₦airaland Forum

Uyi Iredia: Your hubby is wrong and since he has proven stubborn about it invite friends or family into the matter. You can start by telling a feiend he respects to advise him on the issue. Also tell him (assuming he speaks Esan fluently) that the baby can learn both languages. He speaks Esan, you speak Yoruba, the child learns English in school. If your hubby is not so available he should still allow you speak to the child that way since ot's better the child is fluent in an indigenous language than none.

These are one of the foolish people that set other peoples houses on fire. You're probably not married and I should not be surprised. "bring friends and family into the matter?!" WHAT MATTER!!! for goodness sake! The man says he doesn't want his son learning yoruba and that is a matter?
Answer these questions and give yourselves some brain please.

1. Baby's state of origin?
2. Baby's LGA?

The answer to the above is who baby is first and foremost. Baby can decide to be kanuri or fulani in the future but for now baby is Esan!
I'm guessing baby will be so proud of mummy when he grows up and finds out that mummy fought for him to the point of breaking up her marriage just so he can speak yoruba.

Biggoozz: @Kendradrops so you discuss your marriage on Nairaland and allow kids insult your husband? Except you already have been insulting the man the way people do here, he can never have respect in your eyes again. Too bad.

He's also probably a nairalander and might come across this seeing as it has made front page! I wonder how I'd feel if it happened to me. Smh for some women sha. "A wise woman builds her house but a foolish one tears it down with her hands" - from the book of proverbs (paraphrased)

De Beauvoir: @bold, Oh please.
Human beings really know how to pretend to get what they want. If theman really wanted to marry the girl, maybe cos she was a virgin or a good cook or a very good looking person then he could have pretended to be an angel just to marry her thus keeping her from knowing his dark side
@ rest of your post; the Bible clearly says that wives should submit to husbands, it doesn't say husbands should submit to wives. I don't know what religion it is you are following that teaches you that men can also submit to their wives.

It's not really pretense per se. The bible says "in the beginning, everyman bring bringeth forth the good wine and when the guests are well drunk that which is not so good". This implies that the first time I meet you and I'm getting to know you, i wont feel free to mess in your presence. frankly i would die of embarrassment but after I marry you I let go (literally) and let God. You'd be extremely naive to think that I dont poop or mess simply because when I was courting you I didn't do any of those things.
@OP There are two decisions one of which you need to make. a.) if you love peace ad treasure your marriage, do as hubby says. He'll get your respect and there'll be peace in the house for baby to grow up in a stable home. b.) If you love fight, dont do as hubby says and you might get divorced or bring up baby in a war zone and the attendant consequences. At this point I'm guessing Esan, Yoruba, English wont matter anymore.
My two kobos worth.

Amefrica: TOEFL/GRE wasn't scrapped because of you. You've got a good command of English Language already..

I can see his grasp of the English language is impeccable ...I'd recommend him for a waiver of both the TOEFL and GRE.

Following recent avalanche of security challenges occasioned by activities of the dreaded Boko Haram sect in the country, the Federal Government has ordered immediate commencement of building of a national integrated data and information infrastructure system.

The system known as the system known as Basic Registry and Information System in Nigeria, BRISIN, is intended to register and capture the imagery of every Nigeria from the 8812 ward level and the 36 states, will apart from curbing insecurity, also provide a solid foundation for planning technological and socio-economic development growth for Nigeria.

Although, the project for BRISIN system, which was slated to take off since 2007, was being delayed due to selfish reasons by few persons at the top echelon in the affairs of the nation.

But in his resolved to tackle the threat of the insecurity and expand business horizon, the present administration of President Goodluck Jonathan has approved the take of the project. The administration, therefore, directed relevant ministries, agencies involved in the project to commence its implementation with immediate effect.

Stakeholders in the project which its pilot scheme is expected to take off any moment from now at Federal Capital Territory, FCT, include the National Planning Commission, National Bureau of Statistics, FCTA and solution provider, Dermo Impex Nig Ltd as well as other Technical partners.

To this end, the House of Representatives Committee on Federal Capital Territory, FCT and National Planning Commission have advised the Minister of Federal Capital Territory, Mallam Bala Mohammed to immediately start the implementation of the project without further delay.

Confirming the development to Vanguard in Abuja, Dr Anthony Uwa, the Managing Director of Dermo Impex Nig. Ltd, the organization contracted to build the Basic Registry and Information System in Nigeria, BRISIN project, explained that the BRISIN system has the capacity to solve numerous of nation’s problems.

Noting the importance of the BRISIN system to national growth and development, Dr. Uwa explained that Nigeria will get it right this time, adding, “we have put all implementation strategies in place and soon the problem of job creation will be a thing of the past.

According to him, “the BRISIN platform will facilitate and guarantee regular and continuous collection of all data and information and integrates same for assessment and management of the population, as well as the economy and utilized by all institutions in the country.

“BRISIN is Basic Registry and Information System in Nigeria, a national integrated data and information infrastructure system, intended to provide a solid foundation for planning technological and socio-economic development growth for Nigeria.

“The BRISIN platform will facilitate and guarantee regular and continuous collection of all data and information and integrates same for assessment and management of the population, as well as the economy and utilized by all institutions in the country. The system is to be built with biometric technology as an integral part.

On why Federal Government approved BRISIN project now, he said, “repositioning Nigeria to meet her dreams of becoming one of the developed nations in the year 2020, the Federal Government believes that an integrated data and information infrastructure must be built to give all data and information agencies the base to have result oriented objective.”

He added the approval at the same time permit development partners and investors participate with accurate, centralized and verifiable source of information for investment decisions in Nigeria. The Basic Registry and Information System in Nigeria, BRISIN, is the foundation on which this objective will be achieved.

“A harmonized and integrated data and information system has for long eluded Nigeria and this has created conflicts and confusion among data and information agencies, making it difficult for security agents, planners and investors to define standards as strategic development system.

“BRISIN creates room for every agency to function better and plan economic and technological development of Nigeria to meet with international practice and follow global trend.

