Paper prepared for the 10th CODESRIA General Assembly taking place in Kampala, Uganda between 8th and 12th December, 2002.
Sabo
Bako
Department of Political Science
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria
sabobako@yahoo.com
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The rather phenomenal but unplanned expansion of higher education in Nigeria in the past two decades has now landed the country into some intractable quagmire. This can be observed in the unfolding crisis of a general systematic collapse afflicting all the country’s tertiary institutions, with apparently no viable panacea in sight.
A conservative count conducted last year of those tertiary institutions put their number at 212: 24 federal universities, 4 national centres for specialized tertiary institutions, 14 state universities, 2 private universities, 1 military university, 7 federal polytechnics, 22 federal teachers colleges, 38 state teacher training colleges, 26 colleges of agriculture, 2 specialised training institutes and 4 parastatal supervisory agencies1.
This shows that at University level alone2, Nigeria had over 50 percent of Africa’s total number of Universities and student enrollment. Hence, the crisis of higher education in Nigeria has some serious implications and consequences not only for the country, but also for Africa at large during this 21st Century.
However, it is instructive to note that though the Nigerian State, the World Bank, and even the Tertiary institutions as represented by their Union, Students and Managers have conceded to the growing crisis in the country’s higher education and have even often called for an urgent but extensive surgical reform in order to salvage it; but no consensus has yet emerged among them on how to move university education forward.
For instance, there is disagreement over such basic issues as the identification of the actual roots, causes and manifestation of the crisis, and more importantly, what should be done about it. Thus, the crucial questions such as in what manner and direction, by who, for whom, and what should be reformed, have been lingering and remained unresolved.
This contestation has been particularly glaring and vigorous in the universities, where the militant academic staff union3, the authoritarian Nigerian State4,and the rapacious World Bank have been locked in a seemingly endless battle for one and a half decades on how to reform university system.
The World Bank on its part has made two very important interventions during this period.
First in the early 1990s, when the Bank intervened with its highly contested $120 million loan facility and its conditionality, under the name the federal Universities sector adjustment credit (FUSAC), intended to rehabilitate the universities by adjusting them within the framework of structural adjustment programme.
It can be presumed that ten years after such an adjustment could by itself provide an appropriate opportunity for stock taking and evaluation of whatever impact it might have had on the crisis ridden university sub sector.
However, without creating conditions for such a discussion5 or engaging any of its stakeholder6 on some assessment of its clearly disastrous and failed programme, the Bank had battled for two years to push for another but, ironically, harsher and tougher programme of total restructuring and deregulating articulated within its $102.4 million programme called Nigeria university system innovation project (NUSIP), which the academic union and stakeholders of higher education in Nigeria challenged gallantly to a halt.
It was under these circumstances, the world Bank surprisingly announced its withdrawal and cancellation of NUSIP, on some self – contradictory and hypocritical grounds: that the Bank was backing out because the Nigeria state had tempered with the ordering and composition of the project components.
The truth of the matter is that the Bank did find a comfortable lee way and opted for the state initiated Bill on university autonomy, which contains similar conditions as NUSIP, which the union both criticized and rejected.
It is curious to note that, notwithstanding, the world Bank abandonment of NUSIP, the Nigerian state has been very busy implementing its main conditionality without the loan. This is by imposing the Strategic Planning and Curriculum Review on the universities, again, to the dismay of the academic staff union.
2.0 REVISITING THE FIRST OF WORLD BANK ADJUSTMENT ON NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES.
The Nigerian State from 1987 to 1992 invited the World Bank and negotiated with it on how to rescue the Nigerian Universities from their dwindling financial resources and a general deterioration of their conditions.
For the purpose of comparing the last adjustment with the latest phase of deregulating the universities, it would be worthwhile to recall how the loan was negotiated, its content, objectives, conditionality, and how it was resisted by the academic staff union, students, and the civil society in Nigeria (Bako, 1994). country.
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (Mahadi, 1989) was refuted as not only one of the biggest universities in Nigeria and Africa, but also the most academically vibrant and excellent before the implementation of the adjustment. As a first generation university, it was supposed to benefit from the World Bank loan facility and therefore experienced its adjustment programme in the early 1990s.
As indicated above, the institution was entitled to $7.5 million out of the $120 offered to the 20 federal universities and the National Universities Commission (NUC). This money was to be used for the purchase of maintenance and spare parts; new equipment and consumables; library books and journals; topping up salaries of expatriate staff; staff development and completing scientific academic space in the university.
After an appraisal mission in July 1989, the World Bank accepted the final draft of the project document and a credit adjustment facility of $120 million was approved. The Nigeria university Commission was given the responsibility to implement the project for and on behalf of the federal ministry of Education. A vital requirement of the World Bank was for each university to set up its own project implementation Committee headed by an appointee of the Vice Chancellor and an autonomous project implementation office( Jeromo 1997).
A project implementation Committee was set up in the late 1993 by the then Vice Chancellor Prof. D. I. Saror to oversee the project. It was a 17 person committee chaired by Prof. A. N. Emar, the then Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic of the Institution.
According to a member of the implementation committee and the administrator that headed and later winded up the World Bank project office, Mr. Funsho Jarome, then an Assistant Administrative Secretary, it took the university one and a half years before it could qualify to start withdrawing from the World Bank Loan (Jerome 1997).
