The need for equity in N50bn varsity disbursement

The Nigerian university system once again finds itself on the precipice of unrest not because of underfunding, which has become a perennial issue, but due to disagreement over the sharing formula of a long-anticipated intervention fund. 

The Federal Government’s recent decision to release ₦50 billion to address longstanding earned allowances of university staff was welcomed as a potential turning point. 

However, the subsequent outcry by non-academic unions over the proposed 80:20 sharing ratio between academic and non-academic staff threatens to derail the progress that the fund was intended to catalyse.

Nigerian NewsDirect reports that in April 2025, the Federal Government ordered the release of ₦50 billion to be disbursed among staff unions in federal universities to settle outstanding allowances. 

However, controversy quickly emerged when the distribution formula allocated 80% of the fund to the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), leaving the remaining 20% to be shared among the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), the Non-Academic Staff Union (NASU), and the National Association of Academic Technologists (NAAT).

SSANU and NASU, in a joint statement issued in Abuja, described the formula as “grossly unfair, provocative and unacceptable.” 

They argued that the disbursement model fails to acknowledge the critical, often underappreciated role non-teaching staff play in the university system. 

Indeed, administrative, security, maintenance, health, and welfare services all managed by non-academic staff are foundational to the proper functioning of any higher institution.

The unions further asserted that an agreement reached in 2022 stipulated equal disbursement between academic and non-academic staff. 

If this is true, then the current 80:20 split represents not only an administrative anomaly but a breach of trust something Nigeria’s tertiary education sector can ill afford.

While the immediate issue is the ₦50 billion disbursement formula, the underlying tension runs much deeper. 

Nigeria’s public university system has suffered years of neglect: dilapidated infrastructure, under-equipped laboratories and libraries, obsolete teaching tools, insufficient accommodation for students, and a glaring deficit in research funding. 

These conditions have persisted largely due to the government's repeated failure to honour agreements and adequately fund higher education.

What’s more, this crisis brings into focus the flawed assumption that university education is primarily about teaching and research, to the exclusion of the administrative and operational structures that make such functions possible. 

From the registrar’s office to campus security, non-academic staff ensure that universities run efficiently and safely. It is both counterproductive and unjust to treat these contributors as second-class citizens within the university ecosystem.

Over the years, the resultant dissatisfaction and neglect have led to repeated industrial actions, severely disrupting academic calendars and compromising educational standards. 

The cumulative effect has been catastrophic most notably seen in the exodus of academic and technical professionals to other countries in search of better working conditions, a phenomenon widely referred to as the “brain drain.”

This is why the current ₦50 billion allocation, although modest compared to the scale of challenges, must be handled with the utmost fairness, openness, and sensitivity. Any misstep risks triggering renewed strikes, throwing universities once again into chaos.

The Federal Government, while commendably making an effort to address long-standing grievances, failed in a crucial respect: transparency. The rationale for the 80:20 split remains unclear. Was it based on staff population? Wage structures? Historical allocations? Without clear data and justification, such decisions will inevitably be viewed with suspicion and deemed arbitrary.

An equitable approach would entail publishing the criteria used to arrive at the distribution. Better still, the government should have consulted all stakeholder unions before finalising the formula. 

The failure to do so has now become a self-inflicted crisis.

There is, however, still room to rectify the situation. A tripartite dialogue involving representatives of ASUU, SSANU, NASU, NAAT, and the Ministry of Education should be convened urgently. 

The objective must not be to appease one group at the expense of another, but to arrive at a formula that reflects the contributions of all stakeholders and fosters unity, not division.

Moreover, government negotiators must communicate that while this intervention is a significant gesture, it is not a cure-all. Not every demand can be met simultaneously, but fairness must always guide the process.

Treating either side with less regard invites antagonism and disrupts the fragile peace that has only recently been restored in Nigeria’s higher institutions.

It is essential that all parties particularly the unions recognise the significance of the opportunity before them. 

They must rise above institutional rivalry and work together to ensure that government interventions do not inadvertently widen existing fault lines. Unity, cooperation, and shared sacrifice will go further in improving university education than narrow bargaining over allocations.

Finally, the Federal Government must institutionalise a transparent, consultative approach to resource distribution in the education sector. 

One-off disbursements, however well-intentioned, cannot substitute for long-term structural reform, strategic investment, and consistent engagement.