TETFUND: How an obnoxious policy is undermining scholarship in Nigeria’s tertiary institutions

Two weeks ago I was visited by a young lecturer who is working in a Federal university different from mine. The young man is on a PhD programme in one of the Malaysian universities. He is worried, however, that he is studying in a university he was forced to choose because he is on TETFund sponsorship. He obtained a Masters degree in Universiti Utara Malaysia but because it is now outlisted by TETFund he cannot go there as the Fund will not approve it. This put me off as I began to ask him questions after which I made calls to other students I know to be studying in Malaysian universities. After confirming the way TETFund choice universities are overpopulated with Nigerian students I came to the conclusion that it is better to raise an alarm and set myself free and here I am.

But even before I make my points, the bias of my discussion towards Malaysia must be explained. Foreign exchange has made it unrealistic for heads of institutions to send their scholars to Europe and other parts of the western world. A vice chancellor of a second generation university was telling me that this year only sixty million Naira was allocated to him by TETFund for foreign scholarship. With over thirty departments, his problems are better imagined if he were to send his staff to Europe where his allocation may sponsor only a maximum of 3 persons. This made the choice of a third world country imperative. As things stand, the number of TETFund scholars in Malaysian universities is more than those in other countries put together. Thus, Malaysian universities are universities that TETFund cannot afford to give ‘any other university’ treatment. 

Let me also state that the current executive secretary of TETFund is a colleague of mine with whom I have a very good relationship. But personal relationship should always give way to collective interest especially if the fate of current and future generations of Nigerians is at stake. I also know that I can always meet and discuss with my good colleague on issues like this but I opt to make it public so that other Nigerians may contribute to the discussion and those who are in position to call the Fund to order may do so if there are such people at all. This is more so since a similar discussion on this issue in the past did not yield any good result. 

Tertiary Education Trust FUND (TETFund, formerly ETF) was set up as an intervention agency in the education sector following ASUU and FG agreement in the early 1990s. Since then, typical of Nigeria, the Fund has served as the main source of funding for our tertiary institutions especially in the area of infrastructure and staff development. Almost all public Nigerian universities, polytechnics and colleges of Education including state government owned now depend on the Fund for the training of their staff and major projects.

Funding of staff development by TETFund began proper in the year 2007/2008. The procedure was that staff will obtain admission to study programmes of their choice whose relevance will be confirmed by their Heads of Departments, Deans and the institutions central committee in charge of staff development. The institutions also finally determined the university to which the staff will go and it would depend on the programme and cost of study. Recommendations were then sent to the Fund for approval and funding.

This was the practice until sometime in 2017 when confusion was created in Nigeria’s tertiary institutions due to a new policy that restricts the foreign universities TETFUND scholars can go for their postgraduate programmes. Many things were said about the new policy but because I normally don’t comment on things I do not properly understand, I decided to see the new Executive secretary, the man behind the policy. I did so along with two friends who were also interested in the issue. We had an informal friendly discussion during which he explained to us the new decision. We in turn pointed to him some of the inadequacies of the new policy and how it will undermine scholarship especially in certain areas. The chief executive noted our concern and agreed to look into it. More than a year after, nothing has been done. 

The controversial policy is contained in section 9.1B (ii) of the Guidelines for Accessing TETFund Intervention funds:

a.       Public fund would only be expended to train Nigerian scholars in the top ranking Universities around the world;

b.      Choice of country of study must be guided by the World University Ranking of Times Higher Education. Scholars should seek for admission in countries that have Universities ahead of the best university in Nigeria (based on the ranking of that year);

c.       In those countries, scholars should be guided by the University league tables of the countries to ensure that they are seeking for placement in the top-of-the-league Universities.

Specifically

Choice of country of study must be guided by the World University Ranking of Times Higher    Education. Scholars should seek for admission in countries that have Universities ahead of the best university in Nigeria (based on the ranking of that year);

Only Universities that are among the top 20 percent on the league tables of Universities in developed countries would be approved for the purpose of TETFund scholarship;

Only Universities that are among the top 10 percent on the league tables of Universities in developing countries that satisfy (b) above, would be approved for the purpose of TETFund ASTD scholarship.

In sum, by this TETFund now uses Times Higher Education (THE) ranking to determine the country to which it can sponsor scholars. Any country that does not have at least one university above the highest ranking Nigerian university in THE ranking (currently Covenant university) will have all its universities disqualified by TETFund. That is how all the universities in Sudan, for example, were disqualified.

Secondly, the country’s national ranking determines the specific university Nigerian academics under its sponsorship can go.

