tertiary education in nigeria and the challenge of ... education in... · : tertiary education in...

Tertiary Education in Nigeria and the Challenge of Corporate Governance by O. A. Bamiro: 1

TERTIARY EDUCATION IN NIGERIA AND THE CHALLENGE OF

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

by

O. A. Bamiro

Professor of Mechanical Engineering

Faculty of Technology

University of Ibadan

Ibadan, Nigeria

E-mail: [email protected]

August, 2012

Speech at the TETFund Year 2012 Strategic Planning Workshop, held at the Idris Abdukadir Auditorium, National

Universities Commission, Maitama Abuja, 7th

to 8th

August, 201


1. PREAMBLE

First and foremost I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the Executive Secretary,

Prof. Mahmood Yakubu for the invitation as Guest Speaker in this Strategic Planning Workshop

organised for the Heads of Public Educational Institutions in the country to give them the

opportunity to interact with the Fund, identify lapses and strategize on the way forward for

intervention programmes of the Fund. I have been requested to present a paper on the topic

“Tertiary Education in Nigeria and the Challenges of Corporate Governance.”

In order to do justice to the topic, there is first and foremost the need to identify the institutions

that provide tertiary education in Nigeria paying due attention to the challenges they face in

meeting the identified reasons for their creation. In other words, there is a need to ask the question

– what are these institutions for? What challenges do they face in meeting the goals of their

establishment? Finally, what is the role of corporate governance towards achieving the identified

goals?

In view of the above, Section 2 is devoted to the identification of the Nigerian higher education

institutions. In Section 3, an attempt is made to answer the question - what are the HEIs for? In

Section 4, I posit that our HEIs, particularly universities, must be transforming to world-class

institutions if they are to be able to act as agents of transformation to achieve economic

diversification through the production of knowledge workers with requisite skill sets. The

implications of the transformation agenda for corporate governance are then discussed in Section

5.

2. THE NIGERIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

The Nigerian HEIs comprise at present 122 universities (36 Federal, 36 State, 50 Private), 71

polytechnics, 47 monotechnics and 79 colleges of education with geographical

distribution as shown in Fig. 1. The uneven spread of these institutions over the country is

obvious with the southern part of the country having the highest concentration of these

institutions. The uneven distribution of the federal universities probably informed the

establishment in one fell swoop of 9 universities by the Federal government in 2011 towards

ensuring a federal university in each of the 36 states in the federation.

The higher education (HE) sector in Nigeria can be described, to a large extent, as a sector

locked in an iron triangle defined broadly by the vectors of Access, Quality and Cost as

depicted below. But why has it been referred to as an ‘iron triangle’? This is be due to the

following factors: one, most, if not all, of the identified initiatives by government in the sector

can be grouped under the three vectors; and two, the observed outcome of the interplay of the

various vector-driven initiatives as illustrated below. Suppose, in response to the increasing

demand for higher education, the access is increased by admitting more students through

establishing new institutions and/or expanding the existing ones as being done in Nigeria at

present; with the growing number, the recruitment, training and payment of lecturers have not

been able to keep pace in Nigeria as will be shown later based on available data. The cost, in

terms of funding and financing of the system, goes up; class sizes increase and, as to be

expected, quality of learning goes down. If quality is to be improved through provision of

more books and learning materials in support of lectures, coupled with excellent teaching and

learning environment, as being done in some of the private universities in the country, the cost of

teaching goes up leading to higher fees as demonstrated by private universities charging the

highest tuition fees in the country and admitting only a few that can afford such fees (less access).

Thus, any attempt to improve one side of the triangle leads to undesirable changes in the other

two sides; hence the description as an ‘iron triangle’. Thus, the situation calls for a holistic

approach to handling these key vectors in planning interventions in the sector. However, of

interest in this paper are not only the issues of access, quality, cost, but also, governance of the

tertiary education system at both national and institutional levels.


Figure 1: Geographical Distribution of HEIs in Nigeria

UNIVERSITIES

POLYTECHNICS / MONOTECHNICS

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION

KEY

SOKOTOKATSINA JIGAWA

ZAMFARA KANO

BAUCHI GOMBE

YOBEBORNO

ADAMAWA

PLATEAU

TARABA

KEBBI

NIGER

FCT

NASARAWA

KOGI

EBONYI

C/R

IVE

R

ENUGUEDOONDO

OSUN

EKITI

KWARA

OYO

OGUN

KADUNA

DELTA

BAYELSARIVERS

A/BOM

IMO

ABIA


ZAMFARA KANO

BAUCHI GOMBE

YOBEBORNO

ADAMAWA

TARABA

KEBBI

NIGER

FCT

NASARAWA

KOGI

BENUE

EBONYI

C/R

IVE

R

EDOONDO

OSUN

EKITI

KWARA

OYO

OGUN

LAGOS

KADUNA

BAYELSARIVERS

A/BOM

IMO

ABIA

AN

AM

BR

A


ZAMFARA KANO

BAUCHI GOMBE

YOBEBORNO

ADAMAWA

TARABA

KEBBI

NIGER

NASARAWA

KOGI

EBONYI

C/R

IVE

R

EDOONDO

OSUN

KWARA

OYO

OGUN

KADUNA

BAYELSARIVERS

A/BOM

IMO

ABIA

5 3

9

7

3

5

4 6

2

15

9

3

7

6

9

9

9

8

11

12

127

14

16

8 8

10

4

7

53 5

11

12

6

4

2

P

System of Governance and Management of HEIs at the National Level

The existing system of governance and management of the HEIs at the national level is

depicted in Fig. 2. The HEIs are under three agencies that perform supervisory and regulatory

functions under the Federal Ministry of Education. These are the National Universities

Commission (NUC) for universities; the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE)

for the polytechnics/monotechnics and technical colleges; and the National Commission for

Colleges of Education (NCCE) for the colleges of education. The mandates and the resulting

functions of these agencies are indeed structurally similar. Of interest in this paper, are the

following key functions by NUC which have to do with quality assurance:

To lay down the Basic Minimum Academic Standards (BMAS) for all universities in the


Federal

Republic of Nigeria and to accredit their degrees and other academic awards; and

To ensure that quality is maintained within the academic programmes of the

Nigerian University System.

NBTE and NCCE perform identical functions for the polytechnics and the colleges of education

respectively.

NUC has evolved a robust scheme of international standards for the accreditation of programmes in the system. This has had a salutary effect on the commitment of the system managers to quality of their programme delivery. For the accreditation exercise, NUC developed the basic minimum academic standard (BMAS) for every undergraduate programme in the university system. The BMAS forms the basis of accreditation of

programmes in the national university system (NUS). Universities interact with NUC through its

performance of this important quality assurance function. The result of programme-based

accreditation exercise is in terms of a programme being found to be worthy of “full accreditation”

or “Interim Accreditation” or the worst case, “Denied Accreditation”. The commitment of the

university administration is towards ensuring that all programmes attract full accreditation or,

where the deficiencies cannot be fully taken care of, an interim accreditation. Polytechnics and

Colleges of Education also face the challenge of accreditation by their regulatory bodies namely,

NBTE and NCCE respectively. TETFund, in its interventions, encourage HEIs to utilize regular

allocations by the Fund to address programmes that have been found deficient.

Based on its experience over the years, NUC realised the inadequacy of absolute reliance on programme accreditation to handle QA in all its ramifications in a world now characterised by nation states committing resources to nurture world-class universities to face the challenges of globalisation. This has led to the development and deployment of various elements to undertake, what is now commonly referred to as, institutional accreditation. The developed institutional accreditation, which seeks to capture the operational environment for the conduct of the basic functions of teaching, learning, research and community service, is based on the minimum standards set for the following criteria:

i. Institutional vision, mission and strategic goals; ii. Institutional governance and administration;

iii. Institutional resources; iv. Quality of teaching, learning and research; v. Institutional efficiency and effectiveness;

vi. Extension services and consultancies; vii. Transparency, financial management and stability

viii. Financial management and stability. A test run of the developed instruments for institutional accreditation was carried out in six universities in 2010. The perfected instruments were later used to carry out institutional accreditation in several universities. Surely, institutional accreditation focuses on the quality of governance of an institution beyond other parameters being measured. It is instructive to note the following elements and the weighting of the second criterion namely, institutional governance and administration:

Quality of governance and administration by Council (2), Senate (2), Principal Officers (Vice-Chancellor[7], Registrar [3], Bursar [2], University Librarian [2]), Faculty Boards, Departments, and other statutory bodies (2) in relation to vision, mission and strategic goals of the university.


