Toyin Falola
A CONVERSATION WITH THE PRESIDENT OF ASUU, PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER PIWUNA, PART 2
(This is the final report on a Conversation with the President of ASUU, Professor Christopher Piwuna, November 9, 2025. For the transcript, see https://www.youtube.com/live/eyomif7r1vQ?si=omCdoW7FSwJU4PfN)
Since its metamorphosis from the National Association of University Teachers to the Academic Staff Union of Universities in 1978, ASUU has remained one of the most prominent labor movements in Nigeria. The association has invested decades in struggles for educational integrity, university autonomy, and national development. Its guiding principles, which include promoting quality education, defending academic freedom, safeguarding institutional autonomy, and enhancing staff welfare, reflect a vision that places education at the center of national transformation.
The ideological underpinning of this position is that universities are not just sites of learning but are powerful engines of development and innovation. In effect, ASUU insists that quality education must be seen as the bedrock upon which societal progress is anchored. It has thus persistently critiqued state policies that unduly compromise intellectual freedom or commodify knowledge. These actions, no doubt, have earned it the status of a resistance movement against the systemic neglect and underfunding of public universities. Through such activism, ASUU has steadfastly held that the decay of public education equates to the decay of the nation. Despite ASUU’s continual defence of education as a public good, inadequate funding and historical repression have long been challenges. And because of this, ASUU’s growth has not only been about fighting for better salaries but also about promoting fairness and democratizing knowledge.
But ASUU’s activism is anchored in its demand for autonomy and academic freedom—two sides of the same coin that underpin scholarship and intellectual independence. Overbearing political interference has, for decades, made it standard practice to appoint vice-chancellors and other key administrators in Nigerian universities through the presidency or state authorities, rather than via meritorious academic processes. Such subordination of the university to political power undermines its capacity to act as a locus for critical inquiry and innovation. In this sense, the demand for autonomy is less an institutional demand than a philosophical one: a declaration that knowledge can never be at the mercy of political manipulation.
All over Africa, from Ghana to Kenya, other academic unions contest the state’s stranglehold on universities. Tied to ASUU’s insistence on self-governance is a prior conviction that education ought to serve a public interest rather than governmental expedience. The matter of autonomy spills over into financing and research, since dependence on erratic government allocations weakens universities’ capacity to sustain meaningful scholarship. ASUU’s agitation over the years has therefore sought not just decent remuneration for lecturers but also the intellectual dignity of the academic profession. It is in that respect that ASUU raises its struggle above a labor issue into a moral and developmental one, advancing the belief that the freedom of any nation is incomplete if its intellectual institutions remain enslaved to political or financial interests.
The history of ASUU’s confrontation with successive Nigerian governments is a story of sustained state neglect and broken promises. From the military regimes of the 1980s to contemporary democratic administrations, agreements reached after protracted negotiations have often been flouted or only partially implemented. Fresh cycles of industrial action were caused by repeated violations of the 1992 and 1994 agreements on salaries and funding. The 2009 agreement reached under the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua marked the most far-reaching milestone in the history of the union. For the first time, it detailed the level of infrastructure revitalization, service conditions, and the sustainable funding required for research. The non-implementation by successive governments points to chronic instability in Nigeria’s policy environment and to the state’s failure to keep its commitments to education.
The public often mistakes ASUU strikes that recur nationwide as self-serving or disruptive. Still, they stem from the moral conviction that education cannot thrive on broken promises. Furthermore, the refusal to implement signed agreements erodes not just the morale of academic staff but the integrity of the nation’s higher education system. This undoubtedly proves that the Nigerian political space does not regard education as a catalyst for national development. Oftentimes, ASUU’s insistent advocacy and acts of collective resistance remind the government that real development requires accountability, transparency, and consistency, which will remain glued to the future of Nigerian youth and scholarship.
Other core challenges are those related to funding and infrastructure in improving the quality of Nigerian higher education. The chronic underfunding at most public colleges manifests in several ways, including persistently poor Internet connectivity, insufficient research funding, and ongoing shortages of vital infrastructure. These deficiencies negatively affect the ability of instructors to conduct meaningful research, recruit competent scholars, and provide students with a demanding learning environment. The advocacy of ASUU goes beyond issues of salary into these structural issues, well aware that educational excellence is inseparable from institutional capacity. The growth of private universities, initially promoted as an alternative with which to undermine public institutions, has not diminished the importance of public universities, which continue to enroll far larger student populations.
While private institutions may boast of better facilities, they simply can’t replicate the broad social and developmental impacts of well-funded public universities. It is such disparities that ASUU highlights, underlining the fact that the state has a responsibility to prioritize public education, not only as a labor issue but also a national developmental imperative. Moreover, this inadequate funding of higher education reflects broader issues that affect society at large, including limited knowledge production, restricted innovation, and reduced potential for universities to drive social and economic transformation. The union’s insistent emphasis on such issues reflects a deep understanding that the fight for better working conditions is inseparable from the struggle for educational quality, national progress, and the empowerment of future generations.
It is worth noting that the role of ASUU goes beyond labor negotiation to the defense of intellectual standards and the greater relevance of higher education to society. It fosters academic freedom, enabling researchers to conduct critical studies that challenge oppressive ideologies and, in turn, support social innovation and policy. This is particularly important in situations where the government may step in to stifle free thought and deter critical participation in urgent matters of national significance. The union’s commitment is long-term: nurturing a climate in which universities act as engines of development, producing relevant knowledge that addresses local problems while maintaining global relevance. Therefore, strikes, though often portrayed negatively, are tactics aimed at compelling the state to recognize the strategic importance of universities to national development.
Scholars from neighboring countries, such as South Africa, Ghana, and Kenya, have continued their struggle in a coordinated effort for academic equity, thereby creating a link between ASUU and the broader African movement. The issues that have emerged at ASUU highlight the relatedness of fair remuneration, safe employment conditions, and the institution’s autonomy. When used together, they provide a strong foundation for long-term academic achievement. Therefore, when the union views its fight through the lens of national development and social responsibility, it is not only fighting for teachers’ rights but also for the intellectual and developmental destiny of the country. This must serve as a timely reminder to both the public and policymakers that funding colleges implies funding the future of the federal government.