Many Nigerians, including some involved in training, do not know that the so-called world university rankings are not conducted by an organ of the United Nations and are not covered by any international treaty. Few of them are aware that most university rankings are conducted by newspapers and magazines and that there are many of such outfits publishing annual university rankings with lots of inconsistencies in their methods and results. This has led to a situation whereby a university that is highly rated by one magazine may not even be worth mentioning by another. For example, this year two Nigerian universities, Covenant University and University of Ibadan made it to the first one thousand (specifically 601 – 800) universities in THE ranking while neither they nor any other Nigerian university made it to the first 1000 in the QS ranking. No Nigerian University is mentioned in the Shanghai ranking. Similarly, no Nigerian university made it to the first 1000 in US News magazine ranking or any other major ranking I have come across.

Another difference is in the scope. While QS provides ranking by subjects in 72 areas, the THE provides for 11 general areas, making it harder for a prospective student to choose the best in specific areas. On the other hand, the Shanghai ranking provides for 46 areas while the US News ranking provides for 22 subject areas.

But why the discrepancies? There are many reasons. They include ability of the outfit to obtain enough data on all universities which is near impossible, the instruments used to arrive at the ranking results and their biases which are influenced by their experiences and cultural issues. These have made it difficult for any Government to impose any of these rankings on its citizens except, of course, Nigeria through TETFund.

The THE ranking which is imposed on Nigeria by TETFund is conducted by Times Higher Education (THE), a weekly magazine based in London, owned by TES Global Limited. THE has outlined their methodology which is available on their website. It includes, among other things, seven criteria a university must satisfy to be included in the rankings and thirteen weighted indicators whose weights add up to give the overall percentage score for each university. 

Perhaps the faultiest of all their indicators is citations (research influence), which carries 30 % of the overall score. THE solely relies on Scopus to provide the citations data. One of the problems with Scopus is that it is biased towards English sources to the detriment of other languages like Arabic. This puts to a disadvantage many key universities in the Islamic world that conduct their teaching and research in Arabic. A survey of the THE inclusion criteria shows that the same class of universities are badly off. 

Although THE claims to rank universities according to their percentage score based on the stated weighted indicators, the independent assurance carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC") for TES Global limited covers the universities ranked 1- 200 only.

One of the criteria of inclusion in THE rankings is that a university supplies and authenticates data on itself. In addition, any university that asks not to be included in the ranking is not included. THE does not state the universities excluded in their ranking or at least those included based on their inclusion criteria. This gives the erroneous impression that all universities have been evaluated and ranked accordingly. 

An inquiry I made on some universities was not replied. Instead, THE referred me to their methodology on their website.

Of course, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC") have absolved themselves of any liability  in relation to the use of their report (which as mentioned earlier covers universities ranked 1 to 200 only) and they stated that it is provided “for information purposes only”. I thus wonder if TETFund sought any legal advice before relying on THE ranking and imposing it on our nation.

For the league tables of national rankings, TETFund relies on a website whose contents have since been disowned by the National Universities Commission (NUC). This is very shameful. There is no such website, newspaper or magazine to which every country sends her national university rankings for dissemination. Thus the only source for knowing the national ranking of universities of any country is the Public agency like the NUC, overseeing university education in that country. So if TETFund were serious about truly knowing the National ranks of various universities in their countries, it would have taken its time to write the relevant Ministries/Agencies in the different countries. A check at TETFund revealed that nothing like that took place. In addition, the inputs of National Universities Commission and the Committee of Vice Chancellors were not sought. Polytechnics and Colleges of Education were not consulted either. In fact, there was no internal committee within the TETFUND set up to give advice before this policy was introduced.

Each country has its way assessing and ranking her universities. For example, the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (MMOH) annually releases the star ranking (SETARA) of all universities in Malaysia and it is not in the usual league table style. MMOH ranks universities as 6 – star (Outstanding), 5 star (Excellent), 4 star (Very Good), 3 star (Good),  2 – star (satisfactory) and 1-star (weak). The universities are further categorized into mature (15 years and older), emerging (less than 15 years old) and university colleges. 

The age of the university determines how it is scored using the four instruments. They are Institutional profiles (Lecturer’s capability, academic’s staff recognition, students’ quality and diversity, etc.), teaching and learning, research capacity and services and income generation. According to the MMOH, “University College and Emerging University are expected to consolidate institutional profiles and teaching, while a Mature University is expected to engage in more research and service activities.” 

                     

In the 2017 ranking, which is the latest, out of 71 universities, eight universities all of them matured made it to the 6 star category while 21 universities, nine of them matured made it to the 5 star category.  I thus wonder where TETFund got its national ranking of Malaysian universities which it uses to restrict its sponsorship to four Malaysian universities. The implication of TETFund policy is that majority of our young academics are restricted to four universities which, certainly does not portend a good future for our educational system.

The best body to determine where a scholar should go for a higher degree is the university, Polytechnic or the College they are working. Every university, and indeed every institution of learning, has its own uniqueness determined by the needs of the environment in which it is located. This uniqueness is what determines its teaching curricula and types of research and by implication the university abroad or at home it may want her staff in specific areas to go. 