It is worthy of note the weighting (7 out of 20) of the Vice-Chancellor as the recognised champion of the implementation agenda of the university’s vision, mission and strategic goals. It is also pertinent to note the assumption that every university has set strategic goals being pursued.

NUC has been conducting both programme accreditation and institutional accreditation. However

the performance of the key function of programme accreditation has been compounded by the

existence of about 3,398 NUC-approved degree programmes being run in the system as at 2011

spread over the 13 disciplines as shown in Fig. 3. Since programmes, even with full accreditation,

have to be re-evaluated every six years, it can readily be seen that it is indeed an uphill task to

keep pace with accreditation schedules which, ordinarily, may involve close to 500 programmes

per year. The situation calls for a revisit of the concept of programme accreditation, which is

proving to be unsustainable as more programmes are being approved and NUC has to budget for

the exercise for funding by the federal government.


Figure 2: The Management Structure of the HEIs


Staffing at the University Level

One of the critical issues facing the NUS is the staffing situation which has been compounded by

the rapid rate of establishment of universities in the country in the past few years as shown in Fig.

4a. The academic staff situation poses serious challenge to the quality of programme delivery.

From the available data presented in Table 3, the total enrolment for the different programmes

and levels in the university system during the 2006-2007 session was 1,096,312 with the Federal

Universities accounting for 56% of enrolment, State Universities 37% and Private Universities

3% only. The total staff strength of 27,934 translated to a students/academic staff ratio of 40:1

globally. Private universities had the lowest ratio of 19.2 while the State universities had the

highest ratio of 59.1. These figures show the ra ther poor staffing levels of the universities,

particularly the State universities. The Executive Secretary of NUC captured the situation as

follows:

A key challenge at present towards actualizing the desired quality university

education remains the paucity of high quality academic staff. There were a total of


27,39 academic staffs within the University system as at 2006 comprising Federal –

17,836 (65%), State- 7,586 (28%) and Private 1972 (7%). Of these, Professor/Reader

cadre constituted just 5,483 (20%), Senior Lecturer Cadre 6,475 (23.6%), while

Lecturer I cadre constituted 15,436 (56.4%). Computation using current approved

student/teacher ratios however indicates that the Nigerian University System requires a

total of 34,712 academic staff for effective course delivery across the disciplines.

Fig 4a: Profile of Establishment of 117 Universities in Nigeria (1948-2011)

From the above, the system recorded a shortfall of 7,318 academic staff to adequately take

care of the programmes being run as at 2007. With the establishment of close to 42

additional universities since 2007, the staff situation must have worsened due to the fact

that most of the new universities have basically been poaching staff mainly from the 1st

-

and 2nd

- generation universities while the rate of production of Ph.D graduates with interest in

academia has been rather low.

Table 3: Students Enrolment and Staffing Level in the University System

(2006-2007)


Ownership

Sub-Degree

Undergraduate

Postgraduate

Total

Total

Academic

Staff

Students/Staff

Ratio

Federal

49,999

503,154

57,300

610,453

17,836

34.2

State

8,734

419,901

19,459

448,094

7,586

59.1

Private

357

36,641

767

37,765

1,972

19.2

Total

59,090

959,696

77,526

1,096,312

27,394

40.0

% of Total 5.4 87.5 7.1

The rates of establishment of polytechnics and monotechnics in the country are shown in Figs 4b

and 4c. The impact of this rate of establishment on the staffing situation has not been provided.


One of the key issues generating debates in the NUS in respect of staff quality is the policy of

NUC that lecturers in the university system must possess Ph.D degrees. In other words, the

possession of Ph.D degree by lecturers has become the recognized currency for stay in the

Nigeria academia. Al though the t imetable set by NUC for the univers i t ies to

comply with this direct ive has been shown to be very unreal is t ic , there is no

denying the fact tha t the ini t iat ive is aimed at seeing that the human capital in the

sector possesses evidence of competences in teaching, research and, possibly, innovation.

The centrality of research in any academic setting cannot be faulted. So also is the use of a

Ph.D degree as a pseudo-measure of not only the research capability of a staff but, to

some degree, teaching quality, as one reinforces the other. A survey of some universities

(Bamiro, 2009) showed a variation in the percentage of staff having Ph.D degree from as low as

5% to the highest of 68%. It also varied from faculty to faculty as shown for the case of

University of Ibadan (see Fig. 5), perhaps the university with the highest percentage of staff with

Ph.Ds in the country. It can readily be seen that only about one out of two academic staff had a

Ph.D.

The scarcity of staff with doctoral degrees in most disciplines, especially the science-based,

should be regarded as a challenge for staff development scheme that must look beyond the local

institutions into foreign institutions that are ready to engage in staff capacity building through the

operation of mutually-benefiting memoranda of understanding. That is already happening in

some federal universities through the funding support by Foundations like the MacArthur and

also the TETFund. Noteworthy is the significant achievement of TETFUND in the area of

capacity building through which 1,364 junior academics were sponsored for postgraduate training

(538 PhDs and 826 Masters) involving local institutions (1,157) and overseas institutions (207) in

year 2008 as presented in Table 4.

Suffice it to note that the university system faces serious staff capacity problem – both in

quantity and quality.


Figure 5:

Percentage of Staff with Ph.D Degree on Faculty Basis at University of Ibadan in 2010

Table 4: TETFUND Academic Staff Training Programme in Year 2008

S/N Institutions

Malaysia

United Kingdom

Local

Others

(Foreign) -

USA, India,

Ghana

PhD Masters PhD Masters PhD Masters PhD Masters

1 Universities 38 1 49 27 132 97 32 2

2 Polytechnics 3 23 4 13 79 216 0 5

3

Colleges of

Education 1 4 0 3 193 392 0 2

4 Monotechnics 0 0 0 0 7 41 0 0

TOTAL 42 28 53 43 411 746 32 9

General Overview of the funding mechanism of Higher Education in Nigeria

The cost of university education is related to the cost of performance of the basic functions of

teaching, research and community service. The pertinent question to ask in respect of cost is – are our HEIs recovering the cost of providing quality service in the delivery of their educational and training programmes? Are they having sufficient funds to perform their assigned functions? To answer this question faithfully, it must be assumed that the


universities also have ready figures of how much is needed for each of their programme offerings, and, by extension, a budget that reflects the income and expenditure of the university to perform its assigned functions creditably. This has turned out to be a problem with most universities, for example, not preparing appropriate budget as discussed later. There is a high degree of ad-hocism in handling finances at the institutional level beyond the regular payment of salaries and wages.

A resource planning model (RPM) as depicted in Fig. 6 is a very useful tool for appreciating the structure of items of income (resource inflows) and expenditure (resource outflows). The cumulated surplus or deficit is determined by the dynamics of the net resource flows.

Figure 6: Identified Elements of Resource Flow Model for HEIs in Nigeria

RESOURCE

OUTFLOWS

1st

STREAM

3rd

STREAM

2nd

STREAM

RESOURCE

INFLOWS

CUMULATED

SURPLUS/DEFICIT

Resource Inflow Resource Outflow

CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

(STAFF/STUDENT

WELFARE)

CAPITAL

EXPENDITURE

(CORE ACADEMIC)

GENERAL

OVERHEAD

RECURRENT

EXPENDITURE

(ADMIN. SUPPORT)

RECURRENT

EXPENDITURE

(CORE ACADEMIC)

Resource inflows are cast in terms of 1st Stream, 2nd Stream and 3rd Stream with the elements

shown in Fig. 7. The 1st Stream comprises:

Government/Proprietor subventions

Education Trust Fund (ETF), now TETFund

Other Agencies of government

Students fees/levies constitute the 2nd Stream. The 3rd Stream has as its elements, sources of

income other than those from the above identified 1st and 2nd Streams. These, are mainly:

Grants from funding agencies

Endowment

Gifts and donations

Investment Income

Consultancy services

Others


Figure 7: Elements of the Income Streams

INCOME

STREAMS

3rd

Stream

2nd

Stream1

st

Stream

Other

Government

Agencies

ETF

Government/

Proprietor

Alllocation

Students

Fees/ Levies

Grants

Consultancy

Services

EndowmentGifts and

Donations

Investment

Income Others

The Resource Outflow is captured in terms of Recurrent Expenditure and Capital Expenditure with

elements shown in Figs. 8.a and b.