“In BRISIN, the agencies remain their sectoral operators, with the difference that an infrastructure and an integrated platform is built to guarantee easy access and management, ensuring efficiency of access by citizens, information protection, as well as curb any abuse.

BRISIN he explained further “is an integrator and integrated management system with the vision of clarifying the normal process of data gathering, storage and information usage for development purposes. It gives room for verification not only demographic data, but also socio-economic and technological data

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US AS NIGERIANS. ARE WE TOWING THE PATH OF THE USNSA AND COMMENCING SPYING ON OUR CITIZENRY?

Tlolu: Mine too, samsung galaxy tab SGH-1497 IMEI 353488051623676 taoyay@yahoo.com

Mr. T. I just got mine unlocked for $29.99. Took a little over 24hrs to get the code and just like magic...
check it out!
www.unlockcodesource.com
I paid using my paypal account.

xamiel: Making corp members BH hunters!? I don't think that's appropriate.

It just might work...so far it seems the civilian JTF are recording better success than the real JTF.

It has recently come to my attention that Nigerian corp members posted to the restless Borno state will be made to carry-out their one year compulsory national service as members of the Civillian JTF in the state. It will be recalled that the Civillian JTF has been instrumental in identifying and arresting members of the dreaded sect, Boko Haram.
This move is seen by persons in government as a laudable one that will help curb the menace of Boko Haram and bring their reign of terror to an end. Speaking to newsmen during the inauguration of the seven-man committee to oversee the posting of the said corp members, The state coordinator of the NYSC revealed that the plan was aimed at directly boosting the manpower of the civilian JTF, stressing that no sacrifice for your country is too great or too small hence those lucky enough to be posted to the state should see this as a service that will improve nation building.
It is also understood that the corp members will receive a boost in the monthly allowances popularly called 'allowee'. A source close to the DG who pleaded anonymity said the plan was to increase the monthly pay to somewhere in the range of #50,000 as well as other emoluments that will come their way as bonuses whenever they make an arrest.

What's your take on this my friends?!

Source? Tomato and egg sauce!

Can you help unlock this?


thanks a million!

@kanwulia. The point I was raising here is that they were citing intimate (sexual) compatibility as an excuse to engage in it. I'm married and I know that whereas in the beginning I was the crazy one I have since cooled down a lot. I'm sure it's because of the pressures of running/providing/protecting a family but suffice to say I don't need sex three times a day seven days a week anymore. My lovely wife on the other hand, who was extremely shy and conservative has suddenly turned into a tigress in the sack .
If we started out as intimately compatible, what are we now? If we are no longer intimately compatible, what next? Your hot stud who sends you to the end of the galaxy and beyond might develop ED (erectile dysfuction) (Happens to a lot of men midlife. I mean accidents do happen) what next?
There's more to getting/staying married than just sex (I need to start a thread on this) and the sooner we realized this (especially ladies) the better we'll be for it.

deols: who is this one? You can not think it through abi. let me help you.

The child she is pregnant with.Other children she may have had with her husband. How do you think this can affect their lives if they ever seebtheir mother's pictures everywhere.

Do you know what the future holds and against whom this might later work. maybe the man sef.

What if someone offended by this decides to alsovtake revenge on him and reveals his own secrets too?

I really pity that unborn child...I wonder tje life he/she is going to have.

@deols. I think you also didn't think this through. In her husbands defence he can blame it on anger, disappointment, pain, fear, disgrace, heartbreak, etc. because at this point emotions have overcome reason. Lets be honest in our judgments - I mean haven't you been angry before and said/done something you wouldn't have if you'd had/maintained a cooler head?
In the same vein, did the lady consider what she was doing (before she did it) with respect to herself (zero pride) her pregnancy (most women I know protect it with their life), her other kids with her husband (their future), her husbands status in the society (his respect from others).
Did she consider what the future (which has now manifested in the present) bodes for her, him, the other guy, her kids, we nairalanders, the country, the world etc.
Mind you this was when we were in saner climes before she decided it was ok to go ahead and damn the consequences.
Stop calling out the guy and address the real issue. Life is all about causality (cause and effect) we spend all the time addressing the effect which is am entirely wrong approach. Deal with the cause and you'd have no effect(s) to tango with. My two kobos worth!

I picked this from my friends post.

Yesterday evening, I listened to a program hosted by Charles B on Rhythm FM. Three Christian bachelors who were guests in the program were asked, 'what are your opinions on sex before marriage?' Two of them said they do not agree to or support sex before marriage. The other, said he agrees to sex before marriage to ascertain sexual compatible with his partner, and if the lady agrees.

Most of the ladies who called in supported him. It kept me wondering. What is the guarantee that after the sex he will marry her? Is this not part of the reasons why some peoples' marriage 'is not working?'

I agree totally that sex is important in marriage. However, it is important not only to clarify but emphasize that as Christians:
1. Premarital sex or sex before marriage, either in the guise of 'engagement' or 'courting' is wrong-better put SIN (fornication).
2. Sexual compatibility is NOT the only thing that makes a marriage 'tick.'
3. There are MORE important issues of values, where you would live, how you would live, careers, finance, relationships with in-laws, neighbours and friends, to mention but a few, to be considered than 'fireworks' in bed.
4. Sexual compatibility is not achieved by 'tasting' but by understanding, patience and sacrifice (plus time).
5. For a lasting fun filled marriage work towards being more understanding, patient, sacrificial and have the fear of God.


Enjoy God's Best for your life.

chimex38: .

Are your eyes so bad you cant even see what you typed?!

A couple of years ago I used to browse on a Nokia E65, then I switched to E71 then to E72...by this time I noticed that when I looked up from the phone at my surroundings, it took my eyes a while to adjust and for me to see clearly.
Then I got a Dell mini on which I watched at least one movie (1.5 to 2 hours long) every night in the dark. This was because I was lonely in the country I went to and needed the movies to make me sleepy.
On my return, I suddenly realized my eyesight wasn't as good as it used to. A couple of months later, it had deteriorated to the point I had to get glasses. One year later the prescription had to be changed. Now its so bad that I can only see 1 - 1.5 meters in front of me clearly.
I'm less than 35. In Jan. 2012 I drove from Zaria to Edo without glasses.
Could it be too much Internet or just plain old age. Any doctors with explanations and/or is anyone else experiencing something similar?

