Trust on ASUU

Trust on ASUU: Going against the Grain of Truth

Maikudi Abubakar Zukogi

The old saw says ‘’Let the sleeping dog lie.’’

Still, when there is much at stake it is better to get

a newspaper to do it.

Mark Twain, Following the Equator.

When you know someone so very well because of your close association with him over a long period of time, and can tell with some measure of precision what he is capable of doing, considering the state of his mind, the strength of his logic and reasoning, and the passion with which he drives his convictions, you will be quick to dare anyone who speaks ill of him. And if that someone happens to be DAILY TRUST, you would want to go the extra mile of staking all the intellectual arsenals at your disposal to protect and to shield it from every suspecting attacker. It means in doing so, you are guided by the reciprocal task of protecting the truth, keeping its flame aglow, and not letting it goes out. It also means that, in the last analysis, you share and subscribe to the ideals professed and practised by DAILY TRUST, which is represented by the views of its editorial board, composed inarguably by the most intelligent, vibrant and versatile journalists you can find around. And editorial commentaries, as we are wont to believe, represent not only the product of an intensely debated, well thought-out and articulated position(s), but also the outcome of underlying ideological-cum-philosophical ideals guiding the newspaper.

It is against this background that I find the DAILY TRUST Editorial of Wednesday July 1, 2009 not only a stunningly disturbing reading but also a clear derailment from an entrenched and familiar track. This is particularly so because for some of us, who follow the truth, seek, cultivate and imbibe it, Trust stables have always given us some measure of confidence. Truth is what it stands for and tries hard to demonstrate in its handling and coverage of news and issues which border on all spheres of our national development and beyond. The paper does this, I believe, in its strongest conviction that only truth and nothing else endures, and because it is a heavy burden they have willingly but painfully chosen to bear and to discharge, if only to be different.

The said editorial was quite clearly uncharacteristic of DAILY TRUST, both in tone, temper and character. Compared to other editorials done by the newspaper even as recent as State of Nigerian banks, Udenwa’s unfortunate remarks, The election charade in Ekiti, Nigeria’s Dimming International stature, etc, it is easy to tell that ASUU strike was rash and hasty, totally uncharitable and punctuated by lazy misrepresentations. But for these, I would not have bothered in the least to respond to a write-up on ASUU, or any other issue for that matter, if it is well researched and written, and also well intentioned, and is able to pass the truth metre. I thought that in matters of dispute involving two people, any fair arbiter should listen to both sides before passing judgement. In listening, the arbiter is able to gather sufficient information, including the history of the dispute, to enable him arrive at a supposed judgement. This was not so for ASUU strike; the editorial went head-long into the current strike action without any attempt to foreground how we got to where we are now. And all through, even an uncritical reader can easily fathom the magisterial guilty as charged verdict passed on ASUU.

It is important to tell that before the indefinite strike of June 22, not 24 as reported in the editorial, ASUU went on two weeks warning strike; that it suspended its strike in June 2007, after pleas by government and the general public to give the new administration of President Umaru Yar’adua time to settle down; that President Yar’adua’s promised intervention to personally see to the resolution of impending issues, including the proposed out of court settlement of the protracted Unilorin 49 did not come to pass. Good heavens, the court is beginning to undo the injustice done to them with the last Supreme Court verdict on Unilorin 5. It is equally important to stress that, in deference to the plea by concerned individuals and the public, ASUU subjected itself to the renegotiation ritual with the government team under the chairmanship of Deacon Gamaliel Onosode for two gruelling years, only for the Minister of Education to come public and deny the existence of a renegotiated agreement. It is pertinent also to let the public know that in the last seven months after the renegotiated agreement was concluded and initialled by both the government and ASUU team leaders, ASUU has met with every person who is perceived to be able to influence the government to honour its promise and sign the agreement. ASUU consulted, dialogued and strangely, lobbied the National Assembly, Senators, honourable members of the Education Committee, Ministers of Education and Labour and Frontline traditional rulers, all in an attempt to avert the last possible alternative, which is the strike. How far can a Union go to seek for amicable resolution of an impending crisis! As the ASUU President is wont to say jokingly, the only person they are yet to meet and consult with is the devil; and that they will be ever willing to meet with him/her, if only he/she can influence the government to do the right thing.

