By Ihechukwu Madubuike
In August 2025, the Tinubu administration imposed a seven-year moratorium on creating new federal universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education, and six years for private ones. In 1979, before it left office, the Obasanjo administration had imposed a similar moratorium on the establishment of universities and higher institutions in Nigeria. There were only thirteen universities in Nigeria then, following the establishment of seven new universities and polytechnics in the country. Yet there was a gap. Six states, including the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, had no universities or any higher institution for that matter. The private sector was also not allowed to participate in higher education projects.
In 2025 alone, 33 new universities were approved by the present administration, not necessarily because of proven needs, but because of political pressures. Universities should not be established simply because of political or party affiliations. They should be established because of the felt need for accelerated human capital and sustainable development. Political institutions are established to win elections or as constituency projects for legislators, who usually appoint the contractors.
There are, without a doubt, avoidable gaps in the present policy directives in education, and they need to be addressed seriously before more harm is done to the country’s overall health.
All developed countries in the world give premium to education—primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Typical examples are the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Canada, India, South Korea, Japan, China, the Netherlands, Singapore—you name them. In the USA, 14% of total government spending goes to education. In Canada, 12–13% of the budget goes to education. In Brazil, about 16–18% of the budget goes to education. In 2024, the federal education budget was N2.18 trillion, or 7.9% of the budget, but the actual amount spent is imprecise. In 2025, the federal budget was higher, but education got less, its share shrinking to 7.3% because of a policy choice that prioritized other sectors over education.
In Nigeria, the absolute budget for education remains imprecise because of the incongruous manner in which one budget year dovetails into another and seems to be running together. This distorts budget execution and blurs clarity. Prioritization should determine education budgeting. National interest, sovereignty ideals, global standards, benchmarks, self-comprehension, and pride matter. They should determine where education sits on the priority list.
It is also correct to assert that a country’s wealth should not necessarily dictate the amount it allocates to education. A stronger logic should impel a robust policy thrust on education financing. Examples abound of middle- or lower-income countries that budget more for education than richer countries for good reasons, including the need to catch up. Lagging behind is not a priority; catching up and excelling is a positive culture.
Middle- to lower-income countries that prioritize education include South Africa, Costa Rica, and the Solomon Islands, to mention but a few. They exceed the UNESCO recommendation of above 20% allocation to education, far above the 5–6% budget that is almost constant in Nigeria. South Africa, our competitor on the African continent, for example, budgets about 6.5% of GDP of an economy of $380 billion on education. Contrast this with Nigeria’s 5.4% of a $400 billion economy. (It is only recently, however, that South Africa’s economy slipped above Nigeria’s nominal GDP, at $426 billion to Nigeria’s $285 billion.) This is due mainly to Nigeria’s reliance on a mono-economy that is constantly fluctuating because of changing global demands.
Nigeria’s education ecosystem, just like Nigeria itself, therefore needs an immediate reset. This reset is not the function of the Federal Government alone. It should include the private sector, tracking multinational organizations that influence education outcomes. We did this when I was the country’s Minister of Education in 1980, when I identified similar challenges in the system.
When, in 1979, I was appointed Minister of Education (Cabinet rank) by Alhaji Shehu Shagari, I was on familiar turf. Education was the main subject I studied—its history, foundation, and philosophy. All the higher institutions I attended abroad were either privately owned or state-owned. The education landscape wasn’t quite the same in immediate post-war Nigeria. The country had just transitioned from a military junta administration—which had a narrow view of education—to a nascent democracy that had to adjust to a new experiment in presidentialism, the novel model of governance chosen by a war-weary nation following the experience of the United States of America. It provided, to a fertile mind, an opportunity to chart a new course in favour of a populist and qualitative education.
There were nineteen states in the country at that time, and six had no university. There was also none in Abuja, the Federal Capital. We set up the Professors Ojo and Afigbo Committee on the Open University of Nigeria in May 1980 to increase access to education. A draft bill for its enactment into law was sent to the then National Assembly in January 1981. Council had approved the establishment of seven new universities of science and technology, located in states without universities. Three vice-chancellors were appointed for the universities at Imo, Gongola, and Benue—namely Professors Umaru Gomwalk, Ethelbert Chukwu, and Gaius Igboeli, respectively—for the immediate take-off of the first three of the approved seven universities. Others would follow in due course.
And you might wish to know why these innovative approaches to education. Here are the reasons that compelled the reset:
Anticipating the future: The regime we succeeded had initiated the Universal Primary Education Scheme, which envisaged increased enrolment of pupils of school age into all levels of education. This would obviously have implications for the tertiary level. Adequate arrangements had to be made for these future entrants.