The recurrent expenditure has been deliberately categorized as:

i. Core Academic (in order to determine the level of deployment of resources to

the core business).

ii. Administrative support

iii. Overhead

iv. Students and Staff welfare

The Capital expenditure is similarly categorized as:

i. Core academic

ii. Municipal functions

iii. Staff and Student welfare

The elements of the Recurrent Expenditure and the Capital Expenditure, shown in Figs. 8a and b,

will provide the pattern of resource outflows which when balanced against the Resource Inflows

(Income Streams) will capture the general dynamics of resource accumulation. The framework

will facilitate the identification of the key operational parameters for resource control. Such

parameters can then be subjected to plausible scenarios towards evolving models for sustainable

financing. The implications of sustainable financing for governance and relevance will be

obviated.


Figure 8.a: Resource Outflow: Recurrent Expenditure

RECURRENT

EXPENDITURE

ADMIN.

SUPPORT

STUDENT

&

STAFF

WELFARE

CORE

ACADEMIC

OVERHEAD

Teaching & Research /

Laboratory

Consumables

Academic Staff

Salaries/Wages

Academic Staff

Development Technical

Support Staff

Staff

Schools

Hostels

Staff

Quarters

MUNICIPAL

FUNCTION

Roads/Buildings/

Grounds

Maintenance

Electricity

Generation

Water

Supply

Non-Teaching Staff

Salaries/Wages

General

Administration

Non-Teaching Staff

Development

Figure 8.b: Resource Outflow: Capital Expenditure

CAPITAL

EXPENDITURE

STAFF &

STUDENTS

WELFARE

MUNICIPAL

FUNCTIONCORE

ACADEMIC

Construction

of Academic

Buildings

ICT

Infrastructure

Teaching & Research

Equipment Acquisition

Water

Supply

Scheme

Roads &

Grounds

Construction

Power

Generation

Construction

of Hostels

Construction

of Staff

Quarters

Government Allocation

The federal government continues to be the major funder of federal HEIs. Presented in Table 5 are

figures of Federal government allocations to the federal HEIs from 2006 to 2008 budget

years. Allocations were in terms of personnel, goods and non-personnel services, and capital

projects. There were 25 universities, 21 polytechnics and 21 COEs during the period. Fig. 9 shows


the relative

allocations to the universities, polytechnics and the COEs for the period 2006-2008. The total

allocation of N392.9 billion during the period was shared as follows: 68.1% to universities;

18.9% to polytechnics; and 13.0% to COEs. Analysis of the various allocations to universities

showed that, on the average, allocations to Personnel Cost accounted for 84.7% of the

total allocation, Goods and Non-personnel Services 4.6%, and Capital Projects 10.7%.

Table 5: Federal Government Allocation (Naira) to Federal HEIs

(2006-2008)

Institution

Year

Year

Personnel

Personnel Cost

Goods & Non-

Personnel

Services

Capital

Projects

Total

Allocation

Universities

2006 69,952,108,028 3,175,567,183 6,412,015,000 79,539,690,211

2007 70,600,358,870 5,584,703,445 8,285,015,000 84,470,077,315

2008 86,078,825,055 3,551,429,669 13,958,579,185 103,588,833,909

Polytechnics

2006 18,990,972,823 1,715,916,763 2,164,746,264 22,871,635,850

2007 19,443,972,823 1,895,916,763 2,424,746,264 23,764,635,850

2008 22,024,993,058 2,149,712,599 3,578,057,860 27,752,763,517

Colleges of

Education

2006 10,911,206,151 1,067,435,864 3,063,175,000 15,041,817,015

2007 11,401,898,534 1,207,989,217 4,991,020,000 17,600,907,751

2008 14,088,802,102 1,279,807,659 2,883,329,309 18,251,939,070

Total

2006 99,854,287,002 5,958,919,810 11,639,936,264 117,453,143,076

2007 101,446,230,227 8,688,609,425 15,700,781,264 125,835,620,916

2008 122,192,620,215 6,980,949,927 20,419,966,354 149,593,536,496


Figure 9: Federal Government Annual Allocation to Federal HEIs

(Naira billions) (2006-2008)

Tertiary Education in Nigeria and the Challenge of Corporate Governance by O. A. Bamiro. Page: 17

Of interest is the total allocation to the education sector in relation to the total government budget. This is important against the general advocacy that developing nations, such as Nigeria, should be allocating not less than 26% of total national budget to education as recommended by UNESCO. The pattern of allocation to education relative to the total government budget by the Federal and State governments from 2002 to 2006 is shown in Fig. 10. From the highest percentage allocation of 9.5% by the Federal government it dipped to about 6% for the next three years before rising again to 9.4% in 2006. The percentage allocation by the State governments was almost constant at an average of 11.6%.

Figure 10: % Expenditures on Education Relative to Total Expenditure

(2002-2006)

The allocation to education is also examined further against the background of

universities budgets. The Federal government appropriation and amount eventually

released to Nigerian universities in relation to their budgets between 1990 and 2008

are graphically illustrated in Fig. 11. In Years 2005-2008, the Federal Government

applied the "Envelope" system of fund allocation. In other words, the allocation had

nothing to do with the actual budgets of the institutions. Unfortunately, the

Envelope system led to the institutions not bothering to engage in proper budgeting

as used to be the case. The question that arises is – were the universities able to

cover their shortfalls from other sources? The answer is unequivocally, no; thereby

casting serious doubt on the quality of service delivery. However, government, as a

result of series of agitations by the staff unions for increased funding, have been

steadily increasing funding of the institutions. This has partially informed the

current 2012 budget in terms of quantum of allocation to the education sector while

the Table 6 shows the breakdown of the 2012 Budget of the Federal Government in

which the share of education translates to only 8.43% of total budget despite the


increase in the quantum of allocation. The Security sector took the lion share of

almost 20%! There have been serious criticisms of the 2012 budget in terms of

prioritization.

Figure 11: Funding of Federal Universities (1990-2008)

Table 6: The Breakdown of the Federal Government 2012 Budget Allocation

SECTOR

AMOUNT ALLOCATED

(N’ billion) % OF TOTAL

Security 921.91 19.41

Education 400.15 8.43

Health 282.77 5.95

Works 180.80 3.81

Power 161.42 3.40

Agriculture 78.98 1.66

Niger Delta 59.70 1.26

Petroleum Resources 59.66 1.26

Transportation 54.80 1.15

Aviation 49.23 1.04


FCT 45.59 0.96

Water Resources 39.00 0.82

Science & Technology 30.84 0.65

Land & Housing 24.90 0.52

Communication & ICT 18.31 0.39

Total Other Sectors 2,340.94 49.29

TOTAL 4,749.00 100.00

The share of the Federal HEIs in the allocation to the Education sector by the Federal

Government is presented in Table 7. It can be seen that the HEIs have taken the lion

share of N307.757 billion out of the total allocation of N400.15 billion to the

education sector. Most significant is the fact that Recurrent accounts for 93% of total

allocation. It is however worth noting that the public HEIs are also expected to enjoy

the annual interventions by the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) in addition

to the allocation by the Federal government.

Table 7: Federal Government Allocation to HEIs in the 2012 Budget INSTITUTION

(Number) ALLOCATION (N' million)

Personnel

Cost Overhead Cost

Total

Recurrent Capital

Total

Allocation

% of

Total

Colleges of

Education (21) 36,092.9 1,942.6 38,035.5 4,555.1 42,590.6 13.8

Polytechnics (21) 54,399.5 3,268.4 57,667.9 3,300.0 60,967.9 19.8

Universities (36) 184,292.0 6,090.9 190,382.9

13,815.7 204,198.6 66.4

TOTAL 274,784.4 11,301.9 286,086.4

21,670.8 307,757.1 100.0

Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund)

TETFund is a substantial source of financial assistance to the various institutions in

the country, especially in the commencement, completion or rehabilitation of

capital projects embarked upon by institutions at the Federal, State and Local

Government levels. Most of the recent capital developments in our tertiary

institutions have been sponsored or financed by the Fund. It is pertinent to note


that the fund from the ETF was used initially to support activities at all the levels

of education based on a sharing ratio of 2:3:5 for the Primary, Secondary and

Tertiary institutions respectively. Through a major policy shift, informed by the

commitment of the Federal government to revamping the higher education sector,

TETFund is now to fund only public tertiary institutions. Consequently, the Fund is

now referred to as the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND). Fortunately, the

inflow of fund to TETFUND has increased significantly due to the efficiency of

FIRS in collecting the education tax from registered companies in Nigeria. For

example, about N135.4 billion was received by TETFUND from FIRS collection for

January to October, 2009 as against the N40.9 billion received for the same period

for year 2008. TETFUND was the source of the special intervention of close to N42

billion to develop 6 universities, 3 polytechnics and 3 COEs into world-class

institutions. While announcing the special interventions in April 2009, the

Honourable Minister of Education made the following pertinent statements:

There is no doubt that the education sector is facing enormous challenges.