The conditionality, or what the Bank referred to as Eligibility criteria, was for the Institution to furnish the NUC and the Bank with a comprehensive report, indicating among others things, the dates of establishment of all the faculties and departments, their students headcounts in terms of category sub-degree, undergraduate and post-graduate programmes, FTE enrolment, and staff headcount etc. for the purpose of implementing the eligibility criteria as earlier as enumerated (A copy of completed A. B. U. eligibility criteria document 1993/94 is available with the authur )
What did the university withdraw or actually benefits get from its assigned $7.5 million after the implementation of the World Bank conditionality?
From a report compiled by Mr. Funsho Jerome, the University was able to secure the following:
|
S/NO. |
MATERIAL SUPPLIED |
TOTAL COST ($) |
|
1. |
Books |
797,000.00 |
|
2. |
Journals |
300,000.00 |
|
3. |
Staff Training Overseas in which a total of 16 staff (15 academic and 1 non-academic benefited from non-degree over-seas training |
200,000.00 |
|
4. |
Nunet – e-mail, details available from the Nunet committee chairman under Mal. Abubakar Sanusi |
N. A. |
|
5. |
Equipment maintenance of Development Cadre – directly funded from the National University Commission, Abuja and some details could be found with Mr. Daniel Afuwan. |
N. A. However 4,5, and 6 Addded to $1.234,200.00 |
|
6. |
Scientific laboratory and office equipment & chemicals ( See prof. Ojo’s report to the sole Administrator (A copy with the author) |
265,800.00 |
|
7. |
Total materials |
$ 1.5m |
Source: A. B. U. World Bank Implementation project Office Document (1997) pp 4-5
With the final official cessation of the project on April 30th 1997, Ahmadu Bello University did withdraw $1.5 dollars out of its allotted $7.5 million. That was less 20% of the total loan. Even for the 20 federal universities during this period, the World Bank was only able to disburse $63 million to them, with unspent balance of $57 million from the $120 million total credit loan. (Jerone, 1997. P.5)
Even for that meager amount, the adjustment which the universities were subjected to and especially the damage it had caused to them individually and severally was beyond estimation.
In the case of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria the institution did not get a single dollar to spend for its improvement locally. Nor did the World Bank train a single staff to the level of acquiring either a doctorate or professional training that could be useful to teaching at the institution.
The institution of course had no hand even in choosing what kind of equipment, books and journals that were brought for it by the World Bank contractors. Most of the so called information technology like, for instance, the Nunet office a simple e-mail connectivity through the NUC which cost thousands of dollars virtually collapsed within months of its operation.
Little wonder, that the cool headed and apolitical project administrator of the loan, Mr. Jerome, described it one of the "shoddiest riff-offs of the century made by an international imperialist Agency on an African country" (interview with Jarome, 13th Nov. 2002).
Some of the consequences of adjusting the university could be seen from the unprecedented crises, disruptions and contractions which Ahmadu Bello University suffered from between 1992 and 1997. Prof. I. D. Saroh, the vice chancellor during this period whom implemented the World Bank conditionality and presided over such World Bank conditionality induced crises ultimately cost him job and public esteem. He was not only the most popularly elected vice chancellor of the university ever, but also at the end of his tenure as the most unwanted especially by the majority of the university community that saw him as the World Bank hit man that presided over the destruction of the University.
Prof. Saroh was not able to fully implement most of the conditionality , as later a sole administrator in the person of Major General Mamman Tsofo Kontagora, the first in the history of University education in the World was appointed from December, 1995 to forcefully complete the World Bank Adjustment on the university.
It was somehow surprising to note the exchanges and struggles between the vice chancellor and ASUU, ABU chapter during this period, neither the parties directly made reference to the adjustment induced problems on the crisis of the university, even when they were describing clearly the World Bank conditionality. This was because there was too much personaltion of issues at stake and power struggle between various groupings especially between Pro and anti Saroh groups, which overshadowed the discussion on the World Bank Loan.
It would be worthwhile to summarize the evaluation of the World Bank programme adjustment on the university from both the experiences of the academic staff, the local implementers and finally the World Bank itself, especially as they related to Ahmadu Bello University.
First, it should be noted that the World Bank loan facility did not succeed in stabilizing the university system, but aggravated its internal crisis, disruption and partial closure.
With regards to Ahmadu Bello University two letters written to the Kaduna State military administrator and Secretary to the Federal Government by the ASUU, A.B.U. Branch appealing for their intervention, speak for themselves. In the preamble to the Kaduna State military administrator’s letter, ASUU lamented:
"Ahmadu Bello University has witnessed four strikes by the academic staff, within two years (1992 to 1994), a development without precedence in the history of the institution. Ahmadu Bello University is now in a state of permanent crisis, a crisis caused by the Executive acts of commission. The crisis has made it impossible for Ahmadu Bello University to operate as a university, since the most elementary requirement, an academic calendar is no longer operative in the institution"
Again in the letter to the Secretary to the Government the Union pointed out that:
"Since 1991, Ahmadu Bello University has not known peace. The university has suffered students’ demonstration and staff strikes on the average of every three months since 1992. Ahmadu Bello University was rapidly drifted into a state of lawlessness and anarchy".
Both the students and staff demonstrated against the conditions created by the World Bank Adjustment manifested particularly in the Ahmadu Bello University and Nigerian Universities generally as noted by the resolution of the ASUU, ABU Congress meeting held on 22nd August, 1996. The resolution indicated that:
"The crisis in the universities revolves around the collapse of the institutions due to lack of facilities for teaching, leading to collapse in structures, and the definite fall in the standards of university education, and the educational systems in the country as a whole, to the extent since the late 1980s, Universities in other parts of the world, including the African countries, no longer recognized Nigerian university degrees. The crisis in the universities led to the present ASUU strike. The ASUU strike did not, therefore, cause the crisis of the universities: the strike is part of the efforts by the academic staff to persuade government to address the crisis through the instrument of collective bargaining".
