground during the impasse. This single

act further decimated the cohesion within the Union, which at that time was very fragile.

However, through that controversial circumstance, Dr Oloruntoba-Oju became the Chairman of

the Union. The erstwhile Executive Council of Dr (now Prof) Bayo Lawal accused the new team

of usurpation. This was insinuated in a letter to Dr Oloruntoba-Oju where he stated thus:

You and your co-travellers in the present Executive committee

„seized‟ power in the manner of coup plotters. We know quite

76
 well that coup making is unconstitutional, and indeed a crime,
but not if it is successful and people have to queue up behind
usurpers for the sake of convenience. Thanks also to your
patrons in ASUU and in Administration who facilitated the
usurpation. But dogs can still eat dogs, it is only a matter of time.
[18]

How prophetic, as later events proved him absolutely right. In effect, there were two factions of

the Union on ground – one led by Dr Bayo Lawal and the other by Dr Oloruntoba-Oju. While

this was going on, a new Vice-Chancellor was appointed for the University. The new Vice-

Chancellor, Prof Shuaibu Oba AbdulRaheem, was faced with the dilemma of which Executive

Committee between the two (Lawal and Oloruntoba-Oju) to recognise. We gathered that it was

out of fear, especially of the potentials of one group to make the University ungovernable for

him that decided the matter. The eventual course and nature of events would decide whether his

decision was right or wrong. It was alleged that the Oloruntoba-Oju Executive Council, which

the Vice-Chancellor recognised in his first year in office, was engaged in intensive romance

with Administration, in return for selfish concessions. It only assumed a confrontational posture

when such concessions in the form of promotion and membership of vital organs of

Administration were no longer forthcoming. While the romance was going on, the other group

adopted the Bola Ige ‘siddon look’ strategy. It is noteworthy, though sad, to record that the

commendable efforts of the Bayo Lawal-led Executive (1995–1997) to restore cohesion, unity

and strength to the Union were viciously shattered by this leadership crisis. Of course, the Union

was thrown back again into serious internal crisis. Politics replaced unionism while anarchy

crept in![19]

One way of assessing the mood and motive of the Union’s leadership is the frequency and

tempo of Congress meetings. ASUU meetings, particularly congresses are usually poorly

attended at peace periods. However, decisions in form of resolutions are normally binding. It is
77
of interest to note that, whereas the constitutional requirement is for three congresses per year,

the Oloruntoba-Oju Executive Council reported that in the year 2000, it held over 20 Congresses

in a supposedly peaceful period! (This is our Record, 2000).[20]

No wonder, therefore, that in the Executive Council’s attempt for a second term, a group led by

Dr (now Prof.) Hassan Saliu and Dr (now Prof.) Kolade Joseph within the rank in a release titled

“We Need a New Lease of Life”, opined that:

an executive that has created so much division within the Union

does not deserve a second chance.

The group also observed that ‘delusionment’ is the price the Union has paid for entrusting its

affairs in the hands of such highly subjective and biased leadership that bulldozed their way into

the Union leadership in 1998.” [21]

There were other serious accusations against the leadership which included notoriety for

distortion of facts, alienation of members, intellectual arrogance, rudeness to elders of the

Union, impunity and issue of accountability.

The success of that Executive Council in the 2000 election apparently made it more daring in

pursuing the alleged ignoble paths of hidden, personal and restricted group interest at the peril of

the Union’s survival. The election appeared hotly contested on polarised lines. Dr Albert

Olayemi (now Prof) contested the election against Dr. Oloruntoba-Oju. Olayemi fiercely

queried the bonafide status of the Electoral Committee on its constitutionality and concluded

that:

The whole process is fraught with falsehood, deception and

outright bad faith by the outgone Executive. For instance, as at
13th of September, 2000 the outgone chairman was still referring
to himself as the chairman even though he is a contestant for
chairmanship.[22]

78
The result of the election further escalated the fractionalisation of the Union. The internal split

became more pronounced at the time the 2001 strike was called, which culminated in the real

division among the membership of the Union. It was indeed the “last straw that broke the

camel’s back”. Equally, as a result of the problem was the alleged painting of the University of

Ilorin in bad light by the Executive Council of Oloruntoba-Oju, which at a time described the

University as the “forefront crisis-ridden University in the country”, a description that was

condemned by Olayemi and Adaramaja. [23] The attitude of the National Executive Committee

also contributed to the escalation of the crisis because it decided to support one of the factions in

its effort and did not take any appreciable step to resolve the existing conflict. This was

condemned in no unmistakable terms in a letter by Saliu and Joseph thus:

There is need to re-visit by NEC to adequately identify the raging

issues and meet with all the stakeholders in the intra-union crisis
before it gets out of control. We are confident that the NEC of
our noble Union will tread the path of fairness, honour and
justice, as it grapples with self-inflicted ASUU crisis at Unilorin.
[24]

This admonition was not heeded and the problem lingered and festered on without a permanent

solution. The division in the Union was therefore further deepened as opinions and positions

became hardened and entrenched. The silent fear that the Union was being hijacked by a cabal

became more real than ever![25]

A prominent ASUU loyalist and elder, Prof J. Olorunfemi, in a memo entitled “Ominous Signs

in the Trend”, echoed another negative trend that an Ex-Chairman, Dr. Roy Ndom, had alerted

the Union of in 1995. He observed and condemned the shift from objectivity and credentials to

ethnic, religious and sectarian sentiments in the scheme of things in the Union.[26]

79
Though the signs that the Union was heading for a wreck were clear to all, the leadership drove

on with reckless abandon. It disregarded the common knowledge that in unionism, though the

leadership leads, it is the body that makes or directs the head. It concentrated more on guarding

and wielding its „power‟ on the majority in a classical case of the tyranny of the minority. It

was with this fractured and fractionalised „union‟ that the leadership hoped to realise its

objectives, even after all its cardinal principles had been bastardised and its rank and file

alienated.

It was no wonder then that the struggle through the January 2001 strike was lost on the very day

it was started. The Oloruntoba-Oju Executive Council made history by failing to mobilise the

full support of the once cohesive, strong and united Union. In actual fact, a significant fraction

not only opposed the call for a strike at a mobilising congress but also defied it by continuing to

give lectures and attending to official matters when the strike commenced.

The fractionalisation of the Union was made public through a press statement entitled “Enough

is Enough” issued by a faction on the 26th January 2001, to dissociate itself from the strike.