The effective resolution of these challenges is a pre-condition for our

nation's development. As you are aware, the present Administration is

committed to the realization of the 7-Point Agenda and our national vision

of becoming one of the top 20 economies in the world by 2020. In order

to succeed, the nation needs world-class manpower, possible only through

world-class institutions. This calls for strategic investment towards

improving the teaching and learning environment as well as the quality of

lecturers in our institutions.

The Honourable Minister of Education also noted further that the objective of the

special intervention was the provision and upgrading of facilities for the

promotion of the core activities of teaching, learning and research in the

following critical areas:

Establishment of standard central teaching and research laboratory in each

of the six selected universities. This is to be a facility for the benefit of all

institutions in a particular zone although located in the federal university.

Programme upgrade in Science, Technology and Humanities/Social

Sciences such as Medicine, Engineering, Agriculture and the Arts/Social

Sciences. Here, the intervention is targeted towards nurturing the programmes

into centers of excellence.

General improvement of the teaching and learning environment ranging

from lecture theatres, classrooms, laboratories, workshops etc. This is to

involve the rehabilitation of physical infrastructure and the provision of

instructional facilities and learning resources

Of relevance was also the following statement of the Minister on the same

occasion, and I quote:


In addition, the Federal Government is aware that the realization of

the 7-Point Agenda and Vision 2020 lies not only in the provision of

facilities but equally importantly in encouraging research and scholarly

publications. Accordingly, the sum of N3 billion has been approved to

support our scholars, as individuals and groups, to conduct research

capable of contributing to national development in their areas of

specialization. Similarly, the sum of N2 billion has been approved to

support the revival of scholarly journals, the publication of well researched

tertiary level textbooks and to make these materials available to the libraries

of our tertiary institutions.

The above shows the commitment of the Federal Government to developing

some of its institutions to world-class standard in order to address pressing

developmental problems engendered in its development initiatives – the Vision 20-

2020 and the 7-Point Agenda. Most significantly, it sees the intervention as an

investment towards the development of requisite human capital. Nonetheless, the

major driver of the current government massive intervention in the select

institutions was the concern for the rather poor rating of Nigerian institutions in

the increasingly influential, but least understood, global ranking of universities. It is

the desire of the Federal Government that the selected institutions would improve

their rankings after the implementation of the various projects. The Federal

Government also gave last year N3 billion to additional six federal universities

under its special intervention programme. The plan is to cover all the federal

universities eventually.

TETFUND has since put in place the machinery for the implementation of the

TETFUND Research Fund through calls for research proposals from researchers in

the system in three thematic areas: Humanities and Social Sciences; Science and

Technology; and Crosscutting Issues (www.etf.gov.ng ). The Textbook Project for

which N2.0 billion has been allocated has also taken off.

Generally, TETFUND’s normal interventions in the tertiary institutions are in the

following areas:

Construction and Rehabilitation of buildings and laboratories

Procurement of teaching and research equipment

Academic staff training

Research and book development

Capacity building and teacher training programme

Provision of ICT infrastructure

Development of facilities that sustain institutions such as boreholes, electric

power generators, etc.

http://www.etf.gov.ng/


3. WHAT ARE THE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS FOR?

Before answering the question – what are the HEIs for? - I shall briefly identify the

challenges that the HEIs face within the framework of the challenges arising from the

on-going globalization of the world economies.

It is a well acknowledged fact that one of the important prerequisites for the economic

well-being and prosperity of any nation is the sustainable development of industry. As

noted by Ntim (1991), it is industry that provides services to members of a society by

making consumer and capital goods, creating new products and processes, generating

new companies and opportunities, and providing, in the process, unlimited new jobs

for the population. The key to the success of modern industrial development is

science, technology, engineering and innovation (SETI). The application of

technology to industrial development and maintenance is made possible by SETI

professionals (scientists, engineers, technologists, craftsmen, artisans, etc.) whose

education and training must, at all times, reflect, at least, the requirements of industry.

Universities, as the producers of some of these key SETI professionals, undoubtedly,

have the important responsibility of making sure that they turn out graduates that

possess the necessary skills set. According to Machando (2000)

“… the new industrial revolution will multiply the technology management

complexity ten fold. Developing countries' quantitative requirements in terms

of number of skilled human resources are certainly astronomical. They will

have to satisfy the needs of existing enterprises, of newly created enterprises,

of innovation system agents such as R&D centres, consulting enterprises,

standards and metrology boards, financial institutions, science and

technology policy agents, incubators and many others..”

As I observed in the WARIMA paper (Bamiro, 2011), this is a situation that calls for

a strong university-industry-government partnership (Triple Helix). The need for such

partnership is further underscored by the challenges of competition in the industrial

place arising from the on-going globalisation of world economies. We can no longer

ignore the forces of globalisation as they seek to shape everything – economic, social,

cultural, etc. - in ways that are not totally edifying for a developing nation such as

ours (Bamiro, 2004). The nature and consequences of globalisation are rather

unsettling especially for developing economies that are still, by and large, “the

globalised” or “captives” from the front lines of what some have characterised as

‘World War III’. As remarked by Korten (1996):

“It is a very different kind of conflict. There is no clash of competing military

forces and the struggle is not defined by national borders. But it does involve

an often violent struggle for control of physical resources and territory that is

destroying lives and communities at every hand. It is a struggle between the

forces and institutions of economic globalisation and the communities that are

trying to reclaim control of their economic lives… It is a competition for the

control of markets and resources between global corporations and financial

markets on the one hand and locally owned businesses serving local markets

on the other.


Underlined is mine in the above quotation to accentuate the nature of competition

faced by our productive sector, particularly the micro, small and medium enterprises

(MSMEs). The lopsided nature of the competition is epitomized by the imbalance of

the world trading system. The imperatives of global competition demand that we

reclaim and build our local economies. And quite a number of those who have

commented on the present discomforting level of insecurity in the country, have

placed the problem squarely on the high level of unemployment, especially of youth,

which is symptomatic of weak industrial base. To diversity and grow the economy as

envisioned by our governments, the partnership engendered in Triple Helix is a must.

In charting such directions for future growth and development, worldwide experience

dictates that we commit ourselves to the use of the triad of knowledge, information,

and innovation. The imperative for these strategies is not simply to survive, but to

thrive. The triad of knowledge, information, and innovation implies a central role for

our universities as eminent members of the knowledge industry. The triad now

surpasses most natural resource endowment as strategic economic resources for

development. Innovation is defined in the broad sense to mean " the process by which

firms master and implement the design and production of goods and services that are

new to them, irrespective of whether or not they are new to their competitors -

domestic or foreign". Thus, innovation can operationally be defined as “the

introduction into a market (economic or social) of new or improved products,

processes or services”.

Where is Nigeria on the scale of global industrial competitiveness? Towards

answering this question, reference is made to the planned Conference of African

Ministers of Industry (CAMI) which was to have been held in March 2011 under the

theme “Enhancing the Competitiveness of African Industries through increased and

improved value addition”

. Of relevance are the following observations by the

organisers of CAMI:

According to the 2009 Africa Competitiveness Report, 23 African countries

out of the 31 that were surveyed remain at the most basic stage of the

competitiveness index of a factor-driven economy (that is, one whose ability to

compete is based on unskilled labour and natural resources). Only five

countries – Algeria, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa and Tunisia - have

reached the second stage of competitiveness – the efficiency driven stage

(which is driven by efficient goods, sophisticated labour and financial

markets, a large market size and the ability to utilize technology effectively).

No African country has reached the innovation-driven stage, that is, a stage

based on an ability to compete with new and unique products, and the use of

sophisticated production driven competition.”

Based on the above, it can be seen that most African Countries, of course, including

Nigeria, are still at the basic stage of competitiveness, with ability to compete based

mainly on unskilled labour and natural resources, which, in most cases, are agro- and

mineral-based. This is accentuated by the fact that while 98 percent of agricultural

production in high-income countries undergoes industrial processing, in developing

countries, barely 30 percent is processed. Yet, the latter’s agro-processing industries

generate 40 to 60 percent of manufacturing value added and agro-industrial products

The Conference did not hold due to the on-going political upheavals in North Africa.


account for half of all exports from most developing countries. Noted further is the

following submission of the CAMI planners, and I quote:

“The industrial processing of mineral resources can serve as a trigger for

industrial diversification of the economic basis of Member States. This will

trigger a carry-over effect on the development of technology, well-trained

labour and managerial methods. Industrialization based on mineral processing

can have as objective, the creation of a regional industrial base, geared towards

producing intermediate products to meet national and regional needs and the

export of a part of those products to meet foreign demand. The key drivers for

these include having, among others:

A significant entrepreneurial base looking at opportunities to service

local, regional and export markets;

Competitive production (high productivity, low costs compared to

competitors);

Craftsmanship and specific skills;

Access to markets (domestic and foreign);

Good market intelligence; and

Research and development.

