ABU NEW TUITION CHARGES: NELFUND IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT FUNDING I have read painstakingly the argument on the recently reviewed tuition charges of Ahmadu Bello University, and I believe there are key issues that must be addressed distinctly, as they are not ambiguous. To begin with, let me state emphatically: I support NELFUND. I have consistently supported NELFUND because I believe no Nigerian student should be denied access to tertiary education simply because his or her parents cannot immediately afford the cost of education. However, supporting NELFUND does not mean that NANS should outrightly support every increase in tuition fees. NELFUND is a loan scheme, and not a grant. Hence, students have to come back to repay whatever amount is obtained from NELFUND. To be clear, the fundamental objective of the NELFUND scheme is to provide financial support to students; it was not established to give institutions a licence to continuously increase tuition fees arbitrarily. From a logical standpoint, there is a distinct difference between asking, “Who will pay for the cost of running the university?” and asking, “How much should students be required to pay?” These are two different questions. No doubt, the cost of running Nigerian universities has increased tremendously. Electricity is more expensive. Diesel is more expensive. Laboratory materials are more expensive. Maintenance is more expensive. Academic and non-academic staff require better welfare. All of these are realities that we cannot deny. However, the fact that the cost of running a university has increased does not automatically mean that the burden should be transferred to students in whatever amount the university considers appropriate. The Federal Government owns and funds federal universities. Therefore, the first conversation must be about the adequacy, transparency, and efficiency of government funding, and not having to resort to putting the burden of funding the university on vulnerable students

Furthermore, the electricity bill must be paid, but let us ask the right question. I have heard the argument that when electricity is cut off, somebody must pay the bill. Absolutely. But that argument does not answer the question of who should bear the cost and in what proportion. If ABU receives an electricity bill that it cannot afford, the solution should not automatically be: “Increase student tuition fees.” The Federal Government must also ask why federal universities are being placed in a position where essential services become dependent on students. If electricity is essential to teaching, laboratories, and research, then electricity should be treated as part of the cost of public education and appropriately funded. We cannot tell Nigerian students that education is a public good when convenient and then treat every component of providing that education as a commercial transaction when funding becomes difficult. To this end, let me also make this clear: NANS is not declaring war against ABU management, nor are we sworn enemies. The Vice-Chancellor is not the enemy. The university management is not the enemy. ASUU is not the enemy. The students are not the enemy either. The real issue is how we can sustainably finance public education without pricing ordinary Nigerian students out of the system. If the university management can take responsibility and be accountable and can prove that the new charges are absolutely necessary, NANS will listen. If there are areas where the charges can be reduced, NANS will demand a reduction. If there are categories of students who require exemptions or special consideration, NANS will demand them. If the Federal Government needs to increase funding to ABU to reduce the burden on students, NANS will engage the government. That is responsible student leadership that I represent. I have personally supported the expansion of NELFUND because I understand what it means for a student to receive admission but be unable to continue because of financial constraints. But supporting NELFUND also means we must protect its sustainability. If universities continue to increase charges without corresponding improvement in government funding, NELFUND will eventually carry an even greater financial burden. And if NELFUND is forced to finance ever-increasing institutional charges, we may eventually create a system where government stops properly funding universities because it knows that students can borrow to cover the gap. Eventually, the objective of the scheme would be defeated. NELFUND should complement government funding, not replace it. Therefore, our position is straightforward. We acknowledge the economic realities confronting ABU and the country at large. We acknowledge that the cost of running a university has increased. We acknowledge the need for sustainable funding. We support NELFUND and will continue to support initiatives that ensure no student is denied education because of financial hardship. But we cannot accept the argument that because NELFUND exists, every increase in student charges automatically becomes acceptable. Going forward, we will engage ABU management. We will engage the Federal Government. We will engage NELFUND management. We will engage student leaders. We will demand a clear and transparent actual cost of running the university in contrast with the funding available. Let us see the gap. Let us know what the government is providing. Let us know what ABU is generating. Let us know what students are being asked to pay and why. Then we can have an honest conversation and a way forward. Because the solution to underfunding Nigerian universities cannot always be: “Increase the tuition fees.” And the solution from students cannot always be: “Reduce the charges.” Both positions are incomplete without answering the most important question: how do we properly fund public universities without making university education unaffordable for the Nigerian student?