Subsequently, an advert stating the same position appeared in the Nigerian Tribune and The

Punch newspapers of the 13th and 15thof March 2001 respectively signed by 73 academic staff

made up of Professors and Senior Lecturers. [27] However, these sign-posts of failure meant

nothing to the Executive Council that was hell-bent on prosecuting its well-mapped agenda for

war. Not even when the number of those participating in the strike was reduced to a miserable

number (44 out of over 600 staff strength). Five others had earlier been sacked for committing a

‘sacrilege’ in academia – physically disrupting an on-going examination under the guise of

picketing an obviously unpopular strike. The ‘generals’ did not realise that the soldiers being led

had abandoned the war front that they were deceived into in the first instance. “Who was it who

80
gave the wise counsel that ‘to withdraw is not a sign of weakness…?” It is a sign that a man

knows the limits of his capabilities and the most probable outcome of the future. [29] One who

retreats to fight another day is not running away but looking for another road towards the same

destination. The most reasonable thing to do is to retreat to win. But that was not the path

chosen. Rather than rallying efforts at reconciliation, it opted for the unimaginable effrontery of

issuing queries to all members that signed the press release.[30]

At the expiration of the two-year term of Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju‟s Executive Council, the

leadership was reelected through a highly manipulated election process in September, 2000.

This was clearly stated in Prof. J.F. Olorunfemi‟s letter to the Community thus:

In the end of term address delivered by Dr. Roy J.E. Ndom on

28th March, 1995 ethnicity was singled out as a monster that has
been with us for a long time. In the year 2000 can we ask
ourselves if it has left us? Election patterned along ethnic and
religious divides portends a grievous consequence. Let us think
and act as intellectuals.[31]

The re-election was the beginning of the end. The Executive Council started issuing strike

threats based on flimsy excuses such as if salary was not paid before the 3 rd of the following

month (even when it was obvious that monthly subventions to the universities were not getting

to them regularly), the Union would go on strike.

By 2001, it was clear that the Executive Council and its supporters had a hidden and destructive

agenda. The ASUU leadership at the University of Ilorin then was clearly pursuing personal and

restricted group interests which were surreptitiously presented as “collective ones.” [32]

Other negative tendencies that featured in the Executive Council’s activities included:

i. presenting itself as if members had been conquered;

ii. projecting an outright negative image for our University;

iii. initiating court cases and issuing press releases without the consent of Congress;
81
iv. using rude language in communications to Administration and Council;

v. writing letters to Administration without input from, and subsequent approval of

Congress; and

vi. trading blatant lies freely and crediting same to Congress (resolution) when such matters

were never mentioned at Congress.

Other negative tendencies were:

i. abuse of the use of Coordinating Committee (i.e. making Strike Coordinating Committee a

permanent feature as if Unilorin ASUU was permanently at war with Administration and

permanently on strike);

ii. appropriation of decisions taken at Committee level as Congress positions; and iii. use of

strike as a bargaining weapon in defending gross acts of indiscipline.[33]

In January 2001, the Oloruntoba-Oju Executive Council hastily compiled all sorts of flimsy

excuses as outrageous demands and declared a local ASUU strike on campus. In their first terse

Strike Bulletin (Strike Bulletin 1 – February, 2001) the reasons given for embarking on the strike

were stated as follows:

(a) The sack of the following academic staff, for various infringement of the University

regulations:

Prof M.A. Ibiejugba

Dr (Mrs) I.O. Obayan

Dr T. Fagbemi

Dr W. Raji

Mrs F. Saliu, and

(b) All other problems of abuse of due process, victimization, etc. [34]
82
A few unsuspecting members joined the strike, but as a matter of fact, the membership of the

Union was already polarised into ‘Strike mongers’ and ‘Pro-stability group’. While the

Oloruntoba-Oju-led group released its serial Strike Bulletin to give the false impression of a

successful strike, the No Strike Bulletin released by a counter-group of academics revealed

otherwise. The truth was that lectures were going on in all the Faculties in spite of all the

measures (plea, threat and intimidation) employed by Oloruntoba-Oju’s messengers.[35]

Five weeks into the so-called strike, very few ASUU members were on strike. By this time, the

Executive Council was already drowning, and their co-travellers in the sinking ship were alleged

to be feeding fat on members‟ check-off dues while debts and commitments to cooperatives

were already mounting for innocent members.

By April 2001, it was obvious that the strike had completely failed as all attempts by the

Executive Council to enforce it yielded no results. Even the traditional picketing failed because

the overwhelming majority ignored the strike. The University remained stable and all activities

were ongoing. The Executive Council then resorted to seeking assistance from the external

public – the press and the National Executive Council of ASUU. The press war raged while

other universities were mobilised against the University, especially in the peer-review sector of

inter-university cooperation. Some universities refused to moderate our examinations, our

members were denied sabbatical positions, and were even harassed and molested on some

campuses with the tacit connivance of some Vice-Chancellors – notably in the Southwest

region. Other sanctions were imposed but the University remained undaunted. However, all

these, instead, assisted to internationalise the University the more, with corresponding increased

visibility, as more international scholars were invited into our academic processes. The most

83
ridiculous of their negative campaigns against the University was the assertion that without

them, the University certificates would lack credibility.[36]

A way out for the Executive Council and the few followers came through a national strike

declared by ASUU. As a face-saving strategy, the Executive Council decided and informed

Administration that it was calling off the local strike in order to join the national strike. The

University Administration objected to this proposal and appealed to the Executive Council to

resume work to conduct the semester examinations and then join their colleagues for the

national strike. However, the Executive Council remained adamant. The suggestion of the non-

striking academic staff that the local Executive Council take advantage of the provision to

secure a waiver from the national body was turned down. Rather, the Executive Council and its

co-travellers opted to ‘hide’ behind the national strike to continue with the local strike, which to

all intents and purposes was a self-seeking publicity stunt and a grand deceit.