From the above it can readily be seen that our HEIs have important role to play in

transforming the economy as knowledge workers. At this juncture one can now

attempt to answer the question - what are the HEIs for? The following submission by

the organizers of the Going Global 2013 conference under the theme - Global

education: knowledge-based economies for 21st Century nations – has partially

answered the question, and I quote:

In the 21st century, knowledge based economies will create the wealth,

prosperity and well-being of nations. Research and tertiary education systems

are primary drivers of these, playing three key roles. They produce cutting edge

knowledge; they transfer, exchange and apply that to drive innovation; and they

educate and skill knowledge workers. For these three roles to build knowledge

and innovation in a globalised world, they must themselves be globally connected.

Cutting edge research requires world-class research partners from across the

globe; major innovation requires not only researchers but also businesses and

investors to collaborate across national boundaries; knowledge workers need to

develop international competences and skills to be effective in the future world.

In respect of universities, Boulton (2010) while observing that Universities play

increasingly important roles in modern society, noted further:

In the last two decades, higher education worldwide has moved from the

periphery to the centre of governmental agendas in most countries. Universities

are now seen as crucial national assets in addressing many policy priorities, and

as: sources of new knowledge and innovative thinking; providers of skilled

personnel and credible credentials; contributors to innovation; attractors of

international talent and business investment; agents of social justice and

mobility; contributors to social and cultural vitality; and determinants of health

and well-being.


In respect of the polytechnics, the former Executive Secretary of NBTE

summarized it as follows:

Polytechnic education should be accorded recognition because it is designed to,

among others, provide technical knowledge and vocational skills necessary for

agricultural, industrial, commercial and economic development; impart the

necessary skills to produce craftsmen, technicians, technologists and engineers,

and to enable men and women to have the intellectual understanding of the

increasing complexity of technology and the role it plays around them.

As for the COEs, they are responsible for the training of teachers to feed the primary and secondary tiers of the educational system in the country. Their importance is derived from the fact that the quality of trained teachers determines the quality of the products of these sectors which eventually enter the universities and polytechnics.

How are governments, employers, universities, polytechnics and colleges of responding to the above challenges? In Section 4, I shall be dwelling on the case of our universities only in this short paper in order to highlight the problems they face, most especially governance problems from which we can possibly extrapolate to the other institutions.

4.0 The Challenge of Transforming to World Class

For our universities to be able to respond to the above challenges and establish their

relevance, they must transform to world-class. This is tune with the submission of the

erstwhile Minister of Education while announcing the ETF special intervention to

some HEIs as quoted above. For emphasis, the Minister stated “…In order to succeed,

the nation needs world class manpower, possible only through world class institutions…”.

In the specific cases of universities where the above interventions are on going, the

critical issue is – how are these institutions responding? Is the special intervention

being deployed towards implementing any well-articulated strategic plan aimed at

upgrading teaching and research facilities and achieving some form of

transformation? Probably in line with the above challenge, Obafemi Awolowo

University, a beneficiary of the ETF Special Intervention of N3.0 billion, held a

retreat for members of its Governing Council and the University administration,

including the then incoming Vice-Chancellor under the theme - “Policy frameworks

for Transforming OAU to a world class university”. So, one must commend TETFund

for organizing this Strategic Planning Workshop.

The challenge of transforming our universities to world-class is a useful construct to

interrogate the Nigerian university system against relevance. In what follows, I shall

be borrowing from the Convocation Lecture I gave at University of Lagos (Bamiro,

2012) in taking a cursory look at possible answers to the following pertinent

questions:

What is a World Class University?

What are the attributes of a World Class University?


What is the checklist at institutional level in quest towards transforming to

world class?

What is the role of corporate governance?

What is a world-class university?

If a university is aspiring to become a world-class institution, it is to be expected that

it surely knows what it means against the background of its core mandate of teaching,

research and community service. Unfortunately, despite the widespread usage of the

term ‘world-class university’, it has defied any objective definition to the extent that

Altbach in 2004 succinctly observed:

‘everyone wants one, no one knows what it is, and no one

knows how to get one’.

This reminds me of a debate some years ago in the United States of America on

answering the question – what is pornography? After several agonizing weeks by the

committee set up to provide an operational definition for the judiciary, the committee

concluded thus ‘pornography is pornography when you see it’. In like manner, a

world-class university is a world-class university when you see it. But what are its

attributes?

Attributes of a world-class university

As noted by Jamil (2009), the few scholars who have attempted to define what world-

class universities have that regular universities do not possess have identified a

number of basic features, such as:

Highly qualified faculty

Excellence in research

Quality teaching

High levels of government and non-government sources of funding

International and highly talented students

Academic freedom

Well-defined autonomous governance structures

Well-equipped facilities for teaching, research, administration and student life.

International reputation of the university

University’s contribution to society

Let me note that all the key elements that have been identified in the section – what

are universities for – are included in the above. What is crucial is the operational

interpretation of these elements to achieve the desired goals.

Let us adopt the Jamil model, which made the case that superior results of world-class

institutions (highly sought graduates, leading-edge research, and technology transfer)

can essentially be attributed to three complementary sets of factors at play in top

universities:

a. High concentration of talent (faculty and students)

b. Abundant resources to offer a rich learning environment and to conduct

advanced research; and


c. Favourable governance features that encourage strategic vision, innovation,

and flexibility and that enable institutions to make decisions and to manage

resources without being encumbered by bureaucracy.

The interplay of these factors is graphically illustrated below. For an institution

engaged in the process of evolving policy and actions towards transforming into

world-class, two complementary perspectives (external and internal) need to be

considered: one, the role of government at the national level and the resources that

can be made available to enhance the status of the institution; and two, which is

internal, has to do with the evolution and steps that the institution needs to take to

transform itself into world-class institution. The latter constitutes the challenge as it

calls for change. Some have noted that trying to get a university to change is like

trying to move a cathedral! Boulton (2010) even noted that changing a university is

like moving a graveyard, you get no help from the people inside!

However, for those who are ready to make the change or initiate change such as the

participants in this Workshop, the following checklist of activities is proposed at the

level of the institution, in line with Jamil (2009):

i. How can the institution build the best leadership team?

ii. What are the vision and mission statements, and what are the

specific goals that the university is seeking to achieve?

iii. In what niche(s) will it pursue excellence in teaching and research?

iv. What is the target student population?

v. What are the internationalization goals that the university needs to

achieve (with regard to faculty, students, programmes, and so

forth)?

vi. What is the likely cost of the proposed qualitative leap, and how is it

going to be funded?

vii. How will success be measured? What monitoring systems, outcome

indicators, and accountability mechanisms will be used?


It is not also possible to elaborate in this short paper on all the above factors, most of

which are probably fairly obvious. However, I will like to examine sequentially, the

following three crucial factors:

the high concentration of talent in terms of quality staff and students

funding and funding sources

governance

Concentration of Talent: Staff

Perhaps the foremost determinant of excellence is the quality of staff in a university.

A university aspiring to become world-class must be able to attract, select and retain

good staff. The raging debate in the Nigerian university system on the NUC-stipulated

requirement that academic staff in our universities possess doctoral degree is needless

as far as I am concerned. There is no gainsaying the fact that research is central to the

functions of a university. Apart from research and innovation being required for

socio-economic development of the country, the fact remains that it also enriches

teaching, another important function. Also, inculcating research culture in our

graduates is the greatest platform of achieving socio-economic transformation of our

societies. Let me also add that it is not so much what a student or staff researches on


that matters, but, the training in research – defining the problem, employing relevant

tools of analysis, and handling the dynamics of problem solution. If the situation at

the University of Ibadan is anything to go by, the problem varies from faculty to

faculty as shown earlier in Fig. 5. It can readily be seen that professional faculties

such as Clinical Sciences, Dentistry and Law lag behind other faculties. However,

through the Consortium for Advanced Research Training in Africa (CARTA) project,

more clinicians are now being trained in research leading to award of doctoral

degrees.