Symphony007: Addiction to social network is really becoming a problem, especially for teens and it's really dangerous, rather than facebook, teens should face their book.

In my opinion ... that's why it's called FACE BOOK as in FACE ya BOOK!!!

Idrismusty97: Unilorin lives only on there common sense to shine.Lukily the issue of sharing of allowances is handed over to TEFUND.by observing your above comment,If it is in ASUU hand i am sure unilorin will not have a dine from it.Are you trying to say that unilorin dont need any FG fund?,Are they not part of the 64 government tertiary institutions of Nigeria?

I'm privy to some information on the UNILORIN progress... The last time ASUU went on strike and UNILORIN didn't...I'm not so sure on the dates (I think it was during the sacked-49-saga)...A lot of money came to the country specifically for tertiary institutions via the WORLD BANK. As per UNILORIN was the only school that was functioning they got all the money meant for several universities. That kick-started their progress and they have left others miles behind which also supports the theory that more funds will translate to better and more progress. If the money had been split...I can bet my left hand that UNILORIN wouldn't have been where they are today.
Call it providence or sheer luck or whatever you will, I still stand by my conclusions...MONEY MATTERS A LOT!!! Any university in the same situation would have progressed as much or even more.

prof.femi:
Can I ask you: when should we start to *plan* to be industrialized? Even if government injected those funds today, the real impact would not be felt till 10 years (my random estimate). Per my opinion, you're making two mistakes:

1. The context is different now than it was when the US and the others you mentioned came up. We run a *global*, mobile economy now, which means that the NEED created by industrialization elsewhere is felt EVERYWHERE. Otherwise, can you explain why countries such as India and Taiwan are benefiting so much from industrialization primarily in the US

2. That government cannot address the problems of education at all levels simultaeously. Can you please tell me what aspects of primary and secondary schools are so hard (or expensive) to repair that government needs a pass from taking care of the universities to tend to?

Sir, you forgot to mention that improving the pri and sec education sectors actually starts from the university which keeps churning out half-baked teachers for our pri and sec schools (as exposed in the media, they cant spell their names and pass exams they set for their students) who produce unqualified students for the 'bad' universities who graduate worse than their teachers and the vicious cycle continues...I weep for my country Nigeria...
When I uploaded the 2009 agreement I expected a million takers to void or uphold the points raised therein. Can you believe sir that up till this moment, not even one person has commented on that thread (either for or against. 50 views at last count)...this shows several things wrong with our mindsets and which we need to change
1. We don't read
2. We don't really understand what we read, if we do
3. We are not capable of independent thought without recourse to bias and sentiments (one should not wonder why seeing as we all passed through the same school system)
Like a mentioned in a post sometime ago we are not exactly producing the same level of graduates giving the state of things. There is such a thing as diminishing returns. for instance My MSc and PhD supervisor was taught by a Prof. that used and NMR machine (A very fancy machine that helps chemists 'see' atoms ). At last count we have/had only in the country at Great Ife. It was managed and operated by a Prof. who should be making himself more useful churning out graduate students rather than sit on a machine day in day out. Anyways, My supervisor was taught from a textbook (he never saw nor touched one). He taught me from his head I think because when I entered school there weren't that many textbooks. Therefore quality has reduced. I was teaching my students from what I learnt (but didn't understand) from my Prof. who taught me from his head who was taught from textbooks. Please, seriously how will my own students begin to understand what I'm teaching them? That is why that course records probably the highest casualty in my Department with the class size swelling each year cos of carry-over students.
I decided to break this 'curse' and 'bondage'. I sponsored myself to Univ. KwaZulu Natal, South Africa(3months), with my own money from my own pocket, where I saw and touched and used shege comot from their 2NMR machines (Glory, Halleluyah). My life never remained the same. I went to Univ. of St. Andrews, Scotland (6months)courtesy PTDF where they had 5general use NMR and about 2 or 3 for individual groups' use . I went to Univ of Michigan US (9months) courtesy Fulbright where they had...wait for it...13NMRs...omo I felt like dying and going to heaven...I want to abandon my country. The confidence with which I teach and the level of understanding of the students has increased tremendously. For the first time in so many years the class size has reduced. Just imagine what the success rate would have been if we had just 1NMR and the students got to use it.
The type and level of research I got done in those few short months have not been seen nor will they be seen in my school for a very long time and that's a veeeeery loooooong time.
I have interacted with students in all these schools and I can say with a very high level of confidence that even their undergrads are doing better research than our PhD.
So nobody should tell me that ASUU is being greedy cos in all earnestness what they are asking for does not even begin to cut it in terms of infrastructure.
Oh by the way an NMR machine...a very modest one...with cost upto 100m...it will cost about as much to maintain it for a year...you can do the math for all the universities in Nigeria. And that is for just one piece of equipment...man we are not just sleeping we are snoring and drooling saliva on the pillows.

smartmom: Chickens dont have kidneys, only gizzards.

eh...sorry to burst your bubble mummy but they do.

kisibo: sis, i no say u sabi bible wella so try and open ur bible to 1 timothy 5-23 says "stop drinking only water,use a lil wine cos of ur stomach and your frequent illnesses "

Are you ill or/and do you have a problem with your stomach abi e dey worry you? Try to understand what you read and stop quoting references that don't buttress your point.

It's surprising that a lot of us don't know what 'that thing that flies when it rains is called'...they are called termites and they grow wings during wet season so as to swarm out of the colony to mate and start new colonies. The working word here is, repeat after me TERMITE.
On the issue of human flesh I can say with a very high level of confidence that at least on tribe in the east does so. I wont mention names but a colleague of mine who worked at the post office in the early 80's told me of a colleague from one tribe who married from a different tribe that eats human (strangers and visitors only). There was some problem between the two communities and the ladies people organized and chowed the guy. He got to know after he asked when the guy didn't show up for work and another colleague from the ladies' tribe told him they chowed him and it was sweet.
I also know of a community where Corp members are not posted to because of this habit...but I understand that they are mending their ways and providing special protection for Corp members these days.