When it was obvious that the Executive Council was hell-bent on going back to the strike

scheduled for January, 2001, a letter was written by some concerned members to the National

President of ASUU on the unpopular decision of the controversial local ASUU leadership. The

Chairman, however, ignored the concerned members of the Union. A week to the

commencement of the so-called strike, a large number of lecturers addressed a press conference

warning of the looming danger. The University Administration issued a notice to all academic

staff advising them to complete forms to indicate that they were at work. The

Administration/Council further warned that failure to resume work by the stated date would be

interpreted to mean that defaulters had deliberately “walked out of their job”. At the expiration

of the deadline, 44 members were so classified.[37]

84
By February, 2001, the ASUU NEC team came to intervene in the crisis. The President of the

Union met with the Vice-Chancellor on Monday, 5 th February, 2001. The Students‟ Union also

invited the local ASUU Executive Council to defend its position on the strike at a public forum

on Tuesday 6th February, 2001, in view of the impending University’s Harmattan Semester

Examinations. Many other interest groups appealed to the Executive Council for understanding,

including community, religious and traditional leaders, among other stakeholders. All these

interventionist efforts failed as the Executive Council refused to yield. Eventually, the 44

academic staff were officially disengaged from the services of the University. Another five had

previously lost their jobs for reasons earlier stated.

In order to fill the leadership vacuum created by “the voluntary exit” of the unpopular

leadership, a meeting was convened on Friday 5 th October, 2001 by Professors J.A. Morakinyo,

R.O. Lasisi and E.A. Ogunsakin. At this meeting, a new Executive Council was elected to

provide an effective and credible leadership for the Union. The new Executive Council under the

leadership of Dr (now Prof.) O.A. Omotesho brought a new beginning to ASUU on campus. It

took control of the Union activities for two years and then handed over the leadership to Dr

(now Prof.) Kola Joseph‟s Executive Council. The latter was succeeded by others at the

expiration of his tenure.[38]

Between January and October, 2001, the crisis in the Union remained intractable. As earlier

stated, the University Administration in adherence to the regulation disengaged some academic

staff on the ground that they refused to work in accordance with the directive of the University.

Dissatisfied by this stance, the affected academics filed an action before the Federal High Court,

Ilorin, which declined jurisdiction as reported by Ajayi.[39] Concerned by the lingering crisis,

some senior academics took the bull by the horns and called for a meeting “to discuss the update

85
on activities of our union” (Morakinyo, Lasisi and Ogunsakin, 2001). This was the first attempt

at resolving the crisis and at the meeting, a new Executive Council was inaugurated by the

Congress under the leadership of Dr (now Prof.) Abayomi Omotesho which solicited the

cooperation of the National ASUU.[40] The letter of solicitation was not acknowledged and not

responded to by the national leadership of ASUU. In fact, in spite of overtures made to it by the

Omotesho administration, nothing concrete was achieved as the disposition of the NEC of the

Union was to continue to relate with the Oloruntoba-Oju’s group. The rationale for this line of

action was articulated by Egbewole that the University Administration was already taking the

Union “for granted in taking decisions on academic staff matters.” [41]

The vision of the new

regime was listed in a 10-point agenda released by the Chairman, whose mission was given thus:

Our Mission, therefore, is to re-position ASUU Unilorin Chapter

to become an active weapon for fighting for benefits for our
members, to pursue struggle through the option of dialogue and
negotiation and only contemplate the option of a strike as the
only last and inevitable means. We are persuaded that genuine
struggle is not warfare and hooliganism or radicalism. In other
words, struggle should not be directed at destroying a system
because the system has to hold. For us, struggle is to improve a
system rather than to pull it down...It is also a way of appealing
to our members to toe the line of discipline, maintain intellectual
honesty and academic integrity.[42]

This new approach to resolving the crisis by electing a new leadership was not allowed to

endure and germinate in order to yield desired dividend of a virile Union as the sacked academic

staff condemned the move instead of embracing it. The condemnation led to the release by

Egbewole to set the records straight on the need to allow the effort to be effective in the

collective interest of the Union. The rationale behind the effort was to explore the possibility of

reinstating the sacked staff through dialogue with the University Administration instead of the

86
combative disposition of the ousted academic staff supported by the national leadership of

ASUU.[43]

In line with the vision and mission of the Omotesho-led regime, a referendum slip was issued

whether to join or not to join a strike called by NEC as released by Oloruntoba-Oju. Based on

the result of the referendum, 98 percent of members opposed the strike. The National body and a

few members did not agree to this position as submitted by Akintoye:

Admittedly, our Union in the past 18 months has been infested

with divide and rule tactics, bitterness and distrust amongst
members, survival at all cost instincts, animosities, misgivings
and misconceptions etc., yet the solution does not lie with the
entrance of your group. Your entrance has only tried to
compound the problem. The priorities and emphasis in your
publications and write-ups betray the cloak of good intentions
you will want the public to believe.[44]

This was a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The internal effort was not

given a chance by a few and insignificant vocal minority who influenced the press and

consequently shaped and determined the public opinion on this matter. The release of Akintoye

was countered by that of Kasum who classified Akintoye’s position as “cheap heroism” tinged

with “emotional attachment.” [45] The efforts of the Omotesho-led regime were not allowed to

materialise. At the time the national leadership of ASUU met with the Omotesho

Administration, the then National President complained of blackmail on the part of the sacked

staff which stifled their resolve to negotiate with the University Administration.

The reaction of the National ASUU was to expel the leadership of the University of Ilorin

ASUU branch from the Union at the National Executive Committee meeting held at Ahmadu

Bello University, Zaria in January, 2002. This expulsion was rejected as a potent weapon that

could lead to the disintegration or even death of the Union in general. Egbewole enthused:

87
 We recollect with disappointment the efforts made by some
groups and individuals within ASUU fold at Unilorin on the need
for national leadership to be the protector of rights of all
members. But in its unfortunate tradition of aligning with the
minority (e.g. ABU, LASU etc.), the leadership succumbed to
pressure from the local ASUU leadership of yesteryears, at the
risk of losing civil, honest, committed, reasonable and valuable
members at Unilorin. The truism that most empires and
kingdoms collapsed as a result of poor handling of crisis
associated with vassal states is currently lost on Fashina
Presidency that is heading a vitally divided union.... We totally
reject the Zaria decisions on our trail-blazing University.[45]

As at the time of the purported expulsion by National ASUU, the Omotesho-led Administration

had initiated dialogue with the University Administration on the sacked staff and the

Administration was receptive to dialogue on the matter. The divisive tendencies of the national

ASUU and recalcitrant disposition of the sacked academic staff frustrated the internal efforts at

resolving the crisis. Another Executive Council was inaugurated by the Union on 7 th October,

2003 under the Chairmanship of then Dr (now Prof.) [47]

The new Executive Council picked the baton where the Omotesho Administration stopped and

emphasised that “our resolve to pursue the course of dialogue has remained the only option to

sustain our acknowledged peaceful campus”.[48] The path of dialogue and peaceful resolution of

disputes remained the most viable option and this was pursued by subsequent leaderships of the

Union led by Omoiya (2008– 2012), Egbewole (2012–2014) and Adeoye (2014 to 2016) etc.