Equity and social inclusion: Seven of the 19 states (including the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja) had no universities to absorb the teeming number of qualified students seeking admission. Mission-oriented universities, as envisaged, would increase student enrolment, reduce the syndrome of out-of-school children due to restricted slot allocations, and enhance opportunities. Universities do not only respond to national and international interests and objectives; they also respond to specific local challenges. Equity, through reasonable geographical spread of opportunities, addresses these local concerns while not ignoring freedom-centred perspectives through adaptations.
The need for curriculum reform: The introduction of specialist universities would also impel curriculum reforms and the expansion of areas of knowledge. The reforms would encourage skill acquisition and address the issue of nurturing students’ innate endowments and capabilities, with beneficial effects on the larger society.
The democracy perspective: These reforms revealed a progressive mindset of restoring political and civil rights through the agency of education, especially in a heterogeneous society with different capabilities and motivations. The reforms took into cognisance the fact that the war and thirteen years of military dictatorship created destitution across the country, with serious implications for the future.
Individual participation in social engineering was therefore central to restoring these rights. Indeed, education cannot thrive where there is no democracy—the agency to promote and protect individual civil rights and powers. As rational beings, individuals have a responsibility to chart remedial courses to alleviate societal problems. The administration created opportunities for many to respond to that challenge, notwithstanding the difficulties.
The gestation of privately owned universities in Nigeria suffered setbacks. It was not a cakewalk, but it happened—our dreams have, happily, become realities. The overthrow of the Shehu Shagari government and the regression to anti-democratic tendencies by the successor regime were factors. But resilience sustains good policies. We should let them be, with proper regulations and appropriate charters. In the USA, private institutions outnumber public ones by a wide margin. According to Meta AI, “89% of Brazil’s 2,666 higher-education institutions are private, and 47% of private ones aim to make profit.”
Following our innovations in 1980 under President Shehu Shagari, universities and higher institutions flourished in a free and democratic environment. Presently, Nigeria boasts 278 universities, private and public. A comparison with countries of similar population is instructive. While Brazil, with nearly the same population as Nigeria, has 1,264 universities, Pakistan, with a population of about 241 million, has 359 universities. Bangladesh is not too far behind, with about 160–166 universities. These are not merely brick-and-mortar institutions; they are full-capacity institutions, and many Nigerian students study there.
It is therefore counterintuitive that qualified Nigerian youths cannot secure admission into Nigerian universities. In 2024, about 1.9 million candidates sat for the UTME. A little over 600,000 secured admission, leaving about 1.3 million without slots. That means over 68% of candidates were not admitted into any of the 278 universities.
The mathematics is painful. It places students in double jeopardy—not of their own making, but due to systemic failure. They sit for difficult examinations, competing for limited spaces. Many are rejected not because they are unintelligent, but because of quota restrictions. The issue is not lack of qualification but lack of preparedness to meet demand. While students are rejected at home, many gain admission abroad with financial aid and excel. The problem, therefore, is not quality control but planning failure.
A policy of admission closure is not an option. It reduces capacity and intensifies pressure, pushing students to less preferred alternatives. Government must not encourage illiteracy; its role is to widen access, not restrict it.
It is largely a problem of poor policy choices and hasty decisions that excluded stakeholders. Parents have opinions too, and dissenting voices should not be treated as enemies of the state. Nigeria’s universities should not be underutilized while students seek education abroad, fuelling capital flight and social challenges. History does not forget, and neither does mathematics: 1.3 million students denied admission will not forget their plight. The state must reset and act decisively.
The Way Forward
Government should review this policy and realign admission frameworks. It should upgrade existing institutions rather than impose a freeze on new ones. Technical education should be emphasized to match labour market needs. Psychological and market-oriented guidance for students is essential. Degrees without skills no longer guarantee livelihoods.
If existing institutions were adequately equipped and expanded, fewer students would seek education abroad, reducing capital flight. Infrastructure for distance education should be upgraded, and every local government should be integrated into an open university system—a “university without walls.” Night and weekend programmes should also be considered. Distance learning offers low-cost opportunities for workforce development.
Constituency projects in education should be needs-based, not political. It is inefficient to establish a federal polytechnic where a private one already exists offering identical programmes. Policy should enforce complementarity and avoid duplication.
Government should support capacity expansion in critical fields such as IT, security, and engineering, rather than encourage redundant competition. Funding—public or private—should be based on clear criteria: academic excellence, global competitiveness, quality learning environments, and equal opportunity.
Staff recognition should go beyond salaries, including incentives for excellence. My experience lecturing abroad included research grants that enhanced my effectiveness as a teacher. Persistent disputes between academic unions and government must end, as they disrupt learning. Such disruptions were absent in my experience abroad.
Professor Ihechukwu Madubuike, former Minister of Education, wrote from Abia State.
