The Office of the Accountant General of the Federation (OAGF) has confirmed the shutdown of the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPIS) for Federal Tertiary Institutions (FTIs), marking a significant policy reversal that addresses the friction in Nigeria’s higher education payroll management.
The move follows the federal government’s directive to pull FTIs off the IPPIS platform, which has been a longstanding source of tension between the government and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU).
The recent move to the GIFMIS platform for payroll processing is designed to create a more flexible payroll system that could potentially ease tensions with academic unions. November salaries for FTIs are set to be processed through GIFMIS, with institutions required to submit payroll data in Excel format for verification and validation.
Addressing these changes, Bawa Mokwa, Director of Press and Public Relations at the OAGF, noted, “It was only natural for the IPPIS platform for FTIs to be shut down, given the federal government’s directive to remove these institutions from the system.”
Additionally, amid speculations that financial institutions might require salary account updates, the OAGF clarified that no such directive has been issued. He noted that any change in salary accounts is a personal decision by the individual worker and that the IPPIS office has not mandated any such changes’ reassuring employees that payroll systems remain stable and that any changes are voluntary.
In urging financial institutions to maintain smooth operations, the OAGF highlighted its confidence in the regulatory agencies overseeing banks to ensure robust management of accounts holding workers’ salaries. Employees seeking to change salary accounts have been advised to follow official channels to avoid payroll disruptions.
The Story Background
The IPPIS system, designed to streamline payroll across federal agencies, initially sparked a heated standoff between ASUU and the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari.
Introduced under the OAGF in 2007, the IPPIS aimed to centralize payroll, eliminate ghost workers, ensure tax compliance, and cut down on potential fraud. The policy’s objectives were straightforward, but its extension to universities in 2019 led to a significant backlash. The ASUU saw the move as a violation of university autonomy and feared that IPPIS could compromise their institutional independence, especially in personnel management.
However, this concern was met with resistance from the government, which enforced a strict mandate: any university employee not enrolled in IPPIS would not receive a salary.
ASUU’s stance escalated into a full-blown crisis in Nigeria’s tertiary education system. In protest, ASUU embarked on a series of protracted strikes, demanding the removal of universities from IPPIS to protect what they saw as their right to operate independently. Over time, these strikes disrupted academic calendars, forcing many students to delay their studies and, in some cases, pushing entire cohorts behind in their education timelines. For the students caught in the middle, the standoff proved a profound setback, with many left frustrated and anxious over their future prospects.
The federal government’s refusal to back down under Buhari intensified the crisis. ASUU’s demands, which included both salary restructuring and the exclusion of universities from the IPPIS platform, were met with firm resistance. The administration argued that IPPIS was crucial to curbing payroll fraud and enforcing financial accountability across the federal payroll system, insisting that no exceptions could be made.
Today, as the government shifts FTIs away from IPPIS and onto the Government Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS), many regret the approach of the past administration, seeing it as a costly misstep that severely affected students, who were caught in the crossfire of the power struggle between ASUU and the government. For students, these disruptions were more than just interruptions to learning—they led to extended programs, increased financial burden, and hindered future opportunities.
The public’s sentiment reflects disappointment over the lost time and missed opportunities, especially for students who spent a considerable portion of their academic careers enduring repeated strikes. In retrospect, many education stakeholders, students, and parents now question whether a more flexible stance could have prevented the educational setbacks experienced during that period.