The efforts remained fruitless because of disagreement between the ASUU leadership and the

sacked academic staff who mounted serious negative campaigns against the university in print

and electronic media including the internet. Recourse was made to the court of law, which

ultimately decided the issues.[49]

3.4 Resolution of the 2001 Strike

88
The sacked staff rebuffed all entreaties at resolving the crisis amicably as earlier submitted. The

University Administration equally felt slighted and ego-tripping set in, thus shifting the battle

ground to the court rooms. The cases can be divided into two segments: cases between the

sacked staff and the University Administration and intra-union cases.[50]

Cases between the Sacked Staff and the University Administration: There are many cases in

this category but the one that encapsulated the whole scenario was that of Dr. Taiwo Oloruntoba-

Oju and 4 others V. Professor Shuaibu O. AbdulRaheem. This case traversed all the layers of

courts in Nigeria from the Federal High Court, Ilorin, the Court of Appeal and finally to the

Supreme Court, Abuja. The final judgment was delivered on 12 th June, 2009.[51] The case started

in 2001 and the decision of the Federal High Court was delivered on 26 th July, 2005, where the

claims of the sacked staff were granted. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upturned the victory of

the sacked staff on 12th June, 2006 and their appeal to the Supreme Court, the apex court in

Nigeria, was allowed.[52]

The claims of Dr T. Oloruntoba-Oju, Dr A.S. Ajayi, Dr Adeyinka Banwo, Dr Sola Ademiluka

and Mr O.O. Olugbara essentially were reduced to 11 main claims based on the refusal of the

University Management to follow the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act, the termination

being contrary to the directive of the Federal Government as conveyed by the letter of the

Executive Secretary of 29th June, 2001 in respect of the national strike of ASUU, breach of the

Fundamental Human Rights of the Plaintiffs and order compelling the salaries and emoluments

of the Plaintiffs to be paid in full. The issues in contention included whether the Federal High

Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter when the Industrial Arbitration Panel was already

adjudicating on it. The Federal High Court held it had jurisdiction but the Court of Appeal said

89
the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction but the Supreme Court agreed with the Federal High

Court.[53]

One of the reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision on this point was that the parties before the

two (Federal High Court and Industrial Arbitration Panel) were different, the subject matters

were also different. The Industrial Arbitration Panel is an inferior Tribunal while the Federal

High Court is a superior court of record. One other fundamental point that seriously weighed on

the minds of the Justices of the Supreme Court was that of procedure employed by the

University in terminating the appointments of the affected staff members. The Supreme Court

held that the argument of the University that the termination was in accordance with the

provision of Section 15(3) of the University Act was belated having not pleaded it.[54]

The issue of fair hearing was given a serious consideration. The apex court held that being an

appointment with statutory flavour, the University Administration was bound to follow the

provisions of the University of Ilorin Act as provided in Section 15 thereof. The court held that

“there is no iota of evidence that the procedure for termination of employment of the appellants

as to fair hearing was observed in this case.” The argument of the University that the affected

staff did not utilise the opportunity of the fair hearing afforded them based on Exhibit 20, the

Minutes of Meeting of the Governing Council was rejected on the basis that it did not meet the

specifications of the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act.[55]

The other case in this category is that of Dr Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & 5 others v. Prof P.

Dopamu & 6 others where the sacked staff claimed that the University did not comply with the

provisions of the University Act in the disciplinary process. After the determination of all these

cases, the previously sacked staff were reinstated and all their entitlements were paid by the

University.

90
Still, they remained unsatisfied with the payment and issues arising therefrom were taken back

to the Supreme Court especially the issue of Sabbatical leave and sundry matters. The apex court

did not spare the reinstated staff by drawing their attention to the clear order of the court in the

earlier decision. Even now, a fallout of the case between Dr Oloruntoba-Oju and the University

Administration is still pending before the Court. It is however important to stress that after the

reinstatement, the Dr Oloruntoba-Oju group was still persistent in its divisive tendencies as one

Dr K.N. Afolayan is now acting as the megaphone of the group. It is equally important that for

about ten years the case lingered, the University made tremendous development and was ranked

the number one University in Nigeria and one of the best in Africa.[56]

Intra-union Cases: In this category a number of cases were also filed before various courts.

There was the one between Dr Oloruntoba-Oju’s group and Prof Bayo Lawal’s group, which

was essentially on libel but was eventually settled out of court.[57]

The National ASUU also sued the leadership of the Union in Ilorin before the National

Industrial Court in Academic Staff Union of Universities v. Dr S.Y. Omoiya in Suit No.

NICN/LA/63/2011 where ASUU was claiming the election conducted without authorisation of

NEC was unconstitutional; that Dr Oloruntoba-Oju’s Executive Council is the substantive and

only recognisable leadership of ASUU at the University of Ilorin (10 years after); payment of

Union check-off dues to the National Executive Council of ASUU and injunction against the

ASUU Executive Council of the University of Ilorin. This case clearly confirms our initial

position that the National body of ASUU is biased and complicit in the crisis in the University

of Ilorin. Ten years after the crisis broke out, the national body still went to court to insist that

Dr Oloruntoba-Oju was the person they recognise as the Chairman even after three other

leaderships had been elected by the body of academics in the University. The case is still

91
pending before the National Industrial Court in Lagos with the attendant cost implications for

the Union in the past four years.