The universities saw their fight as that for institutional autonomy, which the World Bank though the Federal Government, or specifically the Nigeria University Commission, hijacked. The onion once again bitterly observed:
"The complete negation of the autonomy of the universities, to the extent that the normal functions of the universities, like admission, appointments of principal officers, the acquisition of teaching and research equipment, the selection and purchases of books, and journals, have been taken away from the universities and centralized at the Federal Level. This lack of autonomy makes it impossible for the internal organs of governance: council, senate, congregation and the committees, to direct the affairs of the universities. Consequently, there is no accountability, rather, the misuse of scarce resources, indiscipline by officers, staff and students, have become serious problems, with the university organs so incapacitated and unable to cope with them. The universities no longer operate as academic institutions, leading to lack of confidence, frustration and low morale"
Apart from these general crises, the actual implementation of the World Bank Loan conditionality led to their massive contraction and closure of academic programmes, centres and departments, students enrolment, staff rationalization and brain drain.
For example, the profile of students in A.B.U in 1990 up to 1991 before the adjustment, wed twenty thousands, the undergraduate student population was nine thousand and the certificate and diploma students was eleven thousand. With the implementation of the World Bank conditionality when all sub – degree programmes must go as N.U.C was directed there was no funding for them, Ahmadu Bello University contracted to less, than of it’s half size. Many of the courses rationalized were highly beneficial to the local and national communities such as women and educationally disadvantaged groups, but had to be abandoned. Similarly such Centers like the Adult Education Centre, Centre for Nigerian cultural studies, Centre for social and economic research, and Institute of education had to close down. (ABU News Bulletin 20th April 1993)
In the same vein, the university lost more half of it’s senior academic staff. Virtually all it’s expatriate staff also left. The World Bank was not able to produce a single staff to replace them in it’s so called staff development programme for the university.
It should be noted that the first phase of the World Bank adjustment of Nigerian universities as confessed even by the World Bank, far from improving the conditions of the universities, in further seriously aggravated them.
The World Bank attributed the failure of it’s programme in Nigeria to several factors but principally to technical problem of implementation, when the Bank noted that "the Federal Universities Section Adjustment Credit (FUSAC) had several factors which impeded project implementation".
Thus, the numerous factors identified according to the Bank could be summarized as follows: First, the problem of over centralization of functions. Thus, the National Universities Commission and Project Implementation Unit set up by the World Bank were solely responsible for project procurement of books, journals, equipment and staff development logistics. This inevitably led to delays in the project implementation.
Second, there was also the problem of lack of pre-project training for project implementation unit. There was insufficient pre-project training for project staff. Staff that had no prior knowledge of the Bank procedure and guidelines were expected to implement the project.
Third, there was also the issue of staff frequent staff turnover / lack of full time staff, in which there was delayed and too much pressure on part time staff to handle the project.
Fourth, there was no consensus developed among the key stockholders on the benefits of the loan and how to implement the project. The universities were completely excluded from the decision – making process on how to handle the project.
Fifthly, there was a problem of partial and haphazard implementation in which many of the universities received less than thirty percent of the funds that was disbursed, even though it had all the conditionality attached compilied.
According to the Bank, it had learnt some lessons which were supposed to be reflected in the forth coming project design.
These details were contained in the Bank’s recently updated paper on tertiary education, titled constructing knowledge societies: new challenges for tertiary education, [November, 2001], which recommends a couple of proposals. first, that the Bank should take the local political economy into account and develop appropriate social communication activities to build consensus around the project goals. Second, the Bank should encourage change through the use of positive incentives rather than by mandatory conditionality.(World Bank Document on NUSIP Appraisal Dec.17).
It is interesting to note that the Bank arrived at the conclusion that incentives generate more significant and lasting reforms than do conditionality. This was based on the Banks documented experience on the fund quality improvement in Argentina and on the millennium science project in Chile,
It is also significant to note that the Bank confessed now that "conditionality under Bank financed higher education project during the 1990s in Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Senegal had a very poor record of success". Finally we are told future project will employ "a competitively accessed funding mechanism, modeled after similar approaches developed in Bank – Financed higher education projects for Argentina, Chile and Jordan, in an incentive – led process of innovation and reform". (World Bank Document on NUSIP Project Appraisal Dec. 12/ 2000 p.4).
The questions now: was the Bank guided by these it’s so – called lessons in the formulation of its current project on deregulating and restructuring the Nigeria universities? Why should the Bank impose now a harsher and more comprehensive programme of restructuring and deregulating them while previous the adjustment programme on higher education in Nigeria and Africa countries had disastrously failed?
Nigeria University system Innovation Project [NUSIP] is designed as a medium-term instrument of higher education policy that seeks to address four general objectives:-
(1) Raising quality of teaching and learning activities.
(2) Sharpening the relevance and skill content of university education.
(3) Improving the efficiency by which universities operate their academic programmes, and
(4) Through the combined effect of these, opening up greater access to university academic programmes in order to meet the increases in demand brought about by population growth and globalization.
Thus, according to the Bank, the fund desires to support innovative efforts that affirm to strategic initiatives of universities, that are within the context of national higher education policy, and that will help universities play their role in meeting the needs of Nigerian society, thus, the fund is part of a broader strategy to modernize higher education in such a way as to permit qualitative jump into the 21st century.