Further, it is misleading to say that the agreement asks for 26% budgetary allocation to education. Of course ASUU always makes reference to this UNESCO benchmark and argues for significant improvement from what obtains now (i.e., less than 2%). The underlying impression one gets from the editorial is the attempt to criminalise strikes, especially one embarked upon by the academic staff, because it is always wrongly timed and disrupts academic calendar. As with the quest for alternative to strikes, what time is best, in the event as in this case, that it becomes inevitable? Strike is not criminal; workers have the right to express disapproval, and this includes embarking on strike. The direction of the thrown stone is so very clear: government sets the calendar, protects it and does not disrupt it; only ASUU does so. It is shocking and unbelievable that a newspaper of the size and reputation of DAILY TRUST considers ASUU as a rag-tag union and disagrees with its insistence that more funds be injected into the universities to rehabilitate decaying infrastructures, build new lecture theatres, hostels, equip the laboratories, and to improve the capacity and development of its manpower. If I may ask, what more can a union ask for? After all, even the relative improvement that the universities have enjoyed over the past years is due to the struggles and agitations of ASUU. At least, ETF whether it is truly performing according to its original conception or not, remains the brain-child of ASUU.

The editorial’s attempt to represent ASUU as a selfish union unaffected by the happenings of the larger Nigerian society is clearly in bad taste; so is the attempt to draw an imaginary distinction between what is perceived as old and current ASUU. As a pressure group, ASUU makes its position on national issues known regularly through a dedicated title State of the Nation. It has not got the power to enforce its views; it can only advice and it does this regularly in its press conferences and advertorials in major newspapers, including DAILY TRUST. And serious governments, all over the world, listens to advice from the people, especially organised groups. As for the distinction between old and current ASUU, this exists only in the imagination of the newspaper, and is meant to excite nonexistent sentiment. ASUU has never deviated from its original philosophy. The newspaper considers ASUU as a rag-tag union, and races to express fangled feelings of nostalgia for old ASUU. This is ambiguous!

Nothing can be further from the truth to say that ASUU goes on strike only to press for salary increase. Any wonder why the newspaper went about town with that sensational headline ‘’ASUU wins 3, one to go’’ the following morning of July 2^nd, after this treacherous editorial. The Minister of Information came on air to give the weekly dose of rhetoric, and presto, Trust got hooked, or is it rebranded, by the too good to be believed offer. Trust is not helping us and Nigerians to ask the government why it is refusing to accent to the agreement renegotiated between it and ASUU. Why would someone, if I may ask, crack his brain over four purported demands, when only one can do: sign the agreement and commence the process of implementation. These purported demands are no longer demands because they have been taken care of in the renegotiated agreement. Instead, Trust is trying to incite the students against ASUU for its insistence that government must do the right thing by properly funding education, improving teaching and learning conditions of our universities. Remember ASUU has been fighting against the NUC Document on alternative funding for Federal Universities of 2001, which sets time-table for gradual reduction of funding up to 2006, by which time every student desiring university education must be ready to cough $1000 as tuition fee. Are we not there now? And even in the face of these gripping realities crippling the education sector, the National Assembly was magnanimous enough to chop off substantial fund from the education budget as virement to a more critical area: the road leading to and from Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport. Trust still owes its teeming readers an editorial on this.

As for publication and promotion, I cannot but concur with this. This is the result of contradictions thrown up by bureaucracy and corruption, to which the universities are not immune. As a matter of fact, I would be content with being a Graduate Assistant than a Senior Lecturer who cannot stand up to the name. In fact, ASUU as a body does not support mediocrity, and thus encourage members to distinguish themselves in their disciplines. ASUU is very particular about discipline and ethics, and members know what penalties are there when they fall short of the law. In the same manner, ASUU always protect its members through legitimate means in clear cases of injustice and persecution. In the end, I trust that Trust will consider this piece not as a slight but as a constructive criticism from one of its loyal readers. We have a collective responsibility as Nigerians to tell the truth to power and to ourselves.

Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies Bayero University, Kano