The scarcity of staff with doctoral degrees in most disciplines, especially the science-

based, should be regarded as a challenge for staff development scheme that must look

beyond the local institutions into foreign institutions that are ready to engage in staff

capacity building through the operation of mutually-benefiting memoranda of

understanding. That is already happening at some federal universities through the

funding support of TETFund as earlier mentioned. Fig. 12 shows the profile of

research and technical MOUs between University of Ibadan and institutions spread

over the world.

Several academic staff, particularly the young academics, have benefited from the

MOUs through the MacArthur Foundation grant for capacity building. More than 200

such staff traveled abroad to other institutions to participate in collaborative research

capacity building for periods ranging from 3 to 12 months. It is pertinent to note that

they all came back to the university, in contrast to the generally held view that such

staffs usually do not come back. The fact of the case is that the University of Ibadan

also has been making deliberate efforts at improving the teaching and research

environment to encourage such staff to come back. There is even what the university

calls ‘re-entry grant’ to cushion the shock of inadequate facilities. Efforts towards

creating conducive environment for professional development of staff include the

establishment of the multidisciplinary laboratory equipped with specialized

equipment for top end research. This has salutary effect not only on research in the

university but also for sister universities that have been using these equipment. This

also ties with the deliberate vision of the University to transform to research or

postgraduate institution with greater emphasis on postgraduate programmes. This has

translated to appreciable number of doctoral awards as shown in Fig. 13.


Figure 12: Profile of Research and Technical MOUs between University of

Ibadan and other Institutions

Figure 13: Ph.D Degrees Awarded by University of Ibadan in 2009

Another critical issue in respect of staff quality is the nature of staff mix in terms of

the background of staff in a department. There is a growing in-breeding with most

staff in an increasing number of departments in our university system being products

of such departments at undergraduate/postgraduate levels, i.e., the growing tendency

to hire principally own graduates to join the teaching staff. This is what is now

referred to as ‘endogamy’ in staff hiring. Years ago when some Nigerian universities

were at the top of the ladder in ranking, most departments were staffed by lecturers

who trained either locally or abroad from different institutions or entirely abroad. I

can still recall in the 80’s when no two-members of the staff of the close to 20

members of staff of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of


Ibadan came from the same university. Furthermore, almost 90% of the staff obtained

their doctoral degrees from abroad. There were also a few non-Nigerian staff. As

noted by Aghion et. al. (2008), a 2007 survey of European universities found an

inverse correlation between endogamy in faculty hiring and research performance: the

universities with the highest degree of endogamy had the lowest research results! I

dare say that during my vice-chancellorship at the University of Ibadan I had more

problems bordering on poor interpersonal relationships from departments with rather

high level of endogamy in staff mix.

An important dimension to the issue of staff in the Nigerian university system (NUS)

is the quantum of available staff as well as the mix based on the following categories-

Professorial cadre (Professors and Reader/Associate Professor), Senior Lecturer

Cadre, and Lecturer cadre. As shown in Table 8, there were 25,065 full-time

academic staff in the NUS in 2008/2009 academic session, comprising Federal

–15,569 (62.1%), State – 7,019 (28.0%) and Private - 2,477 (9.9%). Professorial

cadre (Professors and Reader/Associate Professor) constituted 18.2%, Senior

Lecturer Cadre 21.8%, while Lecturer cadre was 60.0%. The system had 571

foreign staff with the private universities accounting for half of them.

Foreign staffs were mainly from the United States of America, United

Kingdom, India, Eastern Europe (mainly Poland and Hungary), Turkey and

Africa (mainly Ghana, Egypt and Cameroon). Identified in the system also

were 939 Visiting Professors and staff on sabbatical leaves. Unfortunately

the figure has not been broken down between Visiting professors from

outside the country and those on leave from other Nigerian institutions.

Suffice it to note that Visiting professors from outside the country would

probably be at most 20%.

Table 8: Staff Profile of the Nigerian University System

(2008/2009 session)

ITEM Federal State Private Total

No. of Institutions Covered 24 25 31 80

Level of Employment

Professors 2,097 663 278 3,038

Reader/Associate Professor 1,007 400 129 1,536

Senior Lecturer 3,563 1,415 496 5,474

Lecturer II & I 8,902 4,541 1,574 15,017

TOTAL FULL-TIME STAFF 15,569 7,019 2,477 25,065

Foreign Staff 206 75 290 571

Visiting Professors/Sabbaticals 456 336 147 939

Source: Analysis of data obtained from the National Universities

Commission (NUC) of Nigeria.

Based on the NUC-stipulated student-teacher ratio for the different programs run

in the system (varying from 10 to 15 for science-based programs and 30 for programs


in humanities and social sciences), the Commission estimated that the Nigerian

University System had a shortfall of close to 5,000 academic staff in 2008/2009;

a situation that has been impacting negatively, as to be expected, on the quality of

delivery of some of our programmes. It is also a situation that has called to question

the continual approval of new universities – public or private.

Massification of higher education is a worldwide phenomenon aimed at improving the

age participation ratio. However, we must be ready to tackle the serious challenges it

poses, most especially quality assurance in the delivery of our programmes.

Concentration of Talent: Students

Important issue in this respect has to do with the ability and privilege of a university

to select the most academically qualified students. The fact of the case is that

admission on the basis of pure merit is not yet the case in the NUS, most especially,

the public institutions whose admissions into the undergraduate programmes are

dictated by the JAMB-prescribed guidelines of 45% Merit, 35% Locality and 20%

Educationally Less Developed States (ELDS). My take on this is that a policy such as

this, desirable as it could have been many years ago when it came into effect, should

have been time-bound. In other words, there should have been gradual transition to

the use of merit as the overriding criterion for admission into our university system

with the so-called ELDS states encouraged to improve their facilities towards

matching along with others.

Furthermore, the present serious problem of access to higher education in Nigeria has

made it extremely difficult for institutions to give places to foreign students,

especially at the undergraduate level. However the situation is different at the

postgraduate level, which I believe we should exploit to attract quality students from

far and wide. The research function of a university is enhanced by the quality of

postgraduate students. Actually, most recognized world-class universities

deliberately attract international students. For example, Havard University has a

student enrolment that is 19% international; Stanford University has 21%; Columbia

University, 23%; University of Cambridge, 18% outside United Kingdom and

European Union (Jamil, 2009).

Of interest is the weight of graduate students in a university. At the University of

Ibadan the vision goal is 60:40 ratio between postgraduate and undergraduate

enrolment. It is interesting to compare this with the situation in selected universities

as presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Weight of Graduate Students in Selected Universities

University Undergraduate

Students

Graduate

Students

Total

Enrolment

%

Graduate

Students

University of Ibadan 12,139 7,382 19,521 38

Havard 7,002 10,094 17,096 59

Stanford 6,442 11,325 17,767 64


MIT 4,066 6,140 10,206 60

Oxford 11,106 6,601 17,707 37

Cambridge 12,284 6,649 18,933 35

London School of

Economics and

Political Science

(LSE)

4,254 4,386 8,640 51

Beijing University 14,662 16,666 31,328 53

University of Tokyo 15,466 12,676 28,142 45

Funding and funding sources: Students Fees /Levies

The funding mechanisms of our tertiary institutions have earlier been discussed. Of interest in this section is the issue of student fees/levies. All federal institutions, and a few state universities, are not allowed to charge tuition fees. They are only allowed limited charges/levies for the provision of services such as accommodation in the halls of residence, sports, limited contribution to meeting the cost of municipal services (water and electricity), laboratory consumables in science-based programmes, etc. Consequently, undergraduate students registered in the various programmes in these universities end up paying between N30,000 and N50,000 per session including accommodation. Attempts by federal institutions to increase levies have always been met with stiff opposition by students; leaving these institutions to make do with whatever t h e y c a n s e t t l e amicably with students. Many have suggested the

need for students in the federal institutions to pay tuition fees to enable universities

reduce the shortfalls between budget and actual releases by government. For as long

as the federal government maintains this policy, universities will have to make do

with other sources of funding as nothing of significance is coming from students

fees/levies.

Governance

The challenges posed by the situation in the Nigerian university system, as articulated

above, put governance at the centre stage of achieving the goals of transforming our

universities. There is no gainsaying the fact that it calls for management systems that:

one, appreciate what goals the university should be pursuing; two, appreciate the state

of the university in relation to the implementation of the action plans and strategies to

achieve the goals; and three, can attract and properly manage resources towards the

performance of the fundamental functions of a university. I will put the governance of

a university squarely on the shoulders of: one, the Vice-Chancellor as the chief

accounting officer together with the supporting principal officers; and two, the Pro-

Chancellor and Chairman of Council and members of the governing council –


external and internal.