The total amount of money raised for loans amounted to $102.4 million dollars on which the Nigerian Government would provide a counterpart contribution to the fund to the tune of $12.1 million totaling to $114.50 million. The project will have six components of differing dimensions and cost as follows:
Estimated Budget Summary for NUSIP
|
PROJECT COMPONENT |
IDA ($m) |
FGN ($m) |
TOTAL ($m) |
|
1. Innovations in teaching and learning. 1a. Innovation Fund 1b. Capacity Building for Distance Education 1c. Graduate Fellowship for Women
|
54.2 2.0 2.8 59.0 |
9.0 - - 9.0 |
63.2 2.0 2.8 68.0 |
|
Sub-Total |
|||
|
2. Management Skills Development 2.a Zonal level training 2.b Institutional level training |
0.7 12.0 |
0.0 0 |
0.7 12.0 |
|
Sub-Total |
12.7 |
0.0 |
12.7 |
|
3. Electronic networking |
16.2 |
0.2 |
16.4 |
|
4. NUC System Supports Service 4.a Financial Transportation 4.b Policy Studies 4.c NUC Strategic Planning 4.d University Collaboration 4.f NUC Staff Development 4.g NUC Equipment Purchases |
0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.3 4.0 |
0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 |
0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.8 1.4 4.1 |
|
Sub- total |
|||
|
5. HIV/AIDS Component |
|||
|
5.a HIV/AIDS 5.b university Community AIDS programme Sub-Total |
1.0 10. 2.0 |
0.0 0.1 0.1 |
1.0 1.1 2.1 |
|
6. Project Management |
|||
|
6.a Innovation Fund Review Panels 6.b Zonal Secretaries Sub-Total |
1.3 2.0 5.5 |
0.0. 0.2 0.5 |
1.3 2.2 6.0 |
|
TOTAL |
100.3 |
10.0 |
110.3 |
In spite of all what the Bank has said about NUSEP in the light of the failure of previous higher education adjustment projects, this has its own eligibility criteria, or the other tag for conditionality. According to the Bank before an institution can be considered eligible for NUSIP funding and benefits, it must satisfy a lot of eligibility criteria: These are:
1. For the first year of the project, a draft strategic plan for the institution’s future development must be in place.
2. For the second and subsequent years, a strategic plan approved by each Institution’s Governing Council.
3. Timely submission of externally audited institutional accounts for the 2001 financial year in accordance with statuary requirements with a copy to the NUC department of finance and supplies.
4. Sole use of Uniform Accounting Code accepted by the university bursar in 1999, in the department of all institutions budgeting and accounting reports from the year 2002 onwards.
5. Orientation and training of PCS and PCG members to be organized ( PCO with support from the Bank) prior to the initiation of the project activities.
|
Program financing Data |
||||||||||
|
( ) loan (x) Credit ( ) Grant ( ) Guarantee ( ) Other For Loans/Credits/Others: Amount (US$M): USS1024 Million Proposed Terms (IDA): Standard Credit Grace period (years): 10 years to maturity: 35 Commitment fee: 0.50% Service Charge: 0.75% |
||||||||||
|
FINANCING PLAN (US$m): SOURCE |
LOCAL |
FOREIGN |
TOTAL |
|||||||
|
BORROWER IDA |
12.10 55.90 |
0.00 46.50 |
12.10 102.40 |
|||||||
|
TOTAL: |
68.00 |
46.50 |
114.50 |
|||||||
|
Borrower: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF Nigeria Responsible agency: FEDERAL MINISTRY OF EDUCATION/NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES COM. Address: National Universities Commission Plot 430. Aguyi-Ironsi Street, Mitama District P.M.B. 237-Garki Abuja, F.C.T. NIGERIA. Contact Person: prof. Peter Okebukola, Executive Secretary Tel: 234-9-413-3185. Fax: 234-9-413-3520 Email: es@nuc.edu.ngOther Agency(ies) Federal Ministry of Education Address: Federal Secretariat, Shehu Shagari Way, Abuja F.C.T., Nigeria Contact Person: Prof. Babalola Borishade, Honourable Minister Tell: 234-9-41-33185 Fax: 234-9-7839 Email: |
||||||||||
|
Estimated disbursements (Banks FY/US$m): |
||||||||||
|
FY |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|||
|
ANNUAL |
5.50 |
9.50 |
15.90 |
22.20 |
26.00 |
19.80 |
3.50 |
|||
|
CUMULATIVE |
5.30 |
15.00 |
30.90 |
53.10 |
79.10 |
98.90 |
102.40 |
|||
|
Project implementation period: October 2002 – March 2008: Expected effectiveness date: 10/01/2002 expected closing date: 09/30/2008 |
||||||||||
4.1 THE POSITION OF ASUU ON NUSIP
accordingly, ASUU’s position on NUSIP is anchored on three needs of Nigeria defined by the Union of our present circumstance.
Sustainable Development requires internally generated carrying capacity that can:
The Union drawn attention to attempt by the World Bank, with the unfortunate support of and encouragement by the Federal Government of Nigeria to take over our educational system and run it in accordance with 19th century colonial educational policy.
The Union again decries government as an acative collaborator in the World Bank effort to subject Nigeria to a more invidious second slavery. Only this time the slavery will not involve physical movement of the slaves to foreign lands or cruel deployment to labour site in their fatherland but will involve much more sinister and dehumanizing form of mental and psychological slavery based on East Europe’s managed information, disinformation, misinformation and uninformation.
What baffles the unwary observer, says the Union, is the zeal and determination with which both the Federal Government of Nigeria and the World Bank are pursing NUSIP in spite of the overwhelming opposition to it by Nigeria students and academics.
