NASU, CONUA, NAPTAN to FG: You can’t scrap ‘irrelevant

Nigeria's major academic unions have launched a coordinated pushback against the federal government's controversial proposal to eliminate university courses deemed economically "irrelevant," escalating tensions over the future direction of tertiary education in Africa's largest economy.

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NASU), Congress of University Academics (CONUA), and National Association of Nigerian Travel Agents (NAPTAN) collectively rejected the government's curriculum rationalization initiative, arguing that the selective course culling threatens academic freedom and ignores the multidisciplinary foundation of knowledge economies.

## Why Is the Government Pushing Course Elimination Now?

The federal government's decision reflects growing pressure to align Nigerian universities with immediate labor market demands and reduce fiscal burden on tertiary institutions. Officials argue that low-enrollment humanities and social science programs drain resources without producing graduates for priority sectors like technology, engineering, and finance. This aligns with broader African education trends—Kenya, Ghana, and South Africa have pursued similar curriculum reforms—but Nigeria's approach lacks the stakeholder consensus those nations developed first.

## What Courses Are at Risk?

While the government has not published an explicit blacklist, academic bodies interpret "irrelevant" to target philosophy, classical languages, cultural studies, and certain liberal arts disciplines. The vagueness itself troubles educators: without transparent criteria, institutions fear arbitrary decisions that could eliminate programs with genuine research value or niche but essential expertise.

## How Does This Affect Nigeria's Investment Landscape?

The dispute signals instability in Nigeria's human capital pipeline. International investors—especially in fintech, manufacturing, and energy—depend on universities to supply specialized talent. A disruptive course elimination campaign risks creating skill gaps and deterring diaspora professionals from returning to work in Nigerian institutions. Additionally, world university rankings penalize institutions that restrict academic scope; if Nigerian universities lose accreditation standing, graduates face reduced international mobility.

The government also risks labor unrest. NASU, CONUA, and NAPTAN control strike capacity; escalating this conflict could trigger campus shutdowns, already a recurring feature of Nigeria's education calendar, further damaging investor perception of institutional stability.

## What's the Broader Context?

Nigeria's universities already face chronic underfunding, decaying infrastructure, and brain drain. Rather than strategically *enhance* priority programs, the government is attempting to *reduce* options—a zero-sum approach that mirrors short-term budget thinking. Competing economies like Rwanda and Kenya have instead invested in dual-track systems: maintaining liberal education while expanding vocational and applied programs.

The academic unions' resistance also reflects legitimate concerns about neocolonial dependency. Prescribing curricula around immediate economic output mimics the extractive logic foreign investors historically imposed on African education. Building resilient, innovative economies requires breadth—humanities graduates become policy analysts, innovators, and civic leaders.

**The path forward requires stakeholder dialogue.** The government, unions, employers, and students must collaboratively map which programs genuinely lack demand, which can be restructured, and which deserve investment. Unilateral course elimination without this consensus will deepen the trust deficit between government and academia—precisely when Nigerian universities need unity to compete globally.