Originalsly: Why is this a good move?...good for Nigeria or good for Nissan? Why don't we ever hear the details of the plans? ...or we just don't care because we would have bragging rights? Can somebody explain how this would benefit Nigeria? Instead of nursing our own baby Innoson...here we are bringing in veteran Nissan. How can Innoson compete? Any good government would try to develop its local industry...not discourage it by importing competition....yet we wonder why India and others are so far ahead. Did India allow foreign auto manufacturers? Yes they did. Under what conditions? Mercedes Benz....e.g...20 year licence...first 5 years all product to be exported/15%staff locals. Next 5yrs...10% of product local sale40% staff local..20% management locals etc...incremental take over. Yesterday Walmart backed out of opening stores in India because of similar policy...they have to sell.x percent of local produce etc. That is development...not to open your doors to be exploited and that is exactly what Nissan is doing. Is that something to clap about? What have we learned from Shell and all ths other foreign companies? Please...open your eyes and allow me to shut my trap.

My sentiments exactly!!!

This is a good move by the FG or whoever is responsible for it. But, I see them making the same mistakes they made with the French when PAN was established.
The problem with this sort of arrangement is that there is no technology transfer from the manufacturers who have the technical know-how to the country where they are hoping to make profits. And I see this happening in a lot of African countries.
My take is that they should not just come and establish assembly plants but they should build manufacturing plants where down to the last nut is made in Nigeria. That way, the factory workers/technicians pick up skills they can use to further develop the country if/when they leave these companies for indigenous ones in the future. PAN was established around the same time with a similar company in India by the same Peugeot of France, but Indians being smarter than we are/were insisted that everything must be made in India...several years down the road there was transfer of technology and today India makes their own cars. Another story I cant elaborate on is how the Chinese phone manufacturers got the technological know-how from the westerners and added their own innovations making the originals look bad. They have been and are still selling 'chinko' phones with crazy configurations which we all rush to buy - Threads about Tecno phones has been front page these past weeks)
Until we wake up and ask for 'the bread' from these companies and not just 'crumbs' in exchange for the billions of dollars they stand to reap, then we have a very long way to go in terms of development.
My two kobos worth!

All you need is in here bro...

https://www.nairaland.com/1468876/full-details-2009-ASUU-fg-agreement#18653794

All tha best!!!

Appendix V

SUGGESTED BILL FOR AN ACT TO AMEND THE EDUCATION (NATIONAL MINIMUM STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF INSTITUTIONS) ACT


1. The Education (National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions) Act is amended as set out in this Act.

2. Section 10 of the Principal Act is deleted and in its place the following is substituted:

(i) “The Power to lay down minimum standards and other institutions of higher learning in the Federation and the accreditation of their degrees and other academic awards is hereby vested in the National Universities Commission in collaboration with the Academies and Professional Bodies recognised by the Federal Government, in formal consultation with the Universities for that purpose, after obtaining prior approval therefore through the Minister, from the President.”

(ii) For the purpose of collaboration:

a. The National Universities Commission shall select the Accrediting Body – The Academy of Arts and the Academy of Science, or the relevant Professional Body, and arrange the accreditation exercise as appropriate.
b. The Accrediting Body shall send a Preliminary Report to the National Universities Commission, which shall send the Preliminary Report to the universities. The National Universities Commission shall require each university to return to the National Universities Commission for its comments on the Preliminary Report sent to it, at a reasonable time, after approval by the University’s Senate.
c. Upon receipt of the University’s comments, the National Universities Commission shall send them back to the Accrediting Bodies for a Final Report.
d. The National Universities Commission shall send to each university the Final Report of its accreditation exercise.

3. The Principal Act is amended by inserting in Part ii ‘Point of Inspection’, subsection 15 (2) (e), the following:

“(e) The foregoing provisions shall not apply to the Institutions of Higher Learning.”


Justification of the Suggested Amendment of the Education (National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions)

1. The establishment of minimum standards and the accreditation of academic programmes has, in accordance with the existing law, included in the function of the NUC. Section 10 of the Education (National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions) Act. The proposal being made by ASUU for amendment of the relevant Act is intended to improve the quality of the exercise. Its purpose is not to remove the NUC from the coordination of the accreditation exercise. The proposed amendment leaves that role to the NUC.

2. However, ASUU feels strongly that the accreditation exercise should not be done by individuals selected once in every five years to assess academic programmes or to set minimum standards. First, the Academy of Arts and Sciences are authoritative, and should be so in matters regarding the establishment of standards and the assessment of programmes. They should be, therefore, the right bodies charged with setting minimum standards and the accreditation of programmes in the appropriate fields. Similarly, the Professional Bodies and Academic Associations are in a better position to assess the quality of programmes and academic minimum standards in their various spheres than individuals chosen on special occasions.

3. Thus, the Council Legal Education should accredit degrees and set minimal standards for the Law Faculties, the Nigerian Medical Council for the Medical Faculties, the Geological Association of Nigeria for Geology, etc, The Academies of Arts and Science are in a better position to constantly review the state of the disciplines than individuals who are called once in five years to assess the programmes in a few days. The work of Academies and Professional Bodies on accreditation and minimal standards would be less prone to haste and unclean pressure than the work of individuals hand-picked for special purposes. Professionalisation of minimum standards and accreditation is better for the sake of more effectiveness, transparency, thoroughness and truthful assessment.

4. An accreditation exercise that respects fully the statutes of the universities must accord an appropriate role to the University Senates in the process.

5. The Law on inspection violates the statutes of the universities, which give to Senates the supreme authority over academic matters (part ii, Section 15).
Senates are the supreme authority in academic matters in the universities; including teaching, examination, and discipline concerning teaching and examination. Similarly, in other tertiary institutions, there is a statutory body responsible for academic matters. Section 15 of the Act should, therefore be amended to remove the Tertiary Institutions from within its province.