The union discovers that there is link between domestic, corrupt, and unpatriotic ruling class and the world Bank and proposes that we need to remind ourselves that one burden that cries out to be lifted off the back of our undeveloped country is corrupt leadership. Our elite (politicians, civil servants, technocrats and their private sector and international collaborators consciously induce leakages such as NUSIP to provide themselves with thinly veiled avenues to continue with their insatiable plundering of our commonwealth. The instances of the series of squandered, "windfall" provide a graphic characterization of the ingrained systemic graft-orientation.
In a leaflet widely circulated by the union it beautifully summarizes its position on the World Bank loan for universities and its link with the university autonomy bill as follows:
On the issue of the bill, the union warns that the federal government is drafting a bill for presentation to the national assembly so that the measures outlined above can become law. The draft bill is ostensibly intended to grant fake FULL AUTONOMY to Nigerian universities. But the ultimate objective is to ruin the university education sub sector as advised by the IMF and World Bank. (ASUU, 2000)
4.2 ASUU’S ACTION PLAN
In the light of the foregoing crucial needs for sustainable national development which NUSIP pointedly threaten to impede, ASUU should achieve the following to forestall NUSIP
The World Bank country Director for Nigeria, African region, Dr. Mark D. Tenilins on, May 28, 2002 in a letter to professor A.B. Borishade, Minister of education reference to government "request for approval to re-order priorities of the application of NUSIP World Bank of loan based on stakeholder assessment of Nigerian university system," shocked virtually everybody, when he suddenly announced the Bank’s withdrawal from the programme.
Accordingly, the world Bank referred to the Nigerian government letter dated 14th May, 2002 which noted that the stakeholder priorities for the university system had changed substantially based on the results from the National summit on higher education and its action plan submitted earlier that month.
The Bank complained that it had invested significant amounts of its financial resources and staff time on preparation of NUSIP over the past twenty five months on which much was accomplished. And that NUSIP required only the final step of the project appraisal by the Bank, which was pending since August 2001, to complete the project preparation. Thus, the Bank was taken by surprise to receive the government request, given the advanced state of project preparation.
In the request, the government wanted the Bank to eliminate these activities from NUSIP: (1) The demand responsive innovation fund for teaching and learning; (2) The development of electric networking and internet connectivity; (3) management skills development; and (4) capacity building for distance learning.
In the place of these activities, the government proposed to substitute: (1) a national virtual library ($ 20 million); (2) three national higher education pedagogical centres ($18 million), (3) a national curriculum review process ($ 2.5. million); (4) facilities upgrading fund consisting of a procurement entitlement of $1.5 million for each federal university ($36 million and ; (5) Training in equipment fabrication and maintenance ($2 million).
However, the government retained these components in the original NUSIP: The National University Commission ($4.3 million), the graduate fellowship for women ($2.8) and the HIV/AIDS responses ($2.0. million).
The bank again noted that the new activities requested appear to be a marked departure in the type of investment requested from the Bank on the following (1) recentralization of the project implementation responsibilities away from the universities and back to the national universities commission, which was a short coming noted by both the Bank and the stakeholders in the design of the previous federal universities project financed by the Bank in the 1990s. (2) Elimination of demand – responsive allocation of funds guided by institutional strategic plans in favour of uniform institutional entitlements and (3) the establishment of several new public entitities that would generate significant long term requirements for government recurrent funding.
The Bank categorically concluded that based on its present understanding of the government proposal, "it was not able to agree to the proposed re – ordering of NUSIP priority areas, together with project re-design implications." And that the Bank "does not consider these new elements a more attractive investment in terms of the impact likely to be achieved for purpose of furthering Nigerian development of tertiary education." The bank again highlighted;
"if the government of Nigeria now judges the NUSIP no longer responds to its priorities. We should agree that our earlier coincidence of interest in these matters has now been overtaken by events. In this case we should set the NUSIP project aside, and the Bank world refrain from further engagement in tertiary education. if, on the other hand, the government decides to proceed with NUSIP, i should like the project appraisal to be completed by the end of July, 2002. beyond this date the project team will be assigned to other duties."
I have decided to extensively quote the World Bank’s letter in order to show how it contradicts its so-called new democratic posture of allowing stakeholders to participate and determine the bank’s project, which is simply a façade.
World Bank as shown by its latest position on NUSIP, could tolerate general polemical criticisms of its projects as usually done by the union, but when a stakeholder in that matter a state or even all the stakeholders like those that participated in the national summit on higher education in Nigeria decided to substitute some components of the world bank project which with their own, which could affect the "profitability of the Bank fund investment", the bank would simply withdraw from such projects.
In the same letter, the World Bank relapses to its old position of preference to supporting basic education rather than higher education in Nigerian. The Bank says:
"If NUSIP does proceed, a more effective use of the financing may be in basic education in collaboration with the government’s education sector analysis group, the bank has recently completed a study of public expenditures on education in Nigeria. This finds that the share of public funding for education allocated to primary education declined by 30% between 1962 and 1998, while the share for higher education increased by 84%. These diverging trends appear to have continued since 1999. in light of this, Bank financing might better be used to support the expansion and upgrading of basic education."
In spite of the above development on NUSIP, the Bank continues to support the government proposed bill for university autonomy. The Bank could have been the brain behind it in the light of the way it was discussing it long before it was made public profusely defending and praising it. The Bank observes:
"Most importantly, on July 21, 2000 the Federal Ministry of Education announced a major set of higher education policy reforms. This succinct six page statement (Government policy on Autonomy for Unversities), together with its underlying political support, already represent a greater step towards addressing the accumulated short comings of the university system than anything accomplished by the two presidentially appointed national higher education commission that were convened during the 1990s; the Greg-Lange commission (1991), the Etsu-Nupe Commission (1996). Following extensive negotiation with stakeholders, especially the academic staff union of universities, the government intends to produce a white paper on higher education by the end of 2001 and to forward associated legislative proposals on university autonomy to the National Assembly early in 2002."