There is also the case of Prof Wahab Egbewole v. Dr Ayan Adeleke Suit No. KWS/322/2013

before the High Court of Justice, Ilorin, where the claim was for libel against the Zonal

Executives of ASUU and Vintage Press Ltd and damages in the total sum of Five Hundred

Million Naira (N500,000,000.00) and an order of perpetual injunction against the defendants.[58]

The cumulative effects of all these cases are that the integration process is made difficult, the

division continued to widen and the Union will never be the same again. The recent effort made

in the first instance by University of Ilorin Branch of ASUU through Prof. Olayemi during the

Chairmanship of Prof. Egbewole was ‘rebuffed’ by the national leadership and when another

election was to be held, a notice was sent to the National President by courier, which was not

acknowledged. Another initiative made by the National President and the University of Ilorin

branch requested that all the cases in court be withdrawn if there is a genuine intention to really

resolve the crisis.[59]

92
Key Notes

1. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

2. http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/about-us

3. http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/about-us

4. http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/about-us

5. Unilorin Bulletin (2008) Accessed from http://www.unilorin.ed.ng/publication. Accessed

date 28/11/2020

6. Unilorin Bulletin (2008) Accessed from http://www.unilorin.ed.ng/publication. Accessed

date 28/11/2020

7. Unilorin Bulletin (2008) Accessed from http://www.unilorin.ed.ng/publication. Accessed

date 28/11/2020

8. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. Pg 256

9. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

10. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

11. Interview with Professor Samuel Aghalino; Department of History and International

Studies, University of Ilorin, Kwara State. 27/11/2020

12. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

93
13. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

14. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

15. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

16. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

17. Ibid p.300

18. Doublegist.com (2013), Industrial Conflict – Causes and Effects in Universities/Colleges.

Ebonyi State: DoubleGist Publisher. Available on: www.doublegist.com/industrial-

conflict-effects-universitiescolleges Access Date: 27/11/2020.

19. Ebele, O. (2013, September 12), Stakeholders Proffer Solutions to ASUU/FG face-off.

Vanguard

20. Ibid

21. Isamiah, H. (1986), Professional Unionism in Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

University of Ibadan: Ibadan.

22. Ibid

23. Ibid

24. Ibid

25. Nwala, U. (1994), Academic Freedom in Africa; the Nigeria Experience. Academic

Freedom in Africa. Page 176, D.Mamadou & M. Mamdani (eds). Senegal: CODESRIA.

26. Ibid

94
27. Ibid

28. Odubela, M. (2012), Collapse of Ogun State Educational Sector. Ogun State: thisisayus.

29. Osabuohien, E.S.C and Ogunrinola, I.O (n.d), Causes and Effects of Industrial Crisis in

Nigeria: Some Empirical Clarifications [Online]. Covenant University Repository:

Nigeria. Access Date: 27/11/2020. Retrieved from:

http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/id/eprint/4400

30. Ibid

31. Otobo, P. (1988), State and Industrial Relations in Nigeria. Lagos: Melthus press.

32. Waterman, U. (1976), Management and Organizational Attitude. London: Pitman

Publishing. Wogu, A. (1969), Trade Union Movement in Nigeria. London: C. Hurst

Company.

33. Ackers, P. (2002). Reforming employment relations: The case for neo-pluralism. New

York: Industrial Relations Sage.

34. Amali, E. (2007). Gendernomics: Of women, work, and economics (Eight-third

inaugural lecture). Ilorin: Library and Publications Committee, University of Ilorin.

35. Budd, J.W. and Bhave, D. (2008). Values, ideologies, and frames of reference in

industrial relations. New York: Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations.

36. Clarke, R.O.; Fatchett, D.J and Roberts, B.C. (1972). Worker’s participation in

management in Britain. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

37. Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1979). Understanding industrial relations. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc.

38. Odubela, M. (2012), Collapse of Ogun State Educational Sector. Ogun State: thisisayus.

95
39. Osabuohien, E.S.C and Ogunrinola, I.O (n.d), Causes and Effects of Industrial Crisis in

Nigeria: Some Empirical Clarifications [Online]. Covenant University Repository:

Nigeria. Access Date: 27/11/2020.Retrieved from:

http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/id/eprint/4400

40. Budd, J.W. and Bhave, D. (2008). Values, ideologies, and frames of reference in

industrial relations. New York: Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations.

41. Ibid

42. Clarke, R.O.; Fatchett, D.J and Roberts, B.C. (1972). Worker’s participation in

management in Britain. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

43. Ibid

44. Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1979). Understanding industrial relations. New York:

Macmillan Publishing Co. Inc

45. Ebele, O. (2013, September 12), Stakeholders Proffer Solutions to ASUU/FG face-off.

Vanguard

46. Ibid

47. Isamiah, H. (1986), Professional Unionism in Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

University of Ibadan: Ibadan.

48. Ibid

49. Nwala, U. (1994), Academic Freedom in Africa; the Nigeria Experience. Academic

Freedom in Africa. Page 176, D.Mamadou & M. Mamdani (eds). Senegal: CODESRIA.

50. Bala Muhammad Makosa (2007). The History and Struggles of ASUU, Ohmy News

International.

96
51. Emmanuel Odukugho (2013). Nigeria: No Headway As ASUU Battles Government Over

Extra Allowances; Funding.

52. http://saharareporters.com/2009/12/10/finally-supreme-court-reinstates-49-unilorin-

lecturers

53. Ladipu Adamolekun (2013). Education Sector In Crisis: Evidence, Cause and Possible

Remedies. Joseph Ayo Babalola University (JABU) Distinguished Lecture Series for

2012/2013.

54. Ibid

55. Odiagbe, S. Azamosa (2012). Industrial Conflicts in Nigeria Universities: A Case Study

of the Disputes between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the

Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), Ph.D Thesis.

56. Ibid

57. Odiagbe, S. Azamosa (2012). Industrial Conflicts in Nigeria Universities: A Case Study

of the Disputes between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the

Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), Ph.D Thesis.

58. Ibid

59. Sina Babasola (23rd July, 2002). See also Abraham Ogbodo: ASUU Strike: Where are

the Scientists in their Midst (28th July, 2013).

97
 CHAPTER FOUR

IMPACT OF THE UNILORIN 49 STRIKERS

4.1 Impact on the University Administration

In an interview with the Researcher on the impact of the Unilorin 49 strikers on the University

administration, Professor Samuel Aghalino from Department of History and International

Studies, University of Ilorin aptly stated:

For a very long time, University of Ilorin was expelled from the
national ASUU. Nobody wants to have anything to do with us.in
fact, Unilorin was in a peril status. If you go to any University
and introduce yourself that you are from the University of Ilorin,
they will mock you and see us as saboteurs. The lecturers that
were involved of course lost their promotions, there was no job
mobility, yes some of them were able to get placement in some
Universities but of course there can never be job satisfaction
because it took time for them to get those jobs. Psychologically,
they were weighed down. The ‘49’ lecturers felt that the other
lecturers betrayed them because we were supposed to be fighting
for a common cause. So, there was this mutual suspicion and
hatred.
The strike was really very traumatic because it set in acrimony in
the University because the administration was itself having
trouble managing that crises. There was a disconnect between the
‘town’ and the ‘gown’ and ethnic dimension was already into it
because the Vice Chancellor was from Ilorin and they felt that
people that were fighting him was doing do because they felt he
was an Ilorin Vice Chancellor and they created this ‘town’ and
‘gown’ disharmony and since that time, the seed of ethnicity has
been sowed in the University of Ilorin.[1]