Appendix IV

SUGGESTED BILL FOR AN ACT TO AMEND THE NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION ACT


2. The National Universities Commission Act (referred to as the Principal Act) is amended as set out in the Act.

3. The Principal Act shall be amended by deleting 4 (1) b (iii).

4. The Principal Act shall be amended by deleting section 4 (1) f and substituting for 4 (i) f the following:

The NUC shall coordinate budgetary processes for the universities. Grants to universities shall, however, be disbursed direct to Universities.

5. The Principal Act shall be amended by deleting Section 4 (1) (i). All subsequent sub-sections shall be renumbered.

6. The Principal Act shall be amended by deleting Section 4 (i) k. All subsequent sub-sections shall be renumbered.

7. The Principal Act shall be amended by deleting Section 4 (m). An amendment of the Education (National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions Act), from which this section is derived is proposed in 5.2.3.

8. The Principal Act shall be amended by deleting “directives” and replacing it with “advice”


Justification of the Suggested Amendment of the National Universities Commission Act

1. The amendment to remove the function of receiving block grants from the NUC and allocating them to Federal Universities 4. 1(f) is in line with the existing practice, and is in better tune with the autonomy of the Universities and their Governing Councils.

2. Section 4 (1) (b) (iii), which gives the power of approval or disapproval of proposals to establish new academic units to NUC is incompatible with the supreme authority of University Senates on all academic matters. It should, therefore, be removed.

3. Subsection 4(1)(i), which gives the NUC the power to undertake reviews of the condition of service of university staff, is a violation of the powers of Governing Councils and their autonomy.

4. Subsection 4(1)k, which gives NUC the power to act as the agency for channeling all external aid to the universities in Nigeria, is a violation of the powers of the Councils and the appropriate internal university organs.

5. The Minister’s overriding power of the Minister’s directive to the NUC is a potential threat to the functioning of the NUC according to its own law. It is open to political interference with the operation of the NUC. “Directives” should be replaced by “advice”.

6. A proposal on the role of the NUC in the establishment of minimum standards and on accreditation is contained in the proposed Amendment of the Education (National Minimum Standards and Establishment of Institutions Act).

Appendix III

SUGGESTED BILL FOR AN ACT TO AMEND THE JOINT ADMISSION AND MATRICULATION BOARD ACT

Enacted by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

1. The Joint Admission and Matriculation Board Act (in this Act referred to as “the Principal Act”) is amended as set out in this Act:

2. Section 5 of the Principal Act is replaced by the following:

5 (1) The Board shall be responsible for –
(a). the general control of the conduct of matriculation examinations for admissions into all Universities, Polytechnics (by whatever name called) and Colleges of Education (by whatever named called) in Nigeria;

(b). the appointment of examiners, moderators, invigilators, members of subject panels and committees and other persons with respect to matriculation examinations and any other matter incidental thereto or connected therewith;

(c). the collection and dissemination of information on all matters relating to admissions into tertiary institutions or to any other matter relevant to the discharge of the functions of the Board under this Act;

(d). the carrying out of such other activities as are necessary or expedient for the full discharge of all or any of the functions conferred on it under or pursuant to this Act; and,

(e). such other matters as the Board may be directed by the Minister to consider, or the Board itself may consider appropriate in the circumstances.

5.2 (1) The Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board shall:
(i). advertise the vacancies available in each tertiary institution having obtained such information from the universities;

(ii) conduct the matriculation examinations for admissions as in 5 (1)
(iii). send to each university the guidelines approved for each tertiary institution by its proprietor or other competent authority;

(iv). send to each university the preferences expressed or otherwise indicated by candidates for certain tertiary institutions and course

(v). send the results of the matriculation examinations to each university.
5.(2) (2) Each university shall:

(i) admit students taking account, as appropriate, the results of the matriculation examinations, the guidelines approved for it by its proprietor or other competent authority, and the candidates’ preferences.

5 (2) (3) (i) Each university shall send a comprehensive list of the successful candidates
to the Joint Admission and Matriculation Board, and

(ii) The Joint Admission and Matriculation Board and the University shall
jointly ascertain the conformity or other wise of the admission process to the
established guidelines.


5.3 For the avoidance of doubt, the Board shall be responsible for conducting matriculation examinations leading to undergraduate admissions and also for admissions to National Diploma and the National Certificate in Education courses, without prejudice to discretionary powers of the Senate of Universities and related organs of other tertiary institutions to conduct a screening process, including further tests, for the selection of their candidates. The Board shall not be responsible for examinations or any other selection process for post graduate courses or any other courses offered by the tertiary institutions.


JUSTIFICATION OF SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT ADMISSIONS AND MATRICULATION BOARD ACT


1. Section 5 (2) of the Principal Act: Matriculation Requirements

The provision that JAMB has the power to determine matriculation requirements encroaches on the autonomy of the universities. The Statute of each university confers on Senate unfettered authority with regard to all academic matters in the University, including the regulation of admissions, and the conditions for qualifying for matriculation and admissions to the various titles, degrees, distinctions and other awards offered by the University.

2. Section 5 (2): Additional Tests

The Senate of each university, being responsible as the final authority in academic matters, including admissions, should expressly have the power to administer further tests as part of the screening process. The amendment of section 5 provides for this and incontrovertibly legitimizes what has become the practice since 2005 when Post-UME tests were introduced by Ministerial directive. The Ministerial directive could not have the force of the law which conferred only on JAMB the power to conduct examinations for the purpose of admissions into tertiary institutions.

The proposal that the Act be amended to provide for further tests as part of the Senate-directed screening exercise (or screening directed by whatever is the highest academic body in the tertiary institution concerned) for admission is to bring the law in line with the existing practice, whose anchor in the law is, to say the least, unclear. Post-UME tests that are done in virtually all universities exist only on a stretched and forced interpretation of the law.