(Document of World Bank, Project Appraisal Document on NUSIP, December 19, 2001 p. 14)
Infact one main NUSIP project assumption is that its success is predicted on government continued implementation of university autonomy as provided by the bill. See world Bank project implementation council, p. 13, November, 2001
On its part, the union has been struggling to set the bill aside. ASUU argued that the bill prepared by the federal executive council should be rejected on these eight grounds. First, taken together, its provisions undermine the university autonomy and vitiate the essence of the university. As it places in the hands of persons or body of persons external to university, the power to determine where to search knowledge, what transmit and disseminate, how to disseminate and when to disseminate.
Second, the bill assaults the principle and practice of democratic governance, academic freedom and promotes authoritarianism in universities. The powers conferred on the vice-chancellor by the bill are so enormous and arbitrary that they can turn even the most genteel academic into a tyrant. Contrary to the existing laws, the vice chancellor is now made superior to the senate and council by the bill.
Third, some of the clauses of the Bill are in breach of the Nigerian constitution, the laws of the land and international conventions on labour rights. This is by arrogating to the "visitor" (president) the power to make laws for state universities including closing them and also by the removal of universities from the public service. There is also provision seeking to bar academics from withdrawing their labour as a legitimate instrument for pressing for their industrial demands, which is a violation of international labour mights and conventions.
Fourth, the Bill, and a whole violates the Federal Government/ASUU Agreements of 1983, 1992, 1999 and 2001 which have enhanced conditions of service for academics in the federal universities.
Fifth, several provisions of the Bill have the potential of generating instability in the university sytem. This includes the dictarial powers of the vice-chancellor, especially the power to hire fire, coupled with the transfer of senate power to discipline students to the vice-chancellor, and the transfer of power of council to discipline staff to management.
Sixth, some of clauses, if accepted will undermine the social welfare of university staff and students and relieve the government of responsibility to citizens. This is where the Bill proposed multiple funding of university education and sharing of cost by students and parents.
Seventh, the provisions of the Bill have the potential for underdeveloping Nigeria and diminishing her capacity to participate competitively in a rapidly changing world. The narrow mission envisages for the university system can underdevelop Nigeria. Also the limits placed on academics by the Bill the constraints on the search for advanced knowledge, and the provision capable of worsening the problem of brain-drain will work towards the under-development of Nigeria. Similarly, the reduced financial responsibilities of government to universities as well as the concentration of powers of supervision of universities in the NUC will frustrate the efforts of universities to contribute to national development.
Finally, the Bill, by its pedestrian conceptualization and distorted nation of university and limited vision of the future historical mission of Nigeria, puts the nation to ridicule in international community.
This Bill is now being subjected to public hearing and discussion before the National Assembly pass legislation on it turning it into a national law. Meanwhile, in spite of the World Bank’s withdrawal of NUSIP, Federal Government has been very busy implementing its attached conditionality: the strategic planning and curriculum review along the line of commercializing and subjecting university education to forces of globalization.
We can see, for example, at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria Committees at the departmental, Faculty and University levels have been very active working on this strategic planning and curriculum review, in which all the major stakeholders including unions, students and parents are being excluded as complained by ABU – ASUU. Strategic planning has been the first conditionality attached to NUSIP. Now the ABU Union concludes that:
"ASUU has come to the conclusion that there are fundamental flaws in the draft document on strategic planning and curriculum review in ABU and the way and manner the issues are debated. There is a clear link between it and the World Bank agenda on Higher Education in the so-called developing countries. There is also a clearer link between the Review plan with recent state managed national summit on Higher Education, with which they share common parameters and pre-suppositions. Like the draft plan of ABU, the communiqué of the summit called for payment of "some fees" improving the level of funding in universities and blames strikes on "excessive unionism" as causes, rather than consequences, of academic instability. Finally, the summit set up a Technical Committee to translate its resolutions into an Action Plan and a Blueprint for immediate implementation. Less than two months, ABU set up a technical committee to prepare a draft plan on the so-called strategic planning and Curriculum Review in ABU. In short, there is a symbiotic relationship between the pre-conceived anti – Higher Education resolutions of the summit and the current proposed review in ABU. Both proposals are aimed at achieving downsizing, profitability and rationalization
This is where issue stands between the union, state and university over the implementation of the World Bank’s conditionality without offering the credit facility. Beyond form of governance to other collapsing indicators of university education in Nigeria
Going through the debate on the nature, sources, and proposed solution to the crisis in Nigerian higher education, there is some kind of obsession by the international agencies, State and even the academic union with governance. The solution to the crisis of higher education generally and particularly of universities is reduced to what form of governance they should adopt and sustain within and outside the tertiary institutions.
If one peeps through all ASUU major publications, agreements and public positions since its inception in 1978, apart from battling for better conditions of service for its members, the next issue is what appropriate form of governance should universities establish, which could usher in academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
Thus, an assumption which is widely held and which to a large extent is correct is that: the blame for the degeneration and collapse of university education could be placed at the door steps of authoritarian, militaristic, bad and corrupt managers and administrators imposed on the universities by the prolonged military rule in Nigeria. (Jega, 1994, World Bank, 2001). The union sees the possibility for revitalizing universities only through democratizing their internal organs, laws and personnel.
