Initially, there was no plan to do a second part of this article, which appeared last week. However, two developments made the extension of the discussion necessary this week. First, almost the same day that the first instalment appeared, the high-performing and respected Governor of the Abia State, Dr. Alex Otti, was reported to have offered an apology to the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) Chapter at the Abia State University (ABSU) for the delay in the implementation of the Agreement.
Although he had given approval for the implementation of the 2025 FG/ASUU agreement much earlier, the civil servants failed to implement it promptly, and that eventually led to a strike by the ABSU Chapter of ASUU. Not minding that he was not responsible for the strike, he still took responsibility for its occurrence.
His public apology is very humbling, especially for those proud governors who find it difficult to accept responsibility for the failure of policies in their states. Governor Otti proved to be in a different class when he said: ‘I want to, on this podium, apologise to Abia State University as well. That strike was avoidable. The reality is that the work stops here. So, we failed; I failed. I failed them’ (See Premium Times, August 28, 2026, with the title ‘Otti takes responsibility, apologises for ASUU strike at Abia University ’). The embarrassment that the bureaucrats caused the governor is not an isolated occurrence, as it happens in many other states where the bureaucrats create bottlenecks because of selfish interests, thereby causing untold hardship to the citizens.
In our first instalment, we made the point that oil-producing states that share the 13 percent derivation fund, and who were expected to be among the first to implement the agreement, were nowhere to be found. Out of 69 state-owned universities, only 16 of them had started implementation as at late August 2026. We argued that the failure to implement the agreement was not as a result of lack of funds, but as a lack of willingness to implement. It is worth stating, therefore, that the inability to pay that governors usually give as an alibi (for such things like minimum wage award, among others) no longer holds water. The problem now is the lack of willingness to pay. Presently, more funds are available to the states to meet their obligations. There is no more alibi.
For example, the States’ share from the Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) has been on the increase for many years now. For instance, in July 2023, the States’ total share from the Federation Account was N310.670 billion, while the total amount shared among the three tiers of government was N966.110 billion. Then in July 2026, the States’ total share from the Federation Account was N943.352 billion, while the total share for the three tiers of government was 3.007 trillion. The humongous allocation received by the states in July 2026 was nearly equal to what the three tiers of government received in 2023 (See: economicconfidential.com, 23 August 2023; & Instagram- tvcnewsng; 19 August 2026, all sourced through AI Overview). The bottom line is that state governments should stop foot-dragging on the implementation of the 2025 FG/ASUU Agreement.
The second development that made the continuation of the first instalment necessary was a gentle reaction (that came through a WhatsApp message) from our respected national President of ASUU, Prof. Chris Piwuna. He gently protested my view that the disruption of an ongoing examination by ASUU strike enforcers is an ‘agboro-like’ (thug-like) behavior. He asked if my description of the action of ASUU strike enforcers as ‘thuggery ’ is a fair assessment. He actually felt that my description is unfair. In what looks like a humorous conclusion, he said, ‘Unionists don’t share the same language with pastors. We are unionists.’
It will be recalled that in the first instalment, I said that:
ASUU at both the national and state-owned university branches should stop the practice of disrupting examinations in the name of enforcing a strike. This ‘agboro-like’ (thug-like) behavior should cease forthwith in universities considered as a citadel of learning and the most civilised place of human existence, conduct and operation. Scholars should never behave like politicians, many of whom, by the way, do not have their children in public universities. So who are the enforcers of strike in such disruptions directing their anger to? There is a need to change the modus operandi of enforcing a strike.
I respect the ASUU president’s reaction and hereby plead that he understands my thinking hat as a researcher/analyst on the intractable FG/ASUU conflict. This hat or cap is different from that of a union member, which is driven mainly by interests. A researcher’s cap demands, and thrives on, objectivity, while the unionist’s cap thrives mainly on a defense of ideological viewpoint and protection of interests of members. Having said this, I do not actually mean that my academic colleagues are definitely ‘agboros’ or thugs. The comparison with politicians is to make a point that no professional group (e.g. doctors, lawyers, academics etc) should follow the ‘agboro-like’ path of politicians who have failed us woefully. My ‘agboro-like’ description is meant to discourage such tendencies which a citadel of learning should not promote in any form. My view was coming from the negative impact of the practice of total, comprehensive and indefinite (TCI) strike, which necessitates the enforcement of strike compliance in such a manner that sometimes appears ‘violent’. The disruption of an examination or chasing lecturers out of lecture rooms, their offices and laboratories, involves physical action that sometimes appears to be an intimidation or act of violence.
I had strongly felt in the past that the practice of chasing a scientist out of his/her laboratory while enforcing a TCI strike is too costly and unprofessional to do. The disruption of an experiment by a scientist who might have received a grant from an international funding body might cause an incalculable and irreversible harm to that scientist’s career. In any case, a national strike will succeed or fail regardless of whether that scientist is permitted to carry on his/her research during the period of the strike to meet the deadline of the international grant awarding body. It is my strong view that we cannot continue to harm ourselves or direct anger again on the wrong people (in this case, ourselves). My submission is that the modus operandi of declaring a TCI strike needs to be reconsidered.
Fortunately, when the ASUU President Prof. Piwuna and I extended our discussion beyond the WhatsApp message, he gave a background on how the disruption of examinations came about. The National Executive Council (NEC) of ASUU, he said, used to give some exemptions to allow examinations to be completed when a national strike starts, but the wide abuse by some branches afterwards led to the stoppage of such exemptions as they were subverting the realization of the strike objectives. I agree with him that such abuses should not be associated with men and women of conscience in the academic profession. Both of us also agreed that more thought needs to be given to the modus operandi of enforcing a strike. In my humble view, this is perhaps where the core principles of picketing during a strike become a useful guide for action by strike enforcers. This, however, requires continuous training of union members. It is on this note that I appeal to state governments that have not yet started implementation of the 2025 FG/ASUU agreement to begin to do so without delay, so that TCI strikes would become a thing of the horrifying past.
Prof. Obasi, a public policy expert and analyst, is a retiree of the Department of Public Administration, University of Abuja.