4.2 Briefs on Each of the ‘49’

The ‘49’ University of Ilorin lecturers were sacked for taking part in union activities of the

Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) in 2001. The 49 lecturers of the University of

Ilorin after years of legal struggle in the courts, The Nigeria's Supreme Court finally ruled in

favor of their reinstatement to their respective positions. The Supreme Court ordered the

98
immediate reinstatement of the remainder of the 49 lecturers of the university following earlier

reinstatement of five litigants of the same cause in June 2009. [2]

In an interview with the Researcher on if all the 49 lecturers that were sacked are from all the

departments in Unilorin, Professor Samuel Aghalino from Department of History and

International Studies, University of Ilorin aptly stated:

Yes, they were from all the departments. Dr. Banwo from History
Department was among those that were sacked. Though he was
called backed but did not return. However, he was paid all his
entitlements.[3]

Professor Samuel Aghalino further mentioned the following as among the 49 lecturers that were

sacked:

Dr. Olanto Bayo (English Department)

Dr. Mrs Olanto (English Department)
Dr. Femi Dumade (English Department)
Professor Duleye (Chemistry Department)
Dr. Umoh (Medicine Department)
Dr. Oluaya (Religion Department) [4]

Other names of the sacked 49 Unilorin lecturers include:

Prof M.A. Ibiejugba

Dr (Mrs) I.O. Obayan

Dr T. Fagbemi

Dr W. Raji

Mrs F. Saliu,

Dr T. Oloruntoba-Oju,

Dr A.S. Ajayi,

Dr Sola Ademiluka

99
Mr O.O. Olugbara [5]

4.3 Judicial Impact

This case of the 49 sacked lecturers traversed all the layers of courts in Nigeria from the Federal

High Court, Ilorin, the Court of Appeal and finally to the Supreme Court, Abuja. The final

judgment was delivered on 12th June, 2009. The case started in 2001 and the decision of the

Federal High Court was delivered on 26th July, 2005, where the claims of the sacked staff were

granted. On appeal, the Court of Appeal upturned the victory of the sacked staff on 12 th June,

2006 and their appeal to the Supreme Court, the apex court in Nigeria, was allowed.[6]

The claims of Dr T. Oloruntoba-Oju, Dr A.S. Ajayi, Dr Adeyinka Banwo, Dr Sola Ademiluka

and Mr O.O. Olugbara essentially were reduced to 11 main claims based on the refusal of the

University Management to follow the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act, the termination

being contrary to the directive of the Federal Government as conveyed by the letter of the

Executive Secretary of 29th June, 2001 in respect of the national strike of ASUU, breach of the

Fundamental Human Rights of the Plaintiffs and order compelling the salaries and emoluments

of the Plaintiffs to be paid in full. The issues in contention included whether the Federal High

Court had jurisdiction to entertain the matter when the Industrial Arbitration Panel was already

adjudicating on it. The Federal High Court held it had jurisdiction but the Court of Appeal said

the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction but the Supreme Court agreed with the Federal High

Court.[7]

One of the reasons for the Supreme Court’s decision on this point was that the parties before the

two (Federal High Court and Industrial Arbitration Panel) were different, the subject matters

were also different. The Industrial Arbitration Panel is an inferior Tribunal while the Federal

100
High Court is a superior court of record. One other fundamental point that seriously weighed on

the minds of the Justices of the Supreme Court was that of procedure employed by the

University in terminating the appointments of the affected staff members. The Supreme Court

held that the argument of the University that the termination was in accordance with the

provision of Section 15(3) of the University Act was belated having not pleaded it.[8]

The issue of fair hearing was given a serious consideration. The apex court held that being an

appointment with statutory flavour, the University Administration was bound to follow the

provisions of the University of Ilorin Act as provided in Section 15 thereof. The court held that

“there is no iota of evidence that the procedure for termination of employment of the appellants

as to fair hearing was observed in this case.” The argument of the University that the affected

staff did not utilise the opportunity of the fair hearing afforded them based on Exhibit 20, the

Minutes of Meeting of the Governing Council was rejected on the basis that it did not meet the

specifications of the provisions of the University of Ilorin Act.[9]

The other case in this category is that of Dr Taiwo Oloruntoba-Oju & 5 others v. Prof P.

Dopamu & 6 others where the sacked staff claimed that the University did not comply with the

provisions of the University Act in the disciplinary process. After the determination of all these

cases, the previously sacked staff were reinstated and all their entitlements were paid by the

University.

Still, they remained unsatisfied with the payment and issues arising therefrom were taken back to

the Supreme Court especially the issue of Sabbatical leave and sundry matters.[10]

In an interview with the Researcher on the judicial impact of the Unilorin 49 strikers on the

University administration, Professor Samuel Aghalino from Department of History and

International Studies, University of Ilorin aptly stated:

101
 The judiciary was heavily tested because at the lower courts the
administration won successfully until the matter got to the
Supreme courts and the lecturers were reinstated and the
administration was instructed to pay them all their entitlement.
But there is a limit to entitlement ‘the promotion you missed, you
cannot get it back’ ‘your juniors become your seniors’ because
they were away, their junior ones were promoted. They did not
have the opportunity to participate in both local and international
conferences and improve upon themselves. Career wise, it was a
disaster for some of them. Even though they were reinstated, they
have not recovered from the trauma of the strike. While they
were reinstated, some of them came back and realize they can’t
even fit in again and some of them left to other Universities while
some of them did not even come back at all. They merely
collected their outstanding salaries and they left.[11]

4.4 Financial Impact

In an interview with the Researcher on the financial impact of the Unilorin 49 strikers on the

University administration, Professor Samuel Aghalino from Department of History and

International Studies, University of Ilorin aptly stated:

The University paid for litigation. The University paid hundreds

of thousands of millions to fight the cases against its own staff
which was unnecessary in the first place because ‘the staff are not
your enemies’ but because the administration feels that they have
to make a point, that they are in charge and disciplined the staff
but in the process of disciplining the staff, due process was not
followed that was why the supreme court set aside the judgement
of the lower courts. The impact was much financially because,
those money that was paid, administration had to look for one
way or the other to pay back those money because am sure the
Federal government did not give them that money. The money
was budgeted for and the administration was squandering it
thinking they have won that case so they have to look for a way
to pay back that money.
The case created a very bad image and press for the University. It
affected on the University positively also because there was a
stable calendar, nobody was going on strike. University of Ilorin
became the toast of students for admission. Most of the time,
about close to 80,000 students will apply to the University.
Everybody want to come here and the pressure was in the
University and facilities and also admission became so political.