However, experience from Nigerian universities in the past two decades has shown that reducing every problem to that of governance may not, after all, be entirely correct here. Democratization just like authoritarianism, has not helped the universities to realise their essence and perform their functions even when the ASUU veterans were elected to the positions of governance as it has happened at Ahmadu Bello University and Bayero University, Kano. It seems there is no difference between the yesterday’s dictators and today’s democrats/radicals on the output and performance of these universities. In both cases, what remains supreme to the managers of the university is politics not academics.
In fact, democratization of universities so far has created additional difficulties for them in a number of ways. First, there is now a massive politicization of universities offices to the extent that a new generation of "politician/academics" is on the ascendancy. These are the so-called intellectuals that have made or making their careers not through academic work and research, but politicking in order to cling to power and appropriate university resources, values an symbols. Second, this has created a culture of bootlicking, sycophancy, intrigues and victimization. Here a tenure or promotion is not based on one’s productivity, but to which politically correct clique he or she belongs.
This problem is much serious in universities which are bottom heavy like most of the Nigerian universities in which inexperienced and unaccomplished young lecturers are elected to the positions of the Vice-Chancellors, Directors, Deans and Head of Departments, where they could not provide academic leadership and end up victimizing, the old Professors and hard working academics.
Finally, democratization just like authoritarianism, has promoted deepseated political, ethnic, religious and regional cleavages and partisanship in the universities more than the non-academic civil society. Little wonder universities in Nigeria are now the major sites of breeding Christian, Islamic and cultic fundamentalisms and ethnic violence more than scholarship. (Bako, 2002).
The state and international donor agencies have joined the union bandwagon in search of good governance. The latest offer is by the Nigerian state to universities of a Bill for university autonomy/management and administration, which has been severely attacked by the union. The whole aim of the Bill is to restructure and deregulate the universities so that they could be run profitably and efficiently like privitised parastatals or business firms.
On its part, the World Bank has been investing its fund on developing management skills among the university administrators, in which over 25% percent of its proposed NUSIP fund was reserved for that purpose. In addition, Ford Foundation has been funding as elaborate research on the problems of university governance in Nigeria, whose findings and policy options have been recently published (News Bulletin of The Nigerian Social Scientist, Vol.2, Number 2, September 2000, Pp. 32 – 39).
At the root of these problems, are the structural and institutional deformities which the Nigerian universities have developed over the last three decades. These problems are not only those of chronic under-funding, by the Nigerian state, but also highly distorted internal budgeting and employment structures, which make them highly unsuitable for academic and scholarly production and improvement of the society at large.
In spite of possessing the highest number of tertiary institutions and population enrollment especially in the universities, the Nigerian state is the lowest in terms of funding education generally and universities particularly in Africa. Nigeria spends less than 1% of GNP on education while sub-Saharan Africa as a whole spends 3.4%. (Document of World Bank on NUSIP, November 19, 2001 p. 5). In fact, the percentage of GNP spending on education between 1994 and 2000 was at 0.76%. Angola spends 7 times in proportion to its GNP more than Nigeria, South Africa 11.9 times, Ghana six times, Kenya 9.29 times and Malawi 7.71 (Obikoye, 2002). The irony of it is while Nigeria spends an average 0.76% on education, it allocates 3.7% of its GNP on debt servicing.(Debt cancellation: A Case for Nigeria p. 29).
In the same vein, allocation to education as a percentage of budget has been consistently low. It was less then 10% between 1984 and 1998. It worsened in 2000 when it dropped to 8.36 and in 2001 to 7% only. The UNESCO approved education spending in terms of GNP and National budget is 25%, for which most of the developed and rapid developing countries adhere to and even shoot beyond. (Obikoye, 2002, Okeje 2002, World Bank 2000).
It has also been shown that the resulting effect of gross under-funding is the dramatic compression of per student expenditure since the mid 80s. From an average of N60,000 in 1985 to less than N10,000 in 1992. In 1997 the cost was N25,000 and in 1999 it rose to N35,000. The minimum recommendation of the unit cost of N130,000.00 per student was made by the world bank for all countries of the world (Onoke Kraye and Nwoku 1992 and Obikoye, 2002).
This distorted spending pattern in not only at the national/international sectors of the society, it is even worse at the university level in terms of distribution, between the academic (Research, teaching, equipment and books) and non-academic expenditure.
In spite of the small size of the allocation to education in relation to other national sectors, the money given to the sector is still substantial. The universities alone get about 25 percent of the total education budget, which is substantial. In 1999, it was estimated at $22 million for 24 federal universities. Out of this amount, less than 5 percent was expended on academic activities as defined above. (NUC Annual Report 1999 and World Bank 2002).
Nigeria’s federal university system spends only 1.3% of its budget on research (World Bank Report, December 19, 2002 p.33 and all to National University Commission annual Reports from 1980 to date). Over 95% of the university budget are expended on paying salary, allowances, administration and contracts.
In the same vein, the university employment structure is distorted. The teaching and research staff of all the federal universities are less 20% percent, while 80 percent are administrative staff both senior and junior. And it is the administrative cadre that consumes over 70% of personnel emolument compared to 25% for the academic staff (see all NUC Annual Reports especially between 1985 – 2002).
From the above picture, it is the administration that takes the lion share of the resources, not research and teaching. And also it is the political academic staff that appropriate and allocate those resources both to themselves and others sectors of the university, hence the massive politicisation of the university offices, which both the authoritarian and democratic regimes in the universities have not been able to address and reform.
We cannot expect the Nigerian universities to play any significant role in the 21st century cultural, scientific and technological development sectors in the country, Africa and the globe, unless some of the above critical areas of crisis in higher education in Nigeria are tackled. And it will take more than the state, World Bank even the union to alter the above situation. It appears only the stakeholders of higher education, if they can organize, could push for a special high education agenda and insist on its strategic role and utmost priority in the development of the Nigeria and Africa in the new millennium.
