drtayooke@gmail.com
The Tertiary Education Trust Fund, TETFUND Act 2011, was enacted with a board “charged with responsibility for imposing, managing and disbursing The Education Tax to public tertiary education institutions in Nigeria; and for related matters”. It was originally set up as the Education Trust Fund in the 1990s to plug the funding gap in higher education. Nigeria was then under military rule, and in constant battle with the union clamouring for better infrastructure for universities amidst dwindling resources. Public education is funded, or should we say, subsidised by government to minimise cost to students, especially those from poor backgrounds. It is equally true that Nigerian universities have been starved of funds by successive governments, as a result of which standards have fallen in those institutions. So, the idea of imposing a two per cent tax on registered (private) companies in Nigeria to go directly to tertiary institutions to help in research and innovation, was a stroke of genius. It has become a guaranteed stream of income for tertiary education, untouched and untainted by politics. It is a win-win situation for everyone, really. The companies subjected to the levy are fulfilling their corporate social responsibility in substance, at the same time, the recipient institutions are producing future highly trained personnel moving on to work in the private sector. This inevitably adds to the overall wealth of the nation. It is apple pie and motherhood stuff. How could anyone possibly be against?
Well, it is shocking and mindboggling to see that the lofty ideal of the Fund is being betrayed by powerful vested interests who, quite frankly, ought to know better. It is being argued vehemently that private institutions should be excluded from the scheme on the grounds that they are “profit making”, according to the Chairman of the Board of TETFUND, Alhaji Kasshim Ibrahim-Imam. One would expect the leader of such an important body to weigh his utterances rather carefully since there is not a single “profit-making” private university in this country. Apart from it being expressly forbidden by law, no one in their right mind, (seeking to make profit), would choose to invest in education. Private institutions are granted charitable status precisely for this reason. Unlike private companies, there is no such thing as “net profits” accruing to proprietors of private universities. It follows, therefore, that one needs a higher level of consciousness to put well-earned resources into education; it is a noble cause. Ibrahim-Imam is also credited with the statement: “We are not competing with the private institutions, we are competing against them…the mandate of the Fund is to get our public universities to surpass the level of the private institutions”. This is a tacit admission that the private institutions are doing something worthy of emulation; they are driving standards in education. On the whole, private institutions do not see themselves in competition with public institutions, rather, they see themselves as complementing them.
It is also further argued that since the overall intake of students in private institutions is no more than five per cent of the total Nigerian students’ population, TETFUND should not be extended to them. This is a rather specious argument for, if the five per cent is making the greatest impact locally and internationally, then, that particular rationale falls. Public universities have come under criticism for graduating illiterates of late. While this may appear a sweeping statement, the university union itself has attested to its substance several times, so too are the taxpaying employers in private companies, who are frustrated by the poor quality of graduates from Nigeria’s public universities. Given the choice, employers would rather their contributions went to more competent graduates from private institutions, but that is by the way side. Both the Board of TETFUND and the Academic Staff Union of Universities have been parochial in their defence of the wording of the enabling Act, which they say only refers to “public, tertiary education institutions”. This has given them the licence to become territorial and strident in their argument against the inclusion of private universities. The 2011 Act is a by-product of the 1990s’ struggle for the survival of higher education in this country. Private institutions were in their formative stages at the time. It was not envisaged that demand for them would become as overwhelming as it has become lately. It stands to reason, therefore, that what exists today did not exist yesterday, when the Act came into being. If the Act were to be put before the National Assembly today, argument for excluding privately-funded universities would not hold water on the grounds of equal treatment alone. After all, employees of the companies paying the levy have family members attending both private and public universities.
Consequently, there is no justifiable reason for not amending the Act. After all, vehicle licence only used to apply to vehicles with motor-able engines until it was thought fit to include motorbikes as well. Voting rights used to be limited to men with property, until it was thought fit to extend that to all men, then, to women, and all others. Right to life used to be restricted to living humans, until it was thought fit to extend the same to the unborn. What this is saying is that law does not stand still, as it is a living thing. It evolves with society. The higher education mind-set of the 1990s cannot, and should not be superimposed on today’s basic needs and requirements. Private institutions should not be made to suffer a disadvantage simply for being initiated by private individuals who are, in the main, guided by altruism. Perhaps, the most important point in all this is that expanding the scope of TETFUND would not put public institutions at a disadvantage. On the contrary, it would make them more competitive, and the Fund more equitable. It would not confer special advantage on private institutions either, since they are fewer in numbers and in population.
The popular assumption that private institutions are awash with cash, and serves only the rich is a myth. Many such institutions have opened only to close again under the strain of finance. Many have had to streamline their departments in order to remain solvent. A lot of parents strain every sinew in their body to send their children to those institutions. Many private institutions indeed struggle to stay afloat due to either late or non-payment of fees by their supposedly ‘rich’ sponsors. Many parents and sponsors are, by necessity, given maximum flexibility to stretch payments over a long period. Above all, with the growing population of young people desirous of university education unable to gain admission into public universities, emergence of private universities is surely a relief. By all means, let us have a grown up debate about TETFUND and its remit, but also let us base such a discussion on facts, and not Ibrahim-Imam and his board’s apparent aversion to private institutions. For me, based on all rational analysis, argument for the inclusion of ALL tertiary institutions is unimpeachable.