To safeguard the autonomy of universities and the powers of University Senate over admissions all academic matters including admissions. JAMB, should not be invested with unqualified power to place students. Essential and necessary collaboration of JAMB with the universities and other tertiary institutions in the process of admission should be sustained according to express provisions of the law.

Section 17 (2) is not compatible with the autonomy of the university. At any rate, the amendments proposed remove the sources of conflict between JAMB Laws and University Statutes.

Appendix II

SUGGESTED BILL FOR AN ACT TO FURTHER AMEND THE EDUCATION TAX FUND (AMENDMENT) ACT 2003.

ENACTED by the National Assembly of the Federal Republic of Nigeria-¬
1. The Education Tax Fund Act, 1993 (in this Act referred to as "the Principal Act" as amended, is further amended as set in this Act.
2. Section 1 (1) of the Principal Act is amended by replacing the expression "Education Tax" with "Higher Education Tax".
3. Section 3 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by replacing "Education Fund" with "Higher Education Fund".
4. Section 4(1) of the Principal Act, as amended, is replaced with the following new sub¬section:
"4 (1) There is established for the management of the Fund a Higher Education Trust Fund Board of Trustees (in this Act referred to as "the Board of Trustees" which shall consist of-
¬ (a) a Chairman;
(b) Six persons each representing the six geo-political zones of the
country
(c) The Accountant General of the Federation;
(d) A representative of¬-
(i) the Minister of Education;
(ii) the Committee of Vice-Chancellors of Nigerian Universities
(iii) the Committee of Rectors of the Polytechnics in Nigeria.
(iv) the Committee of Provosts of the Colleges of Education in Nigeria
(v) the Executive Secretary, National Universities Commission.
(vi) the Executive Secretary, National Board of Technical Education
(vii) the Executive Secretary, National Commission for Colleges of
Education
(viii) the National Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry,
Mines and Agriculture
(ix) the Manufacturers’ Association of Nigeria
(x) Oil and Gas Companies operating in Nigeria
(xi) The Academic Staff Union of Universities
(xii) The Academic Staff Union of Polytechnics
(xiii) The College of Education Academic Staff Union, and
(xiv) The Executive Secretary of the Fund who shall serve as the Secretary.
5. Section 4 (3)a of the principal Act is deleted and replaced with the following:
“The members of the Board of Trustees shall be persons of proven integrity, knowledgeable in the area of public tertiary institutions and research, having a broad vision of nation- building in Nigeria, representing the education, business and financial sectors”

6. The first part of Section 6 of the Principal Act is renumbered 6 (1)
6. Section 6 (e) of the Principal Act is replaced with the following new paragraph:
6 (1) (e) - ensure disbursement to various public tertiary educational
institutions in the country".
Section 6 (j) of the Principal Act is amended by deleting the expression: "or as may be assigned by the Federal Government".

7. The Principal Act is further amended by inserting the following:
Section 7. Team of Experts
(i) The Board of Trustees shall set up Teams of Experts selected from relevant disciplines for the assessment of research proposals submitted to the Board.
(ii) The Board shall refer research proposals received by it to the relevant Team of Experts which shall assess the proposal as to its quality and relevance to national development.

8. Section 7 (1) of the Principal Act is replaced with the following and renumbered
8 (1)
"8 (1)- The Board of Trustees shall administer the tax imposed by this Act and disburse the amount in the Fund to Federal and State tertiary educational institutions to cover the following over time:
Research project deemed important for national development; Inter-Institutional Central Science Laboratory Systems for special research equipment; Procurement and maintenance of research equipment in individual Institutions; Postgraduate Staff Training in Nigeria and abroad; Library Development including the establishment and maintenance of a Central Research Library and a Higher Education Library System; Higher Education Book Development System; Academic Conferences in Nigeria and abroad; International Academic Research Cooperation projects; Establishment of Research Institutes; Establishment of Industrial application linkages and research-based cottage industries by public tertiary institutions; Outstanding Postgraduate Research projects in Public Tertiary Institutions.”; Post-Doctoral Research Projects in Public Tertiary Institutions; Basic Research on the biological, physical, social and cultural environment; and Applied Research to resolve human and societal problems of
Technology, Agriculture, Medicine, Humanities and the social sciences;

(9). Section 7(2) of the Principal Act is replaced with the following
and renumbered 8 (2):¬
"8 (2) - In distributing the tax between the various levels of higher education¬
(a) the University section shall receive fifty percent;
(b) the Polytechnic section shall receive twenty-five percent ; and
(c) the Colleges of Education Section shall receive twenty-five percent of
the tax collected each".

(10) Section 7(3) of the Principal Act is deleted.

(11) Section 7(4) of the Principal Act is replaced with the following and
renumbered 8 (4) ‘’The Board of Trustees shall administer, manage and disburse the tax imposed by this Act on the basis of the merit of proposals submitted to the Board, and the consideration of the six geo-political zones of the Federation.”

(12) Section 7 (5) of the Principal Act is replaced with the following new sub-
section and renumbered:
"8 (5) - The Board of Trustees, in administering, managing and disbursing the tax imposed by this Act, shall not discriminate against any person or Institution on the basis of ethnic origin, religion or sex"

(13) Section 8(b) of the Principal Act is replaced with the following new
paragraph and renumbered 9(b)
"9 (b) - be a person with a sound academic background and a broad vision
of the role of tertiary education and research in national development"

All subsequent sub-sections shall be renumbered accordingly.

(14) Section 18 of the Principal Act is amended by replacing "Education Tax
Act" with "Higher Education Tax Act"


JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSALS FOR AMENDMENT OF THE EDUCATION TAX ACT

The Education Tax Act (1993) was the product of the 1993 Agreement between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Academic Staff Union of Universities ASUU). Initially conceived a Higher Education Tax Act, it was turned into an Education Tax Act (covering Primary, Secondary and Higher Education). The Principal reason why President Ibrahim Babangida regime changed the initial conception was that there was no special intervention fund for any level of education. At the inception of the current Act, there were difficulties in the collection and disbursement of the Fund. The Board of Trustees was unable to perform its responsibilities because there was no money to disburse. The situation changed around 1997/98. The Education Tax Fund thereafter became a major source of intervention in the Education Sector at all levels.
The operation of the Board of Trustees was, however, called into question in 2000 by interested citizens, the Academic Staff Union of Universities, and some legislators who openly alleged mismanagement of the Fund. The complaints and allegations led to an investigation, involving a Public Hearing by the House of Representatives in 2000. The report was written, passed to the Presidency but was never released to the Public.

