In 2017, the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) signed a Memorandum of Action that was meant to end a prolonged strike and restore stability to the country’s public university system. Examination of the MOA establishes familiar calls from the Union, demanding better funding, fair compensation, and institutional autonomy. The response was a partial concessions and promises of reform. Analysis further reveals series of lesson about how complex problems are resolved in Nigeria through a patchwork of negotiations, compromises, and shared responsibilities.
At the heart of the crisis was a breakdown of trust. ASUU had long argued that the government had failed to honour previous agreements, particularly around revitalizing university infrastructure and paying earned academic allowances. The union resorted to strike action, not just as a bargaining tool, but as a way to force public attention on what it saw as systemic neglect. The government, facing mounting pressure, responded with a mix of financial releases, committee formations, and policy adjustments.
One of the most main features of the agreement was how many different actors were involved. Beyond ASUU and the federal government, the resolution process drew in the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Finance, the Office of the Accountant General, the Central Bank, the National Salaries Commission, and even the Nigeria Labour Congress. Each played a role, whether it was releasing funds, issuing circulars, coordinating audits, or offering moral support. This wide cast of players reflects the reality that no single institution can fix a broken system alone. It takes collaboration, even if that collaboration is messy and slow.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026): big discounts for early bird.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab: From Technical Design to Deployment (next edition begins Jan 24 2026).
The government’s actions were largely reactive. It released N20 billion for university revitalization, disbursed N23 billion for earned allowances, and promised to include future payments in the national budget. It also agreed to fast-track the registration of NUPEMCO, a pension fund tailored for university staff, and to address salary shortfalls that had plagued many institutions. These were important steps, but they were also stop-gap measures. They addressed immediate concerns without necessarily solving the deeper structural issues that caused the crisis in the first place.
ASUU, for its part, showed strategic discipline. It submitted nominees for committees, provided documentation for audits, and engaged in multiple rounds of negotiation. But it also held firm on its core demands, refusing to call off the strike until concrete actions were taken. This balance of pressure and participation helped move the needle, even if only slightly.
What the agreement ultimately reveals is a system that responds best under pressure. The strike created urgency, and that urgency forced institutions to act. But it also exposed how fragile the resolution process can be. Many of the promises made in the agreement were conditional or delayed. For example, the forensic audit of earned allowances was to be completed before further disbursements could be made. A committee was formed to explore sustainable funding, but its recommendations were not immediately binding. A memo was promised to the National Economic Council to address the proliferation of state universities, but it remained a future task.
This kind of incrementalism is not necessarily a failure. In a country as complex as Nigeria, where resources are limited and institutions often operate in silos, progress often comes in stages. What matters is whether those stages build towards lasting change. The 2017 agreement laid a foundation, but it did not finish the house. It showed that dialogue is possible, that compromise can be reached, and that multiple actors can work together when the stakes are high.
Our analyst notes that resolving crises in the education sector requires more than emergency funding or political promises. It demands a coordinated approach that brings together all relevant institutions, listens to the concerns of stakeholders, and follows through on commitments. For unions, the takeaway is that persistence pays off, but it must be matched with constructive engagement.
Our analyst stresses that the FGN-ASUU agreement is not just a document. It is a mirror reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of Nigeria’s approach to public policy. It shows that while the road to reform is long and uneven, it is not impassable. With the right mix of pressure, participation, and accountability, even the most entrenched problems can begin to shift.