102
 Merit was set aside and federal character and other extraneous
variables came in to play and politicians insisted on bringing their
children to this place. Merit was sacrificed for nepotism.[12]

4.5 Impact on teaching and learning

In an interview with the Researcher on the teaching and learning impact of the Unilorin 49

strikers on the University of Ilorin, Professor Samuel Aghalino from Department of History and

International Studies, University of Ilorin aptly stated:

It was traumatic because most of those people that were sacked

were senior academic staff and is not easy to replace them. The
University tried to replace them with junior ones but of course,
when you replace a Professor or a Senior Lecturer with junior
staff, there will always be a problem of teaching research and
community service. The junior ones cannot mentor anybody
because they don’t have the skill and experience. Professors are
supposed to supervise PhD holders, engage in Post Graduate
lectures and all that. So, in their place, they brought some
characters who were not doing a very good job and for a very
long time, it impacted on people. People without requisite
qualifications experience were recruited just to fill the gap that
was left behind when those lecturers were sacked.[13]

4.6 General Summary

This study was carried out to have a thorough analysis of ASUU strike and the Nigerian

University system: a focus on ASUU and University of Ilorin, 2001 – 2019. This study was

divided into four inter-dependent chapters. Chapter one introduced the study and delved into the

background to the study, statement of the problem, aims and objectives of the study, scope of the

study, significance of the study, research methodology and review of related literatures. Chapter

two discussed the formation of ASUU specifically looking into the historical background of

ASUU, ASUU and Nigeria Universities, Chronicles of ASUU strikes, and the causes and effects

of ASUU strikes on Nigerian Universities. Chapter three specifically discussed the establishment

103
of the University of Ilorin, the growth and challenges of the University was analysed, also the

2001 ASUU strikes: before and after as well as the resolution of the 2001 strike was equally

investigated. The last chapter been chapter four investigated the impact of the Unilorin 49

strikers on the University administration, its judicial, financial and teaching and learning impacts

were analysed. An overview of some of the 49 strikers was equally mentioned.

In this work the researcher has sampled the opinions and views of several authors and scholars

on the ASUU strike and the Nigerian University System and ASUU and University of Ilorin.

Interviews were conducted to gather information on the subject. The works of scholars who

conducted empirical studies have been reviewed also. The research has made clear that strike has

a negative impact on Nigerian Universities and that the 2001 ASUU strike and the sack of the 49

Unilorin Lecturers affected the University of Ilorin both negatively and positively. In the

negative side, Unilorin was disassociated as a member of National ASUU from 2001 till 2019, a

period of 18 years until the year 2019 when they were accepted back and is currently taking part

in the 2020 ASUU strike that commenced on the 23 rd of March, 2020 that has lasted for 8 months

already. The lecturers of the University of Ilorin were seen as saboteurs and were denied access

to participate in other Universities conferences, moderation of examinations, and were mocked

by other Universities. The sacking of the 49 lecturers and disengagement with National ASUU

also created a bad image for the University. Financially, the University of Ilorin was affected

because they spent excess money in litigation and entitlements of the reinstated lecturers as

instructed by the Supreme Court. Positively, Unilorin was able to maintain a steady academic

calendar and attracted thousands of students into the University.

4.7 Conclusion

104
Education is not just a commodity for sale. It's a social benefit. It is the social responsibility of

any government to its people. It is the engine of growth, development and transformation of any

society. Higher education restores to mankind its humanity. The university is the brain box of the

nation. To shut it down is to a nation the equivalent of a stroke to a person. There is a nervous

breakdown.

Though conflict is unavoidable in any organisation, it is expedient that University administrators

guard against it because, among other things, it is a hindrance to productivity. Conflict

management is essentially about the ability to balance the primary interests of the employers

with those of the employees. In this crisis, the University, through many processes and

strategies, tried to do just that in order to achieve its stated mission, vision and objectives.

The crisis was not between the University Administration and the Union per se, but its

leadership and a few followers versus the majority of members. The reasons advanced for the

strike were not convincing enough to persuade the majority of members of the Union to embark

on it and even those who initially joined soon abandoned the leadership.

While some called the belligerency of the strike mongers a principled struggle, others regard the

eventual technical victory at the apex court as a pyrrhic one. Despite the dirty fight and tactics,

the strike mongers failed in their determined effort to destroy the University, as they vowed. It is

note-worthy that in the process, the cherished principles of ASUU, particularly that of

accountability, truth and intellectualism were assaulted! Overall, the crisis is a sad story of abuse

of office (power), internal strife and conflict, controversy and death of democratic process.

To the credit of the successive Administrations, the University soared high during the absence

of the strike mongers, achieving milestone successes in infrastructural development and

105
academic ranking among its peers both nationally and internationally. The University has been

able to re-integrate them comfortably.

Key Notes

1. Interview with Professor Samuel Aghalino; Department of History and International

Studies, University of Ilorin, Kwara State. 27/11/2020

2. http://saharareporters.com/2009/12/10/finally-supreme-court-reinstates-49-unilorin-

lecturers

3. Interview with Professor Samuel Aghalino; Department of History and International

Studies, University of Ilorin, Kwara State. 27/11/2020

4. Ibid

5. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

6. Ibid p.230

7. Ibid p.223

8. Ibid p.243

9. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

10. Y. A. Quadri et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40; The Soaring Eagle; 1975 – 2015.

Published by University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria.

11. Interview with Professor Samuel Aghalino; Department of History and International

Studies, University of Ilorin, Kwara State. 27/11/2020

12. Interview with Professor Samuel Aghalino; Department of History and International

Studies, University of Ilorin, Kwara State. 27/11/2020

106
13. Interview with Professor Samuel Aghalino; Department of History and International

Studies, University of Ilorin, Kwara State. 27/11/2020

14. Albar A. A (2016), The Influence of University Strikes on Educational Systems: An

Exploratory Pilot Study on Nigerian Students. International Journal of Business,

Humanities and Technology Vol. 6, No. 3; page 45 [Online] Access Date: 28/11/2020.