ETF, as it was operated, had some good effects on the educational system. It did not, however, achieve the level of change which it had the potential to achieve, and which it was meant to achieve. The application of the Fund to all levels of education ensured that it could not be an effective intervention sufficient to rehabilitate, restore and consolidate education at any level – primary, secondary or tertiary.

In the universities, ETF intervention had no effect whatsoever on the rehabilitation of laboratories, procurements and maintenance of equipment, the development of research, development of academic staff, and teaching, whereas these were the most urgent needs of the University System. While universities needed rehabilitation and restoration funds, ETF financed the building of gates, sport centres, some token classrooms, token hostels, sponsored conferences on themes having nothing to do with teaching and research.

As Nigeria is searching for a repositioning of its tertiary education institutions in order to develop into a knowledge-based society in the twenty-first century, the development of research ought to be a priority. If our country does not begin to make huge investment in research, competing, (even) with the best in Africa, e.g. South Africa, will turn out to be an illusion. The drive towards the funding of research will be sustained, no matter the fluctuations in budgetary allocations, if the Education Tax Act is reformed to apply to tertiary institutions only. While the Polytechnics will contribute essentially to the development of Research in technology, the Colleges of Education will contribute Research into various aspects of Education, including the indigenous and contemporary modes of learning, the long-unresolved issues of teaching and learning in indigenous languages, evolution of new approaches to teaching Mathematics, and Science, etc.

The chances of effective transformative intervention are much higher if operated with separate funds at separate levels than what obtains according to the present law. The recognition of this principle is tacit in the introduction of separate funding for the Universal Basic Education.

It should be noted, for the avoidance of doubt, that the need to fund primary and secondary education properly is not being under-estimated. On the contrary, it is contended that the needed transformation will not be achieved from ETF funding as it is. It is, in effect, asserted that the UBE, properly organized and operated, is already promising enough intervention.

Primary and secondary level intervention might be improved by further creative intervention as well. The ETF would then be dedicated to providing massive funding intervention aimed at rehabilitating and consolidating Nigerian Tertiary Education Institutions, with a view to transforming them into truly globally competitive centres of learning and research.

The law also needs to be amended to:

i) Make for a better representation in the Board of Trustees;
ii) Reflect the qualities of the persons who can be members of the Board of Trustees;
iii) Reflect the proportion of disbursement of the funds between the Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education; and,
iv) Provide a procedure for assessment of all proposals to the Board of Trustees.





JUSTIFICATION OF SPECIFIC SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ETF AMENDMENT ACT (2003)
• 4 (1) Matters concerning the management of the Fund, in so far as they involve the research needs of Nigerian universities, polytechnics, and Colleges of Education should involve the coordinating centres of the University, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education respectively (i.e. NUC, NBTE, and NCCE).

• The inclusion of a representative of oil and gas companies is intended to reflect the need for participation of the sector from which, perhaps, the largest contribution to the fund is derived. Such participation would enhance the effectiveness of getting funds into the ETF; this important contributing sector would have an inside understanding of the need for and the use of funding through membership in the Board of Trustees. The same argument that applies to the oil and gas also applies to the Manufacturers’ Associations of Nigeria (MAN) and NACCIMA.

• The existing Education Tax Fund Act (Amendment 2003) Act N0 17 already includes ASUU, ASUP and COEASU in the membership. (Section 4 (1)). The membership of NUT and ANCOPSS would no longer be necessary since the Fund would now be directed only at Higher Education.

Past experience has shown that members of its Board of Trustees need to be of proven integrity. Besides, since the Fund is intended for only tertiary institutions, the members of the Board of Trustees must be persons knowledgeable in the history and nature of tertiary institutions, and should have been involved at some level in their operation e.g. as a Chairman of a Governing Council, a Vice-Chancellor, a Professor, a Reader or a Senior Lecturer in a university, or their equivalent in the Colleges of Education and the Polytechnics. Such citizens are to be found in various sectors – in education, business and finance, and the professions. This is the basis of the proposal for the amendment of Section 4 (3)


The Team of Experts
In the new Section 7, the constitution of a Team of Experts by the Board of Trustees is proposed. The function of the Committee is to assess all proposals submitted and make recommendations to the Board according to set criteria. The rationale for this is that assessment of the proposals should be reasonably independent of the Board. This would ensure knowledge-driven assessment, and will enhance confidence in the objectivity of the outcome. The assessment of received proposals should be done by an organ close to what a RESEARCH Committee does in the Higher Education Institutions. The Board will only be responsible for disbursing the funds after the Team of Experts has concluded its work and made the appropriate recommendations. The Board will, of course, be free to invite to its meeting a representative (or representatives) of the Team of Experts, whenever necessary.
It is proposed that “ as may be assigned by the Federal Government” be deleted, from the existing Section 6j, leaving the Board of Trustees with the responsibility of doing what other things are necessary or incidental to the objects of the Fund. (The ETF, being meant to develop education, must not be used for political purposes - for party or personal patronage). It is desirable to safeguard the independence and integrity of the Board.

In the amendment of Section 7 (1), now renumbered Section 8(1), the specific areas of funding for which the ETF may be disbursed is proposed. These reflect the areas of intervention that will really make a difference, with focus in the rehabilitation and restoration of tertiary institutions.

In Section 7 (2), now renumbered Section 8 (2), the 50%-25%-25% (Universities-Polytechnic-Colleges of Education) distribution reflects the structure of the existing proportion of the fund that goes to each of the three components - 2.1.1 Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education.

