TINUBU’S DIVIDE-AND-RULE POLITICS AND THE SLOW DEATH OF NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES

Nigeria's university system is facing another dangerous chapter in its long history of underfunding, broken agreements, industrial disputes and declining staff morale. But beyond the familiar problem of inadequate funding lies another disturbing development: the apparent fragmentation of university workers through unequal, staggered and selective implementation of negotiated agreements.

The question Nigerians must now ask is simple:

Is the Federal Government unintentionally creating division among university workers—or is selective engagement and implementation becoming a convenient instrument of divide and rule?

The concern deserves serious attention.

One university system, different treatment

A university is not sustained by lecturers alone.

Professors and students cannot function without laboratory technologists, administrative officers, librarians, bursary personnel, registry staff, secretarial staff, works and maintenance personnel, technical officers, cleaners and numerous other categories of workers.

The university is an ecosystem.

Yet, the treatment of these workers by government has increasingly appeared fragmented.

The Federal Government concluded its renegotiation with ASUU in December 2025, with implementation of key components beginning in January 2026. The government subsequently directed federal universities to implement a 40 per cent increase in the Consolidated Academic Allowance for eligible academic staff from January 1, 2026.

But implementation was itself uneven at the beginning. Reports in February showed that only a small number of federal universities had reflected the increase while many others, including the University of Abuja and several other institutions, were still paying lecturers under the old arrangement.

This distinction is important: the issue is not that ASUU was simply paid while everybody else was ignored. Rather, the government moved substantially further with the academic union's agreement while negotiations with major non-academic unions continued.

And that difference became the source of serious industrial tension.

SSANU and NASU: months of waiting

While the ASUU agreement had already been concluded, SSANU and NASU continued negotiating the renewal of their own 2009 agreement.

By April 2026, the two unions had become sufficiently frustrated by the pace of negotiations that they announced an indefinite strike, arguing that government had moved faster with ASUU while their own renegotiation remained unresolved.

SSANU subsequently rejected a 30 per cent proposal in April and insisted that negotiations had not been concluded, warning of industrial action if government failed to conclude the process.

Eventually, on 29 June 2026, SSANU and NASU concluded a new agreement with the Federal Government.

But even after the agreement was signed, another problem emerged: implementation.

By July, SSANU was demanding immediate implementation of the new agreement and payment of outstanding salary-review arrears. The union specifically called for implementation to be prompt, full and without discrimination.

That is where the argument about divide and rule becomes particularly compelling.

Divide and rule does not always mean openly setting workers against one another

Divide and rule does not necessarily require government officials to stand before workers and say, "You are against them."

It can happen through different negotiating timelines, different implementation schedules, different levels of urgency and different treatment of workers performing complementary functions.

When one group gets an agreement first and another is left negotiating for months, resentment naturally develops.

When one agreement is implemented while another remains on paper, workers begin to ask:

Why them and not us?

When government negotiates separately with each union, rather than establishing a transparent and coordinated framework for all university workers, collective bargaining power becomes fragmented.

And once university workers begin fighting among themselves over who has received what, the real employer—the government—can become less vulnerable to unified pressure.

That is the danger.

The 70/30 controversy

This concern is not entirely new.

Earlier controversies surrounding the distribution of government funds for earned allowances saw SSANU, NASU and NAAT complain that the distribution disproportionately favoured ASUU. The non-academic unions argued that they were critical stakeholders in the university system and should not be treated as secondary participants.

Whether one agrees with every demand of these unions or not, the underlying principle is difficult to dismiss:

A university cannot operate effectively when the people who teach, administer, manage laboratories, process examinations, maintain infrastructure and run essential services are treated as competing rather than complementary components of one institution.

Even ASUU is not completely satisfied

It would, however, be unfair to portray ASUU as having received everything it negotiated without difficulty.

In May 2026, ASUU itself raised concerns about delayed implementation of parts of the salary agreement.

In June, reports indicated that some outstanding payments and allowances had still been issues of contention.

There were also continuing disputes over implementation in state-owned universities.

Therefore, the larger problem is not simply "ASUU has been paid and everybody else has not."