Let us take a critical look at the governing councils of federal universities. The current

membership, as contained in the military government Decree of 1st January 1993,

which amended the Acts of Nigerian Universities, and even in the autonomy bill of

2003, is as follows:

“The Council of any University shall consist of:

a) the Pro-Chancellor;

b) the Vice-Chancellor;

c) the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Deputy Vice-Chancellors in the 2003 bill);

d) one person from the Federal Ministry responsible for Education;

e) four persons representing a variety of interests and broadly representative

of the whole Federation to be appointed by the National Council of

Ministers;

f) four persons appointed by the Senate from among its members;

g) two persons appointed by Congregation from among its members;

h) one person appointed by Convocation from among its members.”

Thus, the membership of Councils is tilted in favour of internal members. The

external members – 6 in number representing various interests - are government

appointees with no input by the universities to their appointments. One of the external

members is appointed by government as the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of

Council. The federal universities have witnessed three and ‘three quarters’ governing

councils in the past ten years despite the fact that each council is expected to operate

for four years. The fact is, for one reason or the other, the federal government has

been involved with system-wide truncations of the tenures of these councils, with the

last council appointed in February 2009, dissolved in November 2011. The ‘three

quarters’ referred to the present councils in most of the federal universities which

after initial dissolution in November 2011 after serving for less than three years were

asked, after a few months of being out of office, to come back to spend the remaining

part of the truncated 4-year term. Whilst all this is symptomatic of an unstable

system, the fact is that all is not well in terms of quality and calibre of some of the

people being appointed into councils by the federal government from to time to time

to the extent that His Highness, Alhaji Ado Bayero CFR, LLD, JP, Emir of Kano and

the Chancellor of the University of Ibadan, in his address at the 2011 Convocation

Ceremony stated as follows:

“May I plead with the Federal Government to please reconstitute these

councils with men and women of honour and integrity, who are keenly

interested in the development of our universities. This is more so

extremely important at this time of academic webometric ranking, so that

globally, our universities will be ranked among the world best.”

If the truth must be told most universities have not been lucky with the calibre of

people appointed by government into their councils. However, at the University of

Ibadan, I can say categorically, without any fear of contradiction, that available


records show the excellent performance of the Felix Ohiwerei-led Council and the

Gamaliel Onosode-led Council that succeeded it. It was the glorious period of about

7 years when the foundation for the re-emergence of Ibadan as a 21st-century

university was laid by the Ohiwerei-led Council through the articulation, among

others, of the Vision and Mission of the University. The Onosode-led Council that

followed evolved and started to implement the strategic plans towards achieving the

University’s vision goals. The two gurus of the private sector - Felix Ohiwerei and

Gamaliel Onosode - brought their culture of excellence and ethical orientation to set

the moral tone for the purposeful management of the university. While some

universities have also been lucky to have experienced and focused leadership, some

others have not been so lucky particularly with this last set of governing councils. So

much rascality went on in the system at the time that one could not blame the Federal

government for dissolving them, thereby throwing away both the good and the bad.

What does one make of a governing council at loggerheads with the Vice-Chancellor

over contract awards to the extent that the Honourable Minister of Education had to

call the two parties to Abuja. Or the Federal Ministry of Justice which, through one of

its officers, initially allowed itself to be used by some misguided individuals to

frustrate the implementation of the Public Procurement Act (PPA) by illegally

communicating the vice-chancellors of federal universities to the effect that federal

universities were not under the PPA but subject to their existing University Acts. The

Minister of Justice should be commended for stopping such rascality immediately it

was brought to his attention. Or, further still, a university where the Pro-Chancellor

took over the chairmanship of the Appointments and Promotions Committee for

academic staff!

Enough on the external members of council with most Pro-Chancellors not providing

quality leadership; as we direct our searchlight on the internal members. Honestly,

this is another sorry tale of hit or miss, in terms of quality of leadership expected at

that level of governance. While some members came to council imbued with

leadership qualities and commitment to the development of the system, a number had

no business being in a university not to talk of being in council. They were just

squarely politicians pursuing, in most cases, the narrow interests of their sponsors.

This is not unconnected with the fact that internal members are in the majority,

against international convention. As remarked by Falase (2010), the former Vice-

Chancellor, University of Ibadan (2000-2005) at his Valedictory Lecture delivered

January 2010:

“A Council with this composition is obviously not in a good position to take

an independent view of the affairs of its University. Such a Council will be

more concerned with internal politics.”

Furthermore, with councils now given the power to appoint and fire vice-chancellors,

under the present university autonomy, election of internal members to councils is

now almost a do-or-die affair. Anybody aspiring to the position of a vice-chancellor

or deputy vice-chancellor better be in the good book of the emergent cabal who have

now developed negotiation skills to extract promises from candidates they have

chosen to support. However, if the history of caucus-backed leadership is anything to

go by, the system should be getting ready for leadership that will be putting political

consideration above the common good. But let me also say, based on personal

experience, that any vice-chancellor that is honestly committed to moving his or her


university forward, has enough instruments, within the system, to operate and achieve

the institution’s vision goals, assuming there are such collectively-defined goals. It

will, however, call for not a one-off courage but an everyday courage in taking

decisions that are for the good of the system. After all, that is part of what leadership

is all about. It is gratifying to note that this is the case in some universities.

However, a more disturbing symptom of poor governance of the Nigerian university

system, particularly the public universities (federal and state), is the historical

evolution and changing dynamics of staff unionism. The university system can now

boast of four staff unions – the Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities

(ASUU), the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), the

National Association of Academic Technologists (NAAT), and the Non Academic

Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU). Over the years

ASUU had embarked on series of strikes in order to force government to the

negotiation table. As shown graphically in Gig. 14, ASUU had gone on strike at the

national level for a total of 177 weeks from 1993 to date.

It is pertinent to note that the seeds of ASUU strikes were sown in 1981 when the first

agreement with the Federal Government was signed with plan to review after three

years. This was not fully implemented leading to the subsequent series of strikes and

other agreements in 1992, 1999, 2001 and 2009. Added to the above national strikes

by ASUU in pursuit of issues considered national and affecting the entire university

system, were the series of local strikes in pursuit of one local issue or the other at the

institutional level. My concentration on ASUU is deliberate. It is my belief that if

ASUU gets it right, other unions will have no alternative.

Profile of ASUU National Strikes (1993-2011)


This is not a blaming exercise as the concern herein is how governance, involving all

the stakeholders, is impacting the system. It is important that I make this point as I

expect not a few to rush to reel out the achievements of the past struggles in bringing

positive changes to the system. This, I do not doubt. But I ask, at what cost to the

system? Strikes have really inflicted serious damage on the entire university system in

Nigeria. The twelve weeks strike of 2009, for example, really destabilized University

of Ibadan. We were really pained by the cancellation of the staff exchange

programme between the University and a sister university in South Africa. A group of

students for training in the University had to abandon the trip, which was at the peak

of the strike, causing serious disruptions of their programme. Also, the image of an

unstable university system in the country was to work seriously against University of

Ibadan when we were competing for the Earth and Life Sciences Hub of the newly

established Pan African University (PAU) by the African Union. Thank God that we

won, but we had to promise that the programmes, which are to attract postgraduate

students from across Africa, will be insulated from strikes.

That unionism has complicated university governance is attested to by the memoirs of

a few former Vice-Chancellors. A recent publication by Prof Roger Makanjuola, the

former Vice-Chancellor, Obafemi Awolowo University, is titled, Water Must Flow

Uphill : Adventures in University Administration”. I believe the title is a serious

pointer to what he had to say in the book, which, without being a hired promoter, a

must-read by heads of institutions. But the present situation need not be!

The above serves to accentuate the serious challenge we face in bringing sanity to the

system without which all talks about universities becoming agents of development

will be an exercise in futility. But we must also shine light on the government itself, a

key stakeholder. Unfortunately, there has been so much instability in the leadership at

the level of the Federal Ministry of Education. For example, as the Vice-Chancellor of

University of Ibadan between 2005 and 2010, I interacted with five (5) Ministers of

Education! Little wonder, the policy somersaults in the sector, particularly in relating

to the university system. As remarked by Falase (2010):

“Majority of the strikes, financial and other problems of the Universities are

traceable to Government who routinely bypasses the Management and

Governing Councils to issue all sorts of instructions in form of circulars to the

Universities, most of which are inappropriate, unimplementable and contrary to

the laws setting up the Universities. In many cases, financial awards to staff

arising from union agitations are not cash-backed and this leads to further

protests on campuses, more debts for the Universities, closures and distortion of

University calendars from prolonged strikes. Invariably when trouble arises

because of these instructions (circulars), the fallout is dumped on the laps of the

Vice-Chancellors who are asked to "go and sort it out". The Vice-Chancellors

are therefore in precarious positions as they are caught in the middle of

Government and union battles. Often, the Vice-Chancellors' decisions or

actions during such periods are perceived as hostile by their unions, making

them extremely unpopular with the staff and students.”