15. Ameh, C. G. ( Daily Post, August 19,2017), ASUU: Strike continues- Nigerian lecturers

[Online]. Access Date: 2/9/2017. Retrieved from: dailypost.ng/2017/08/19/asuu-strike-

continues-nigerian-lecturers/

16. ASUU (1978), The Constitution and Code of Practice of Academic Staff Union of

Universities. Ebonyi State University.

107
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Oral Interviews

Interview with Professor Samuel Aghalino; Department of History and International Studies,

University of Ilorin, Kwara State. 27/11/2020

Secondary Sources

Valentina Obioma Dimunah (2017), “Underfunding of Federal Universities in Nigeria and

perceived impact on Administration: an exploratory case study”.

Ike Victor Chukwuemeka (2013), “an investigation into the root causes of conflict between the

Academic Staff Union of Universities, ESUT, Enugu State Government”.

Sylvester Azamosa Odiagbe (2012) “a thesis on the industrial conflict in Nigerian Universities:

A case study of the dispute between the ASUU and the Federal Government of

Nigeria”.

N.Y.S Ijaiya et al (2015) “University of Ilorin at 40: The Soaring Eagle”

Odia L.O and S.I Omofonmwan (2007) “Educational System in Nigeria, problems and

prospects”.

Nnamdi Okoroma (2006) “Education policies and problems of implementation in Nigeria”.

Amakri et al (2015) “Confronting the challenges in the educational sector in Nigeria”. Ilorin:

Crown Hill Publishers Ltd, P.20

Albar A. A (2016), The Influence of University Strikes on Educational Systems: An Exploratory

Pilot Study on Nigerian Students. International Journal of Business, Humanities

and Technology Vol. 6, No. 3; page 45 [Online] Access Date: 28/11/2020.

108
Ameh, C. G. ( Daily Post, August 19,2017), ASUU: Strike continues- Nigerian lecturers

[Online]. Access Date: 2/9/2017. Retrieved from: dailypost.ng/2017/08/19/asuu-

strike-continues-nigerian-lecturers/

ASUU (1978), The Constitution and Code of Practice of Academic Staff Union of Universities.

Ebonyi State University.

Isamiah, H. (1986), Professional Unionism in Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

University of Ibadan: Ibadan.

Nwala, U. (1994), Academic Freedom in Africa; the Nigeria Experience. Academic Freedom in

Africa. Page 176, D.Mamadou & M. Mamdani (eds). Senegal: CODESRIA.

Otobo, P. (1988), State and Industrial Relations in Nigeria. Lagos: Melthus press.

Waterman, U. (1976), Management and Organizational Attitude. London: Pitman Publishing.

Wogu, A. (1969), Trade Union Movement in Nigeria. London: C. Hurst

Company.

Ackers, P. (2002). Reforming employment relations: The case for neo-pluralism. New York:

Industrial Relations Sage.

Clarke, R.O.; Fatchett, D.J and Roberts, B.C. (1972). Worker’s participation in management in

Britain. London: Heinemann Educational Books.

Farnham, D. and Pimlott, J. (1979). Understanding industrial relations. New York: Macmillan

Publishing Co. Inc.

Odubela, M. (2012), Collapse of Ogun State Educational Sector. Ogun State: thisisayus.

Osabuohien, E.S.C and Ogunrinola, I.O (n.d), Causes and Effects of Industrial Crisis in Nigeria:

Some Empirical Clarifications [Online]. Covenant University Repository:

109
 Nigeria. Access Date: 27/11/2020.Retrieved from:

http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/id/eprint/4400

Budd, J.W. and Bhave, D. (2008). Values, ideologies, and frames of reference in industrial

relations. New York: Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations.

Emmanuel Odukugho (2013). Nigeria: No Headway As ASUU Battles Government Over Extra

Allowances; Funding.

Internet Sources

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-reasons-why-education-extremely-important-mohamed-reda

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Staff_Union_of_Universities, accessed 10-11-2020.

http://saharareporters.com/2009/12/10/finally-supreme-court-reinstates-49-unilorin-lecturers

http://www.unilorin.edu.ng/index.php/about-us

Unilorin Bulletin (2008) Accessed from http://www.unilorin.ed.ng/publication. Accessed date

28/11/2020

Sina Babasola (23rd July, 2002). Abraham Ogbodo: ASUU Strike: Where are the Scientists in

their Midst (28th July, 2013).

Journals

Journal: Conflict management in Nigerian Universities.

Journal: journal or research and development, vol.3 (2017), p.17.

Journal: International journal of technology and inclusive education, vol.1, issue 2 (2012), p.44

All Africa.com/stories/202010190129.html, accessed 10-11-2020.

Journal: Effects of ASUU strikes on the academic performance of university students

Journal: International Journal of Education and Research, vol.6(2018), p.19

110
Journal: Global journal of Human Social Science, Linguistics and Education, vol.13, issue 14

(2013) p.1.

Journal: Effects of ASUU strikes on the academic performance of university students

Budd, J.W. and Bhave, D. (2008). Values, ideologies, and frames of reference in industrial

relations. New York: Sage Handbook of Industrial Relations.

Unpublished Dissertation/Thesis/Long Essays

Doublegist.com (2013), Industrial Conflict – Causes and Effects in Universities/Colleges.

Ebonyi State: DoubleGist Publisher. Available on:

www.doublegist.com/industrial-conflict-effects-universitiescolleges Access Date:

27/11/2020.

Ebele, O. (2013, September 12), Stakeholders Proffer Solutions to ASUU/FG face-off. Vanguard

Osabuohien, E.S.C and Ogunrinola, I.O (n.d), Causes and Effects of Industrial Crisis in Nigeria:

Some Empirical Clarifications [Online]. Covenant University Repository:

Nigeria. Access Date: 27/11/2020. Retrieved from:

http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/id/eprint/4400

Odubela, M. (2012), Collapse of Ogun State Educational Sector. Ogun State: thesis

Amali, E. (2007). Gendernomics: Of women, work, and economics (Eight-third inaugural

lecture). Ilorin: Library and Publications Committee, University of Ilorin.

Isamiah, H. (1986), Professional Unionism in Nigeria. (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation).

University of Ibadan: Ibadan.

111
Odiagbe, S. Azamosa (2012). Industrial Conflicts in Nigeria Universities: A Case Study of the

Disputes between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the

Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), Ph.D Thesis.

112