The deeper problem is:

Government commitments are being implemented unevenly, slowly and through fragmented bargaining arrangements, leaving different categories of university workers at different stages of entitlement.

That is the pattern that deserves condemnation.

Who ultimately suffers?

Not the politicians.

Not the negotiators sitting across the table.

Not even the union executives.

The students suffer.

Every prolonged dispute threatens academic calendars.

Every delayed salary undermines staff morale.

Every unresolved agreement creates another potential strike.

Every strike interrupts learning.

Every interruption encourages students and parents who can afford it to look outside Nigeria.

And every experienced academic or professional who leaves the country contributes to the growing brain drain.

This is how tertiary education deteriorates—not necessarily through one dramatic policy, but through years of accumulated frustration.

A university divided cannot stand

There is a dangerous psychological consequence to this approach.

Instead of university workers asking:

"Why has government not adequately funded Nigerian universities?"

they begin asking:

"Why did ASUU get this while SSANU did not?"

Instead of:

"Why are all negotiated agreements not being implemented?"

the debate becomes:

"Which union is getting more?"

Instead of:

"How do we save Nigerian tertiary education?"

workers become preoccupied with defending their individual unions.

That is the essence of institutional fragmentation.

And fragmented workers are weaker workers.

The Tinubu administration must answer Nigerians

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's administration should therefore answer some fundamental questions.

Why should different categories of university workers wait for different periods before their negotiated agreements are implemented?

Why should negotiations with one union be concluded while another union remains in prolonged negotiations?

Why should workers who perform essential and complementary functions in the same university be subjected to different implementation timelines?

Why should workers have to threaten strikes before government commitments are honoured?

And most importantly:

What is the government's comprehensive plan for preventing the continuous fragmentation of Nigeria's university workforce?

These are not merely union questions.

They are national questions.

This is bigger than salaries

The crisis in Nigerian universities is not fundamentally about whether a lecturer earns 40 per cent more or whether a non-teaching staff member receives a 35 per cent adjustment.

It is about whether Nigeria has decided that tertiary education is a national priority.

If it is, then university workers should not have to repeatedly threaten industrial action before negotiated agreements receive attention.

If it is, funding should be predictable.

If it is, salaries should be competitive.

If it is, infrastructure should be continuously renewed.

If it is, research should be properly funded.

If it is, agreements should be honoured.

And if it is, all legitimate university unions should be treated with fairness, transparency and respect.

Government must stop managing the symptoms

Nigeria cannot continue to run its university system from crisis to crisis.

Agreement.

Strike threat.

Negotiation.

Partial payment.

Another dispute.

Another committee.

Another agreement.

Another delay.

This cycle has gone on for too long.

Government must move from crisis management to institutional reform.

There should be a transparent implementation framework covering all recognised university unions, with clearly defined timelines, funding sources, monitoring mechanisms and consequences for non-compliance.

No union should have to beg for an entitlement that has already been negotiated and formally approved.

Conclusion: Unite the university workforce

The most dangerous consequence of selective and delayed implementation is not merely financial.

It is the erosion of solidarity.

ASUU members are not the enemy of SSANU.

SSANU members are not the enemy of NASU.

NASU members are not the enemy of NAAT.

NAAT members are not the enemy of ASUU.

They are all workers within the same Nigerian university system.

Their interests may differ in certain respects, but they share one fundamental interest:

A properly funded, functional, autonomous and globally competitive Nigerian university system.

Therefore, university workers must resist the temptation to turn government-created differences in implementation into permanent divisions among themselves.

And the Federal Government must recognise that divide-and-rule may temporarily reduce collective pressure, but it cannot build a world-class university system.

Nigeria does not need divided university workers.

Nigeria needs united university workers, properly funded universities and a government that honours its agreements.

The future of millions of Nigerian students should not become collateral damage in a cycle of delayed negotiations, selective implementation and industrial confrontation.

A divided university system cannot produce the united, educated and innovative Nigeria that the Tinubu administration says it wants to build.

The time has come to stop dividing the university workforce and start rebuilding Nigerian tertiary education.