Over time, the Academic Staff Union of Nigerian Universities (ASUU) has stood at the vanguard of the struggle for the betterment of the lives of university lecturers and the holistic improvement of the Nigerian university systems. However, many Nigerians see the methods used by ASUU in achieving its laudable objectives to be somehow combative, confrontational and aggressive. This is as a result of the employment of strike actions as a strategy to influence government policies and decisions in favour of ASUU’s demands. In this write-up, I argue that purposeful and goal-oriented lobbying, constructive dialogue and engagement with university managements and the Federal Government is a more effective approach towards achieving ASUU’s goals with regard to members’ welfare.
Constructive engagement entails working with the stakeholders in finding mutually beneficial solutions to a problem or an issue. Thus, within the context of this write-up, constructive engagement is a realization that the interests of ASUU, university managements, and the Federal Government are interlinked, and that no meaningful development of the university system can be achieved without the cooperation of these critical stakeholders. One of the key benefits of constructive engagement is that it opens up avenues for the exchange of ideas and sharing of perspectives of diverse ideas and perspectives, which would ultimately coalesce into a cohesive whole. I would like to assert that it is only open and respectful dialogue that will aid ASUU, university managements, and the Federal Government in comprehending one another’s perspectives on critical issues, while collectively discovering means of finding solutions to the multifarious problems which emanate from these diverse issues.
In recent times, I have witnessed, firsthand – like other Nigerian academics – the futile efforts of ASUU to secure a new salary package for lecturers of Nigerian universities with the Federal Government. While Nigerian academics have been on the same salary structure since 2009, salaries of staff at the Federal Inland Revenue Service have been increased thrice, between 2022 and 2024. Similarly, in 2024, the President signed an executive bill that increased the salaries of Nigerian judges by almost 400%. In January 2025, senior military officers were awarded humongous increases in their salaries via an executive bill that was also endorsed by the President of Nigeria. On the other hand, until the latter part of 2024, when the Ngige award was incorporated into the salaries of Nigerian workers, the most senior Professor in a federal university was on a monthly salary of about 550,000 naira, which is about the equivalent of the monthly salary of a very junior employee at the FIRS and the CBN. Presently and most unfortunately, many Nigerian academics struggle to buy petrol into their cars, fulfil their financial obligations to the members of their families, and also find it difficult to pay for journal fees or to attend conferences, whether within Nigeria or outside the country. In the good old days, a university lecturer could apply for a bank loan to offset the costs of attending a conference. However, the high interest rates on loans have turned the attendance of overseas conferences by lecturers into a mirage since most banks that give out loans do so now at a 40% interest rate!
I believe that the huge difference in the salary scale for Nigerian university lecturers and other public servants – especially those working in juicy agencies like FIRS, the Armed Forces, the Judiciary, the NNPC, and the Central Bank – is an open injustice that is not justifiable in any reasonable way. The crucial role that academics play in shaping the future, conducting necessary research, and contributing to the development of the nation is highly demeaned with their low, unending salary scale. While all these other sectors greatly contribute to the economy and national security, the intellectual capital created by the universities is no less important for long-term development and social progress. There is no doubt that devaluing those entrusted with the propagation of knowledge can only strangle innovation in the bud, dissuade the best and brightest from pursuing academic pursuits, and degrade the quality of higher education in Nigeria. Having said this, I would also like to categorically assert that one factor that has made it extremely difficult for ASUU to secure enhanced financial rewards for lecturers has been the relative reluctance of ASUU to lobby and engage directly, senior government officials on the issue of staff welfare. What I have perceived, from a distance, is that the ideological orientation of the union is that any form of lobbying is anathema because it removes the aura of invincibility and distinctness that seems to pervade ASUU, as one of the foremost trade unions in Nigeria. This unstated but highly discernible ASUU position is remarkably different from the ideological position of most of the other unions operating within the Nigerian public service. For instance, it has been common knowledge for several years now, that lecturers who work in Federal Government owned Colleges of Education and Polytechnics earn more salaries than Nigeria university lecturers. In many instances, the trade unions which represent these categories of lecturers – COEASU and ASUP – do not often declare strike actions for the enhancement of their salaries. Rather, on many occasions, while they may issue different kinds of threats, they usually wait for ASUU to reach an agreement with the Federal Government for increased remuneration. Thus, any compensation regime released by the government for the payment of salaries for university lecturers often serves as a basis for the negotiations of COEASU and ASUP with the Federal Ministries of Labour and Education. Thus, while other unions, through more proactive lobbying, have been lucky in ensuring that their members enjoy better remunerations, university lecturers have been left at the mercy of whoever is in power and unable to compete effectively and favorably within the ambits of Nigerian public finance. It has therefore become imperative that ASUU must become competent and versatile at building positivist-oriented and non-confrontational relationships with major policy makers through whom it can directly advocate for increased salaries of lecturers within budgetary allocations.