Section 7 (4), now renumbered Section 8 (4), substitutes for the old section, a new sub-section which will make for better achievement of the goal of rehabilitating and restoring tertiary education. Tertiary institutions that do quality research exist in all parts of the country and the amendment makes the potential impacts of proposed projects on the well being of the country an important criterion in assessing proposals. However, the inclusion of State and Local Government Councils as criteria for the award of funds for research would be unnecessary. Local Governments do not establish tertiary institutions. The “State within Zones” criterion would leave too many states unsatisfied. Zonal criterion makes for manageable distribution, apart from the criterion of merit.

Section 7 (5), now renumbered Section 8 (5), has been substituted to forbid irrelevant discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, religious or sex. The consideration of geopolitical zones is already taken care of in Section 7 (4) renumbered Section 8 (4). Reference to different levels of evaluation is no more necessary.

Section 8(b), renumbered Section 9(b) has been amended because it is inadequate, as it stands, for the tasks before the Executive Secretary. More than good knowledge in administrative matters is needed. The Executive Secretary should be a person with a sound academic background with a broad vision of the role of tertiary education in national development.

APPENDICES
APPENDIX I

FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR REVITALIZING THE NIGERIAN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM: 2009-2011

The Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN)/Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) Re-negotiation Committee for nearly two years was engaged in a process of deep reflection in a search for how to reposition the Nigerian University System so that it can become one of the best in the world. The Re-negotiation Committee realized, as widely acknowledged, that:
(1) the key to the survival of our country in the 21st Century lies in our country’s ability to produce applied and theoretical knowledge in science, technology and humanities; and,
(2) the task of revitalizing and accelerating the development of the Nigerian University system into one of the best in the world cannot be delayed (more so, if Nigeria is to become one of the leading economies in the world as desired by the government).

The urgency of the task of building a viable society in the 21st Century made it necessary that the negotiation be devoted to the goal of repositioning the Nigerian University System to become internationally competitive. To achieve this goal, the decay that has afflicted the system must be halted and there must be clear and decisive commitment on all sides – the government, the Universities and, the Nigerian public.

The Re-negotiation Committee arrived at a consensus on the need for a rational and scientific procedure for determining the funding requirements to begin the process of revitalizing the Nigerian University System. In pursuant of the consensus, the Renegotiation Committee set up a Sub-Committee that identified, collated, analysed and presented data for deriving the information on which an agreement would be made through a rational scientific procedure. The Sub-Committee relied upon information obtained from international and local sources such as the Association of Commonwealth Universities, Association of African Universities, International Publications such as the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Reports, the Central Bank of Nigeria, Nigerian Universities, Federal Ministry of Education and especially the National Universities Commission (NUC).

The Sub-Committee, on the basis of the data collected, prepared the ground for, rational and scientific estimates and projections of the magnitude of funds needed to begin the process of revitalizing the Nigerian University System. To achieve the desired goal of a globally competitive Nigerian University System, the revitalization funding seeks to achieve:
(1) a quick and effective remedy of deficiencies in programmes and facilities; and ,
(2) systematic upgrading of programmes and facilities that would rapidly advance Nigeria’s knowledge production for development. The Sub-Committee’s work produced a fifty three page Report which served as the basis upon which the quantum of funds required in 2009 – 2011 was derived by the Re-negotiation Committee.

The Re-negotiation Committee, having done its own share of painstaking evaluation of the Sub-Committee’s presentation, concluded that in order to begin the process of repositioning the University System to play its proper role in national development, the Nigerian University System urgently needs the quantum of funds summarized in the Table II in the next three years. These funds, if provided and transparently and effectively managed, will constitute a big leap forward and give hope to a country where people are yearning for quality education and a progressive, just and democratic society. The Re-negotiation Committee agreed that the methods used by the Sub-Committee in analysing the data, and calculating the funding requirements summarized in Table II are based on sound and rational scientific foundation. The Committee noted that the data used for the analysis were supplied by the universities themselves. In addition, the Sub-Committee Report provides a well considered basis upon which the National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly will come to know what is required to begin to realize the shared goal of developing knowledge based society. These figures should be viewed as approximating what is necessary to realize the goal.

The Re-negotiation Committee acknowledges the need for Nigerian Universities to make more effort to increase their contributions to their funding through internally generated revenues without compromising the goals and integrity of the Universities. Significant progress has been made in generating revenues internally by several Universities. However, the uneven development of the Universities, their geographical locations, the lack of capital to invest even in clement location, and a host of other factors, make for only limited success in the quest of the universities for fund generation. Universities are expected to do more to generate funds from Alumni Associations, Private Sector contributions, which could be encouraged through Tax Relief, Contributions from Voluntary Agencies and Individuals, patronage of university services, a more productive university-industry relationships and commercialization of inventions.

In the short to medium term, the funds that can be internally generated owing to the factors listed and more, however, would be too limited to provide the needs of the University System for attaining the goal of repositioning it for national development. What is hoped for is that as the system systematically improves its research bases and fund generating drives, the proportion of internally generated revenues will rise significantly. Until then, the government funding should be the backbone of University funding, through Budgetary and non-Budgetary sources. In addition, the non-budgetary contributions to the revitalization project can be enhanced to a great extent through a review of the Education Tax Act.

A university administration that diverts or misuses the revitalization funds should be held responsible and sanctioned while those that effectively use the revitalization funds to remedy and upgrade programmes and facilities should be amply rewarded.
To help in enforcing discipline and ensuring satisfactory budget performance, the Re-negotiation Committee agreed on the necessity for each Governing Council to set up a Budget Monitoring Committee. The Budget Monitoring Committee is to comprise one ELECTED representative each from Congregation, Senate, ASUU, SSANU, NAAT, NASU and Students’ Union, with an external member of the Governing Council as Chairman.

Conclusion
In the light of the preceding observations, the Renegotiation Committee agreed to commend to the Federal and State Governments the funding requirements of the University System for 2009 – 2011 in Table II as the beginning of the process of repositioning the Nigerian University System for playing its vital role in meeting the challenges of the 21st Century.