The 2019 Memorandum of Action (MoA) between the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN) and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) was a pivotal document aimed at resolving a long-standing impasse in Nigeria’s higher education sector. Signed in February 2019 after a three-month strike, the agreement attempted to address the union’s grievances through financial commitments, administrative reforms, and renewed dialogue. While it succeeded in temporarily restoring industrial harmony, our analysis reveals both commendable strengths and critical weaknesses that continue to shape the trajectory of university education in Nigeria.

A Structured Response to Immediate Grievances

One of the most notable strengths of the 2019 MoA lies in its structured approach to resolving ASUU’s core demands. The agreement identifies nine key areas of concern, ranging from revitalization funding and earned academic allowances to issues of university governance and renegotiation of the 2009 agreement. This clarity of focus demonstrates a deliberate effort to engage with the union’s longstanding complaints in a comprehensive manner.

The financial commitments outlined in the agreement are particularly significant. The government pledged N25 billion for the revitalization of public universities and another N25 billion for earned allowances. Although these figures fell short of ASUU’s expectations, they signaled a willingness to invest in the sector and acknowledge the legitimacy of the union’s demands. Additionally, the MoA recognized ASUU’s autonomy in selecting its representatives and emphasized principles of equality in collective bargaining, reinforcing the union’s role as a credible stakeholder in education policy.

The inclusion of timelines for implementation added a layer of accountability. Specific dates were provided for disbursements, committee reports, and renegotiation processes. This time-bound structure was intended to prevent the delays and ambiguities that had plagued previous agreements. In theory, it offered a roadmap for restoring trust and ensuring that commitments would be honored.

Underlying Assumptions and Structural Gaps

Despite its strengths, the 2019 MoA was fundamentally limited by the way it framed the problem. The agreement treated the crisis in Nigeria’s university system as a matter of unmet financial and administrative obligations. This narrow representation overlooked deeper structural issues such as poor research output, outdated curricula, and the lack of a sustainable funding model for higher education.

The assumption that financial disbursements alone could resolve systemic challenges was overly simplistic. While money is essential, it cannot substitute for visionary policy reform. The MoA also assumed that setting timelines would automatically lead to compliance, yet it failed to include enforcement mechanisms or penalties for non-implementation. This omission weakened the document’s credibility and left room for future breaches.

Another significant gap was the treatment of state universities. The agreement proposed a consultative committee to engage with state governments, but it did not outline how its recommendations would be enforced. Given the autonomy of state institutions and the uneven commitment of state governments to education funding, this aspect of the MoA lacked the necessary teeth to drive meaningful change.

Additionally, the agreement repeated many promises from earlier agreements, particularly those related to visitation panels and renegotiation timelines. This repetition raised concerns about the government’s sincerity and the likelihood of follow-through. Without a mechanism to monitor progress or hold parties accountable, the MoA risked becoming yet another symbolic gesture rather than a transformative tool.

Implications for Policy and Practice

The 2019 MoA reflects a pattern of reactive policymaking in Nigeria’s education sector. Rather than addressing the root causes of industrial unrest, the government has often resorted to short-term fixes aimed at ending strikes. This approach has created a cycle of disruption, negotiation, and temporary resolution, with little attention paid to long-term reform.

The absence of student-centered considerations in the agreement is particularly troubling. Repeated strikes have devastating effects on students’ academic progression, mental health, and future prospects. Yet the MoA is silent on how to mitigate these impacts or involve students in shaping the future of university education.

The agreement also fails to engage with broader questions of global competitiveness, innovation, and research excellence. In an era where universities are expected to drive economic growth and social development, Nigeria’s higher education policy must evolve beyond transactional agreements and embrace a strategic vision.

Toward a More Sustainable Future

To move forward, future agreements between FGN and ASUU must be anchored in a holistic understanding of the challenges facing Nigerian universities. This includes not only financial commitments but also structural reforms, accountability mechanisms, and inclusive policymaking. Stakeholders must prioritize long-term planning over crisis management and ensure that agreements are backed by legal and institutional frameworks that guarantee implementation.

The 2019 MoA was a necessary step in restoring industrial harmony, but it was not sufficient to transform the higher education landscape. Its strengths lay in its responsiveness and structure, while its weaknesses stemmed from limited scope and lack of enforcement. Our analyst notes that as Nigeria continues to grapple with the complexities of university governance, the lessons from this agreement must inform a more ambitious and sustainable path forward.