Constructive engagement, which I have termed lobbying, might perhaps be the most feasible option available to ASUU in facilitating a robust increase in the salaries of lecturers. This active engagement through liaison with the legislators, government functionaries, and influential stakeholders, will better demonstrate the value that university lecturers bring on board, point out the destructive results of low salary awards in service delivery, and advance cause-specific policy reforms. It entails forging alliances, making cogent data presentations, and showing the long-term benefits of investing in higher education. In this manner, ASUU can use strategic lobbying to effect a change in this narrative in order to see budgetary decisions that realize a fairer compensation structure for its members – one which would ensure that lecturers in Nigeria are valued as they should be. Constructive engagement will definitely help in instilling trust and a sense of cooperation. Besides, working together for a common cause, promotes the building of mutual respect and understanding among the stakeholders. This will foster effective collaboration among the various stakeholders that will culminate in great achievements and accomplishments for tertiary education in Nigeria.
There is no gainsaying the fact that constructive engagement and dialogue would go a long way in curtailing strikes and disruption of academic activities. Working together over issues and problems, ASUU, university managements, and the Federal Government stand to gain a lot as they consciously and deliberately avoid all confrontational situations that result in strikes. There is, arguably, no substitute for constructive engagement as a powerful tool that can facilitate a positive publicity of ASUU and the University System. Collaboration and synergy among the stakeholders – ASUU, university managements and the Federal Government – will help in creating confidence in the university system; and the more positive message relayed to the public will help build confidence in Nigerian universities.
I posit, unequivocally, that this kind of proactive constructive engagement will attract investment and support for the university system. When stakeholders show that they are committed to collaboration and cooperation, it can help attract donors, investors, and other supporters who are interested in promoting the development of the university system. Equally significant is the need to appreciate the fact that constructive engagement is an act of strength and maturity, not one of weakness. Constant confrontation, even within various universities by various branches of the union with managements might become an ill wind that blows no good and may lead to a breakdown in communication and a lack of trust among stakeholders. It may definitely make the resolution of issues and the advancement of the cause of the university system more difficult. It also diverts attention from the core issues and concerns. The point is this: by focusing alone on the issuance of threats and ultimatums from the different parties – Federal Government, university management, and ASUU – there is the likelihood that the parties will not address the underlying debilitating issues that are threatening tertiary education in Nigeria. It is also important to say that constructive engagement is a process, not an event. This, therefore, calls for commitment toward continuous dialogue, collaboration, and cooperation. It entails a proactive response to issues where ASUU, university managements, and the Federal Government would be willing to compromise and listen to concerns from each other and work together to find solutions.
Over the years, the Academic Staff Union of Universities has been deemed as using confrontation and aggression alone, in its demands for better funding, infrastructures, and conditions of service in Nigerian universities through frequent strikes. While such views of ASUU are not entirely true, a less aggressive approach might pay off more sustainably and productively in the long run. Often, the adoption of an adversarial tone adopted gives the larger society the perception of ASUU as an obstructionist rather than a partner in progress. It is probably about time that strategies of constructive dialogue, well-researched proposals, and building alliances with other stakeholders become considered options that will bring in good will and give ASUU a better standing in negotiations.
There is no reason why such a non-confrontational disposition would necessarily have to result in the abandonment of the critical reforms being pursued. What this means is changing strategy in engaging in better communication and relationship building. On its part, ASUU should emphasize evidence-based advocacy and link the proposals of the union to improved students’ outcomes/institutional development. This would make it easier to advance its demands. Building a reputation for providing pragmatic solutions through heavy investment in research to support its arguments would make ASUU a source that university administrators and policymakers can trust, and they would have to treat it with respect. Such a spirit of cooperation could bring about far-reaching and long-lasting changes within the Nigerian university system. Less confrontation in such cases would give ASUU a chance to grow in long-term relationships and sustain stability in their academic environment by cultivating predictability. By taking a more reconciliatory track – one that features dialogue and consultation – ASUU will be seen to be contributing to a healthier and more helpful relationship with administrators in universities towards sustainable solutions to achieve a prosperous future for higher education in Nigeria. A strategic shift of this nature would only have been to the benefit of its members, the students, the parents, and indeed the nation that needs a healthy and vibrant education system.
In view of this, I would like to affirm that constructive engagement entails transparency and accountability where information is availed and updates are accorded to all the stakeholders. There also has to be respect and civility in any constructive engagement as stakeholders must show respect and civility, even while disagreeing, on cogent issues. I sincerely believe that such an approach would augur well for Nigerian academics more than the constant use of direct confrontation with the university managements and Federal Government in furthering ASUU’s cause. I have noted that it has been extremely difficult for ASUU to embark on any strike action in recent times because it seems to have been overused as a tool to influence the decisions of the Federal Government. While the option of strike actions should always be available, for ASUU to use, as a trade union, it should not be the only solution to solving the myriad of problems facing the Nigeria university system. I postulate that through the option of constructive dialoguing with the government and university managements, ASUU would foreground the fact that it actually stands for problem-solving and the development of the Nigerian university system. This would certainly engender an atmosphere of cooperation, trust and goodwill for Nigerian academics, a win-win approach that would precipitate good outcomes for the Nigerian tertiary education system.
I come in peace!!
Professor Emmanuel B. Omobowale is from the Department of English, University of Ibadan UI, and is the current Director of the UI Distance Learning Centre