CONCLUSION
This paper has attempted to explain the development of the crisis of higher education and universities in Nigeria and the roles which the state, union and World Bank have played in their bid to intensify or arrest it. This is part and parcel of the crisis the Nigerian post-colonial state is undergoing in the process of implementing the World Bank/IMF imposed deregulation, which is seriously impacted on its tertiary institutions. The World Bank adjustment programme implemented on the Nigerian and African universities in the 1990s was by the Bank’s admission a total failure. In the case of Nigeria, it has further deteriorated their conditions as illustrated by the situation at the Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria before and after the implementation of such an Adjustment Programme.
However, it beats one’s imagination and sense of logic that the Bank instead of claiming responsibility for its adverse action and redressing it, it was recklessly pushing for a harsher and tougher programme of deregulation albeit couched now in beautiful phrases, which only the indefatigable Academic staff Union could see through and halted the Bank from complete restructuring and ruining of the Nigerian universities. Though it is painful to observe that the Bank has withdrawn its current NUSIP programme, but it has all its attached conditionalities being implemented, this time around, without even the universities given the opportunity to enjoy the benefit of the so-called loan’s facilities.
What all this has shown is that: There is a limit to which the worsening crisis of higher education could be left to the state, the World Bank, or even a trade union to handle and resolve. We must realize the status of Nigeria and Africa in the global system could either improve or deteriorate depending upon when all the stakeholders of higher education in Nigeria and Africa have decided to boldly and seriously face the challenges of building and sustaining African university systems; or just painfully preside over the crisis of disintegration of the existing ones in the new millennium.
NOTES
2. The current number of Nigeria’s Universities is 51 with a population enrollment of about half a million, making it the biggest in both respects in sub-saharan Africa. Thus, even though South Africa has fewer Universities, their individual population enrollments are higher than those of Nigeria. See Lebeau Y. and Ogunsanyo M. (2000). The Dilemma of Post-Colonial Universities, IFRA Books, Ibadan and Document of the World Bank (19, December, 2001) on NUSIP, pp. 33 – 5.
3. The Academic Staff Union’s positions on how to reform and improve the universities could be seen in their prepared positions and agreements reached with the Federal Government in 1983, 1992, 1999 and 2001.
4. See Federal Government Reports on Higher Education by Greg-Lange Commission 1991, Estu-Nupe Commission in 1996 and Federal Government’s position on University autonomy, 2001.
5. The world Bank did sponsor some in house reports on the impact adjustment in Nigeria see
Tade akin Aina (1994) Lessons learned from the world federal universities development sector adj ustment crdit Richard Fehnel (2000) thoughts on sustainable innovation in the federal universities system or how to awaken a giant.
Tensa Harnett (2002) Financing trends and expenditure patterns in Nigerian universities an update.
6. Among the stockholders only national university commission organized some spiral impact survey chaired by Prof. Mustapha a Vice Chancellor of one of he Nigeria’s Universities.
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akinlaypa Sawyerr, "The Public Good in African Higher Education: Selected Issues for Policy", in The Nigerian Social scientist, A Biannual Publication of the Social Science Academy of Nigeria, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 25 – 30 March 2002.
Bako S. (1994) "Education and Adjustment in Nigeria: Conditionality and Resistance" in Mohamoud Diouf and Mahmood Mamdoni, (eds), Academic Freedom in Africa, Codestria, Dakar, pp. 150 – 175.
Bako S. (2002) Campus Religiousity: A Study of Religious Explosive in Some Nigerian Universities, on going research.
Mahadi A (1989): A history of Ahmadu Bello University. Ahmadu Bello University press Zaria, Nigeria.
Jega, M. A. (1994) Nigerian Academics under Military Rule, University of Stockholm, Stockholm.
Obikoye J. O. (2002) "University Education Funding Policy in Nigeria" in the Nigerian Social Scientists, Vol. 5 No. 1, March 2002 pp. 40 – 49.
Ukeje B. O. (2002) "Financing Education in Nigeria" The Nigeria Social Scientist March 2002 pp. 31 – 39.
Theresa Harnett (2000) "Financing Trends and Expenditure Patterns in Nigerian Federal Universities, Up date, World Bank.
Omoregie P and T. Harnett (1995) Financing Trends and Expenditure Patterns in Nigerian Universities, World Bank.
Tade A. A. (1994), Lessons from the World Bank Federal Universities Development Factor Adjustment Gedid , World Bank.
Tade I, (2002) "The Social Costs of the Existing Modes of Financing University Education in Nigeria. Ife, Obafemi Awolowo University.
World Bank, Adis Memore, NUSIP (P07040) Pre – Appraisal Mission, July 31, August 20, 2001.
World Bank Letter to Prof. A. B. Borishode Cancelling NUSIP, Dated May 28, 2002 singed by Dr. Mark D. Tomlinson, Country Director for Nigeria, Africa Region.
World Bank Report, Comments on NUSIP Project Implementation Manual, December 17, 2001.
World Bank Report on NUSIP (P070447), Project Implementation Manual, Abuja November, 2001.
World Bank Document, Project Appraisal on NUSIP, Human Development Unit, County Department 12, December 12, 2001.
LETTERS, MEMOS, AND REPORTS.
10. Fashina O. (2000) The Nigeria university system innovation project (NUSIP) the world Bank and Nigeria IAU, ASSU National position paper. Printed for ASUU ABU by Bookmakers, International, Zaria. Nigeria