According to the political leader, Simon Bolivar, the first duty of a government is to give education to the people. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria has provided also in Chapter II that the government shall direct its policy towards ensuring that there are equal and adequate educational opportunities at all levels. Government shall strive to eradicate illiteracy; and to this end Government shall as and when practicable provide free university education.
Although we have continuously and deliberately continued to treat the contents of Chapter II as mere scribbling and not to be taken as part of the basic rights of persons, the contents of this Chapter still encapsulate legal obligations that are required of the Government.
The obligation of the government to ensure that there are adequate educational opportunities does not stop at putting up buildings to be called schools, it includes the ability of every individual who intends to access these learning institutes to learn and complete their learning at the appropriate time. The obligation of the government in this regard is that it is to put infrastructures in place to ensure a seamless learning system. These mechanisms include but are not limited to the provision of personnel, buildings and equipment, ensuring the prompt payment of personnel, periodic renovation of buildings, and the provision of equipment and other tools to ensure seamless learning.
The recent and recurring strike actions by the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the trade union for the academic staff of Nigerian public universities, have been attributed to the federal government’s refusal to honour its part of a 13-year-old agreement.
Not long after the herald of democracy in Nigeria and a government that promised to be people-oriented in 1999, after a long military rule, Nigerian students experienced a disruption to their academic activities as a result of strike action by the ASUU. Indeed, this was one out of many to come. There have been 16 strike actions by the ASUU in 23 years. The constant strikes and a later deliberation on putting an end to these recurring strikes had led to a Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Government and ASUU. This Agreement was struck in 2009, and another Memorandum of Understanding was also signed in 2020. However, it seems the federal government is yet to honour crucial terms of these agreements.
ASUU has continuously accused the Government of not carrying out its obligations in the terms of the Agreement. For instance, the issue of upgrading the salaries of the lecturers has always been at the centre stage. The salary of a senior lecturer is about Five Million naira per annum. It has always been the argument by ASUU that the pay does not meet up to the service which is rendered. There is a staggering difference if one compares this amount to the average salary of a lecturer in the US. According to reports, the estimated total pay of a person working as a senior lecturer is about One Hundred and Thirty One Thousand dollars. But until this moment, it seems nothing has been done.
Read also: ASUU strike: Nigerians not moved by Chukwuemeka Nwajiuba’s resignation
It is of concern that even with the parties reaching these agreements, the strikes have persisted. Speculatively, it has been opined that the government is unable to carry out its obligations for the lack of funds. According to data, Nigeria’s debt has risen to 36.88 per cent in 2022, and Nigeria uses 86 per cent of its yearly revenues to clear its debt, thus there is little left over to satisfy its obligations under the agreement with ASUU. Some others insist that the government blatantly refuses to carry out its obligations and that agreements or discussions entered into by the government are a ploy to distract the union from carrying out strike actions.
The sanctity of agreements implies that the terms of a valid contract remain binding upon parties to it. Where a party does not carry out its obligations under an agreement, it must be held accountable and remedies are open to the other party. However, there are instances where there are hindrances to the implementation of the terms in an agreement, such as when a force majeure comes into play. What one can call a force majeure will usually depend on the facts of each case. In this instant case, if it is to be taken that the government is unable to pay then a force majeure may be at play here. However, it must be noted that recently, the President of Nigeria had pledged Nigeria’s readiness to help South Sudan fight insurgency. It would be interesting to see, from where the funds for this support will materialize.
The essence of any contractual relationship is the achievement of a particular purpose or goal. However, sometimes issues arise that affect the ability of a party to fulfil the terms of the contract. For instance, where a force majeure hinders a party from carrying out its obligations under a contract, it will be unthinkable for the other party to insist that such a party should carry out its obligations under the agreement when it clearly cannot be done. However, this is typically not a deterrent to goal-centred parties to a contract, especially where both parties are acting in good faith. Instead of sticking to the letter of the law, they devise solutions to the issues preventing the attainment of the goal and establish new terms on how to balance the books.
Recurring strike actions in Nigeria are not a phenomenon familiar only to the educational sector in Nigeria. Other sectors such as health and aviation are familiar with this event. The Nigerian government, as an employer of labour, has more often than not been accused of its continuous non-payment of salaries and partial or non-implementation of its obligations in Agreements which it has often made with employees. Indeed, it has been the cycle, the non-payment of salaries and emoluments of employees, the issue of ultimatums by the employees or the threat of industrial actions, meetings are then held with the representatives of the government, and a memorandum of agreement or understanding is reached; the government reneges on signed agreements, there is the threat of a strike action again, and the cycle just goes on and on.
The real question then is whether the attitude of the government indicates that it still has its eyes on its primary goal – the education of the people.
Also, looking at the cycle of strikes that have taken place over the years, the option or remedy that has always remained open to the union is to carry out another strike action. This clearly shows the absence of other remedies open to the union. If there were other ways of making the government comply, perhaps, there would not be these cycles of strikes. It is important that parties include the remedies for a breach in such agreements. An Agreement clearly stating other viable options or remedies is desirable. On this point, one must take note of the fact that there is an unequal balance of power. The agreements between the government and the union, one must admit is although like every other agreement between parties, one of a sensitive nature, especially when it comes to who has an upper hand. The power here tilts towards the side of the government. Perhaps, the issue is not that there are no other remedies open to the union, but that there is a seeming incapacity to influence the other party to carry out its obligations, so the only supposed means that can yield any effect is to carry out a strike action – putting a halt to public university education.
Government should not lose sight of the purpose for which it entered into these agreements in the first place. It has a duty first, to provide opportunities for education. When the government as an employer of labour fails to pay its employees, it fails in its duty to its citizens, in this instance, to ensure that they get an education and take their place in contributing their quota for a sustainable economy.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
