THE Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU, may
have withdrawn from the Presidential Committee on the Implementation of the
Committee of Needs Assessment of Nigeria (public) Universities, CNANU, alleging
distortion of the committee’s report.
This action, industry watchers believe will be a blow to the
process of reconciliation and dragging the time to end the strike out of sight
of anticipating students and parents.
This threat was contained in a letter dated August 20 and
signed by the ASUU National President, Isa Fagge, a copy of which was obtained
by DigitalSENSE Campus Pavillion.
In the letter addressed to the chairman of the Presidential
Committee on the Implementation of the CNANU report, Governor Gabriel Suswam of
Benue State, ASUU alleged that they have been on strike for over eight weeks,
alleged a distortion of the report of the Technical Subcommittee of the CNANU
Implementation Committee; and cited a number of examples to support their
claims.
“For our union, the setting up of a committee to implement
the recommendation is a very welcome development. We are, however, alarmed by
recent development in the work of the committee. We find it necessary to make
the observations in order to stop the committee from derailing from its core
mandate and creating even deeper crises in the university system,” Mr. Fagge
said.
Among the issues raised by the lecturers is that of
perceived mismanagement of funds; with the union saying, “Expending N50billion
to construct 35,000 bed space hostels across 25 universities will be
ridiculously scandalous since the same amount can be used to construct 125,000
bed space hostels across 51 universities.”
The lecturers, who have vowed not to resume work until the
government implements a 2009 agreement it had with the union, said they would
“be unable to continue in the membership of the Committee until the issues
raised are properly addressed.”
Text of ASUU’s letter obtained read in part thus:
The Chairman
Presidential Committee on the Implementation of the CNANU
Report
Dear Sir,
DISTORTION OF THE REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE OF
CNANU IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
Recall that the Committee of Needs Assessment of Nigerian
(Public)Universities, CNANU, was set up by Government as a result of the
dispute between Government and ASUU in respect of the funding requirements
needed to arrest the rot and reverse the decay in the Nigerian University
System. Recall also that the Committee submitted its report to Federal
Executive Council, FEC and National Economic Council, NEC and a Technical
Committee was set up by NEC to draw up the action-plan to guide government in
implementing the recommendations of the Report. Recall also that the Technical
Committee had submitted its report to NEC, which was approved and sent to FEC.
Recall also that FEC had approved the report and the President had also
approved the memo sent to him in respect of the Report of the Technical
Committee.
For our Union, the setting up of a committee to implement
the recommendations is a very welcome development. We are however alarmed by
recent developments in the work of the Committee. We therefore wish to make the
following observations with regards to the workings of the Committee. We find
it necessary to make the observations in order to stop the Committee from
derailing from its core mandate and creating even deeper crises in the
University System.
ESTABLISHMENT OF OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
1. We are worried that the Committee is yet to start working
on the Technical Report of the NEC Committee that was approved by the NEC and
FEC. We believe that the approved report together with the Main Report and the
Individual University Report should form the basis of what the Committee will
be doing.
2. We are concerned that the Committee, four weeks after its
inauguration, is yet to come up with a roadmap for implementation of the CNANU
Report. We are worried that there is no plan on the ground on what to do with
the other numerous recommendations besides the ones that the Committee had
chosen to commence with.
3. While we believe that the committee must start from
somewhere, a general plan of action is necessary for the success of the
committee.
SOURCE(S) OF THE FUND
4. Our Union is very apprehensive of the manner in which the
sources of the initial N100billion to be used for the stimulation of the
process are shrouded in secrecy. We believe that monies that already belong to
the university system should not be blocked and recycled. This will not only be
counterproductive but will brew even deeper crises in the system. ASUU will not
accept this.
QUANTUM OF THE FUND
5. We observe that the Committee is so far mentioning only
N100billion. If the implementation is to be related to the funding requirements
in the 2009 ASUU/FGN Agreement and the Jan 2012 MoU, what is due for 2012 and
2013 is N500billion not N100billion. Only the provision of this sum will meet
the immediate needs of the universities.
DISBURSEMENT
6. We are also concerned that a clear procedure or process
for assessing the funds by the universities is yet to be defined. This concern
is even more germane given the statement of the Chairman of the Committee
(during the last meeting on Monday 19th Aug. 2013) that the Committee is taking
some documents to the Due Process Office. We hasten to add that while due
process must be followed, it is the sole responsibility of benefitting
universities to respect all the provisions of the Procurement Act. The meaning
of your Committee going to the Due Process Office is that it is the one that
will be responsible for awarding contracts.
We want to make it clear that this will never be acceptable
to our Union. We believe that monies meant to fund projects in Universities
should be sent to the Universities just as it is the practice with TETFund,
Capital appropriation, etc.
MUTILATION OF THE DISBURSEMENT OF THE FIRST TRANCHE
6. We are also deeply concerned about the rationale of
mutilating the report of the technical subcommittee of your Committee by the
Secretariat. For instance the entire structure of allocation to universities as
well as to projects has been grossly distorted without any clear justification.
The index of enrolment used to classify the universities has been set aside.
The number of benefiting universities has also been changed without
justification. ASUU will not accept this.
7. We are worried that instead of allocating N1.2billion
each to construct 3,000 bed space hostels to the 10 Category1 universities,
N1.0billion for 2,500 bed space hostel to the 16 Category2 universities,
N500million to construct 1,250 bed space hostels in the 12 Category3
universities and N250million each to construct 625 bed space hostels in the 13
category4 universities, the Secretariat has changed that to constructing 1,400
bedspace hostels in 25 universities at the cost of N2b each. We see no
rationale in this. Expending N50billion to construct 35,000 bedspace hostels
across 25 universities will be ridiculously scandalous since the same amount
can be used to construct 125,000 bedspace hostels across 51 universities. The
standard cost of building a bed space ranges from N200,000.00 to a maximum of
N400,000.00. This is even more worrisome given the tangential suggestions made
by the Chairman that only monies for refurbishment will be sent to universities
while the rest will be handled centrally.
EXCLUSION OF SOME UNIVERSITIES
8. We are concerned that 22 universities are excluded from
the allocation for refurbishment of laboratories and libraries and 3
universities from the allocation for refurbishment of lecture theatres and
lecture rooms. 24 universities are denied allocation for construction of
libraries and laboratories while 2 are denied allocation for construction of
new lecture theatres and lecture rooms. 26 universities are denied allocation
for construction of hostel. This is in spite of the identified needs in the
individual university report and the approved criterion that made them eligible
to draw. More worrisome is the fact that the allocation to other universities
does not seem to be in agreement with the approved enrolment criteria.
OMNIBUS PROJECT ADMINISTRATION COST
9. We have also noted, albeit quizzically, that some N1.975
billion was allocated to the ‘62nd university’ called ‘Project Admin Cost’.
This makes no meaning to our Union. The Committee is not supposed to administer
any project. It is supposed to distribute funds that will finance projects to
universities. We see no justification for allocating an amount more than what
is allocated to 4 universities put together, to a bogus ‘Project Admin Cost’.
The N100b meant for universities as first tranche should go to universities in
toto. No pinching, no pilfering.
In view of the forgoing, ASUU will be unable to continue in
the membership of the Committee until the issues raised are properly addressed.
Thank you.
Yours in Struggle,
Dr.Nasir Isa Fagge
President
*Mary Onyeure with additional report from Premium Times
... Making SENSE of digital revolution!
No comments:
Post a Comment