Suffice it to note that we will have to go back to the drawing board to evolve a more


stable and responsive governance structure for the Nigerian university system, if the

system is not to gradually slip into irrelevance. Towards such an exercise, let me

quote a statement from a 1997 South African White Paper titled “A Programme for

Higher Education Reform”, referred to by Falase (2010).

"Councils are the highest decision-making bodies of public institutions. They

are responsible for the good order and governance of institutions and for their

mission, financial policy, performance, quality and reputation. To sustain

public confidence, Councils should include a majority of at least 60 per cent

of members external to the institution. Councils ought not to be involved in the

day-to-day management of the institutions as that is the responsibility of the

executive management led by the Vice-Chancellor, Rector or Principal, who is

in turn accountable to the Council."

Other Issues of Relevance to Governance

Worthy of note are these other issues that impinge of governance of an institution: the

implementation of the Procurement Planning Act (PPA), payment of allowances not

financially backed by government; managing without data.

Implementation of the Procurement Planning Act (PPA)

There is no doubt that the PPA has vested a lot of responsibility on the Vice-

Chancellor as the Chief Accounting Officer. This has apparently not gone down well

with Pro-Chancellors in some universities who feel that they should, as used to be the

case, Chairman of the Tenders Board as well as the Projects Committee for the award

of contracts. All I need say is that under the present dispensation the buck stops on the

table of the Vice-Chancellor who should not be under any illusion that there is shared

responsibility, should things go wrong. Vice-Chancellors should digest the PPA for

their own good.

Payment of allowances not financially backed by government

The present University Salary System contains so many allowances payable to

different categories of staff as negotiated by the different unions. I dare say that

nothing can be more destabilising than the present system. Once upon a time there

were about 33 different allowances in the University System with unions threatening

the management for payments of some of these allowances, even those not negotiated

by their unions with government. A classical example during my tenure as Vice-

Chancellor of University of Ibadan was the so-called High Risk Allowance. This

allowance was specifically to be paid to junior staff working in areas designated as

high risk. And those areas were spelt out by NUC. But NASU insisted that it should

be paid to all their members irrespective of where they were working! When I

refused, it was hell let loose with the junior staff closing the university gates and

disrupting academic activities. It took time to resolve the matter, but only those

entitled were paid. Similar scenario is repeating itself in a number of universities with

the unions demanding payment of allowances not yet backed by government. Some of

the institutions caved in and paid what some referred to as palliative or loans just to


buy peace. And, of course, such payment must be coming from the university’s IGR.

Some call this staff welfare, I regard it as a transparent bleeding of the system to buy

temporary peace. My take in all this is that we should go back to the period of

consolidated salary system that brought sanity through consolidation of allowances

into only two or three allowances at most without any reduction in the quantum of

salaries earned.

Managing without data

There is a saying that – if you cannot measure it, you cannot manage it. It underscores

the importance of data and information management system to support decision-

making. Most universities are still to pay needed attention to the deployment of

information and communication technology (ICT) to the academic and administrative

functions. Cases of students not being able to get their transcripts after the sessions

and even after graduation abound. Some departments do not even have data of

registered students in their departments, and, by extension, some universities do not

have such data at the university level. NUC that should be the first port of call for data

and information on the university system is unable to perform such coordinating role

due to paucity of data flowing into the Commission from the universities. It is

inconceivable that an institution can be talking about strategic planning without data.

Suffice it to say that it is the starting point in strategic planning.

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS

The paper has provided insight into the different notions of what our institutions are

for. This is because the issues of functions and purpose are crucial and need to be

stripped of any ambiguity. Our institutions are expected to transform into socio-

economic development agents through the development and deployment of their

teaching, research and innovation capacities to moving the country from resource-

based economy to a knowledge-based economy. This calls for a paradigm shift in

respect of formulation of strategic vision and plan for its implementation that

addresses the key issues of environment for teaching, learning and research, funding

and funding sources, and a governance system that manages efficiently resource

inflow and outflow. To achieve this, government and the institutions must focus

attention on three key elements for transforming to world-class: one, staffing to

ensure adequacy in quantity and quality; adequate resource inflow to support the

fundamental functions –teaching, research and community service; and three, the

evolution of favourable governance structure.

References

1. Ntim B. A. (1991), UNESCO’s Role in Promoting Interaction between

Engineering Schools and Industry’ in Engineering Education and Industry

Interaction, A report of the Inter-Regional Seminar held at University of

science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana, 29th

-31st July, 1991.

2. Machando, A (2000), "Developing Technological capabilities for MSMEs for

Global Competitiveness: Some Perspectives". Paper presented as the UNIDO

Representative at the 3rd

NASME International Conference and Exhibition on


Globalization and the Challenges of SMEs Development in Africa, Abuja,

Nigeria 14th

-16th, November, 2000.

3. Bamiro, O. A. (2000), Imperatives of Infrastructure for Micro Small and

Medium enterprises in a competitive World, Paper presented at the 3rd

NASME International Conference and Exhibition on Globalization and the

Challenges of SMEs Development in Africa, Abuja, Nigeria 14th

-16th,

November, 2000.

4. Bamiro, O. A. (2004) University-Industry Partnership in the Innovation

Process: Cases from Nigeria and Ghana, Published in the Proceedings of the

Regional Conference on Innovation Systems and Innovative Clusters in

Africa, Dar-es-Salaam/Bagamowo, Tanzania, Feb 18-20,2004 (pages 341-

366)

5. Bamiro, O. A. (2011), “Research Institutions as Agents of Development: The

Challenges of Conducting Research in African Universities”, WARIMA

Workshop, held at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, May 25-27,

2011.

6. Bamiro, O. A. (2012), “Nigerian University System and the Challenge of

Relevance”, 2011 Convocation Lecture, University of Lagos, 12th January

2012

7. Falase, Ayodele Olajide (2010), 60 Years Plus of University Education in

Nigeria: Is paradise lost for ever?, Valedictory Lecture delivered at the

University of Ibadan, Thursday 21st January 2010, Published by International

Publishers Limited.

8. Geoffery Boulton, What are universities for, (www.newstateman.com; www.

universityworldnews.com)

9. Korten David C. (1996), The truth about global competition: The Economic

Myths behind Globalisation, Development and Cooperation, No. 3, May-June

1996.

10. Ogunsanwo, B. M. (2009), Between Poisson and Prosperity (We le rurun

kurun), 2009 Inaugural Lecture at the Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-

Iwoye, Ogunn State.

11. Otive Igbuzor (2006), The Millennium Development Goals: Can Nigeria meet

the goals in 2015? A paper presented at a symposium on MDGs: Issues,

Challenges and Prospects, organised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants

of Nigeria (ICAN), Abuja District, 27th

July 2006, Sheraton Hotel.

12. Susan U. Raymond, The Technology Link to Economic Development – Past

Lessons and Future Imperatives, Annals of the New York Academy of

Sciences, Volume 787.

13. Sub-Saharan Africa (1989): From Crisis to Sustainable Growth, A Long-term

Perspective Study by the World Bank, Washington D.C, November 1989.

14. Susan U. Raymond, Science-Based Economic Development: Case Studies

Around the World, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Volume

798.

15. UNECA, Performance Review of Science and Technology Policy Institutions

in Gambia, Madagascar, Malawi, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe.

(NRD/STS/IGCESTD/1/92, Addis Ababa.

16. Jugessur, S (1994). Capacity Building for Science and Technology in Africa,

Science in Africa Series, the Challenge of Capacity-building, AAAS,

Washington D.C., 1994.

http://www.newstateman.com/


17. David S. Phaho (2007), “Leveraging University Expertise to Enhance

Industrial Innovation & Competitiveness: The View from South Africa”,

COVIDSET 2007, 25-27 September 2007, Johannesburg, South Africa.

18. Patric Neary, “Wet Blankets”, Workshop on Science and Technology and

Economic Development held at Harare, Zimbabwe, 1998.

tertiary education in nigeria and the challenge of ... education in... · : tertiary education in...

Documents