Of recent, Nigerian universities have been signing memoranda of understanding (MOU) with sister universities across the globe that enable them to collaborate in areas of mutual interests. These MOUs cover mutual visits by researchers and students and joint researches which generate PhD degrees. The obnoxious TETFUND policy does not promote collaboration as the institutions are forced to send their staff to specific universities whether or not it is in their interest. I know of a Federal university which has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with University Teknologi Petronas (UTP) Malaysia where many of her staff members are following PhD programmes in different areas. However, they cannot get TETFUND scholarship even though UTP is a 6-star university by MMOH ranking.

It is a pity that Nigerians have now been politicised to such a level that even the best of opinions is read through political lenses. Thus, even as I am writing my observation I know it is more likely to fall on deaf ears than given any consideration. But if I may ask, do we now have a situation in which nobody is there to check the excesses of anybody?

Of Gummi and Atiku

Over the past few days, pictures emerging from the reconciliation meetings between Obasanjo and Atiku littered the social media. Atiku has just been nominated as the PDP presidential candidate. Much like President Buhari, Atiku has changed his political parties several times in order to be able to get to the presidency. The major difference between the two is that while the former relies on popular support, Atiku is believed to rely on the use of money (call it generosity depending on your mindset) to buy his way. Perhaps nobody rubbishes the former vice president like his former boss, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. In his book, My Watch, the two times Nigerian leader condemned Atiku for “his propensity to corruption. His tendency to disloyalty. His inability to stay and stick to the truth all the time. A propensity for poor judgement. His belief and reliance on marabouts. His lack of transparency.” The retired General also condemned his former deputy for “his trust in money to buy his way out on all issues and his readiness to sacrifice morality, integrity, propriety truth and national interest for self and selfish interest.” 

Of all the pictures that were taken at the meeting, the one that went most viral was the one depicting Atiku, his host and former boss Obasanjo, Archbishop Onayeikan and Sheikh Ahmad Gummi. Social media commentators, especially those with sympathy for the governing party were throwing all kinds of comments. Many of the commentators accused Gummi of being there because it involves moneybags and he dislikes Buhari because the principled President does not give free money. Others say as a religious leader he is supposed to be neutral and not be seen to take side with any political party. Many questioned why he did not start his reconciliation in Kaduna where the Governor is at war with Muslim politicians like Shehu Sani. Yet, many others dismissed him as someone with no electoral value. But particularly one person, a senior medical doctor posted the picture into our group of former classmates and requested people to comment. I then took it upon myself to comment. 

Let me state here that I have never met Dr. Ahmad Gummi or his father although I can claim to be an indirect student of the latter having been a regular listener to his tafsir in my early life. When his child took over, I was not impressed by his style of preaching and I stopped listening to tafsir from the Sultan Bello mosque. My only encounter with Dr. Ahmad Gummi was on a faceless online platform, the Nigerian Muslim Network, a Google group that brought together Nigerian Muslim intellectuals from around the globe. The exchange between me and the Sheikh was far from being smooth as I supported Buhari and Gummi’s views were against his politics. I was particularly against Gummi’s reasons for his intense criticisms on Buhari. One of the reasons Gummi gave at that time was the retirement of his father when Buhari was a military head of state. His father died many years earlier and many of us on that platform were of the opinion that it was incorrect for a scholar of his status to be nursing a grudge for so long.

In my own case, my support for Buhari was not blind. There is no such a politician or any other person for that matter worth my blind support. As a Muslim, my religion teaches me not to go to extreme in anything, including love and hate. It also teaches me to be fair when I speak even if it is against my own self. That is what guides my opinions on issues.

Now, what makes us like or dislike a person? Human beings, as the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said, have been created in such a way as to like people who are kind to them and dislike people who are unkind to them. And what is kindness? It comes in different ways. It includes helping a person out of difficulty, forgiving them when they are wrong, helping them achieve a noble aim, congratulating them on an achievement, etc. The Holy Qur’an describes the highest form of kindness as being good to those who wrong us, by doing which “you will see the one you had mutual enmity with him will turn out to be a close friend” (Q41:34). 

Those of us who expect Dr. Ahmad Gummi to wholeheartedly accept and simply start campaigning for Buhari are not being fair to him. Like any other human being, Gummi will naturally have sympathy for people who have been kind to him. The PDP in and out of Government has been kind to Gummi at the time he needed kindness most. 

In 2010, after the Junior Mutallab’s failed attempt to detonate an explosive in an American plane over the city of Detroit, Dr. Ahmad Gummi was detained in Saudi Arabia allegedly because his telephone number was found on the handphone of the young Nigerian. PDP was then in power and Jonathan sent his deputy to go and hold high level meetings with Saudi authorities to get Gummi released.  When he was released and people, including politicians, were trooping to his house to congratulate him, Buhari as a politician should have at least through a statement expressed his happiness over the release of the Kaduna-based Islamic scholar. As bad as IBB may be in the eyes of many, he was on air congratulating Ahmad Gummi and showering encomiums on his father. 

I am not aware of a personal visit by General Buhari to commiserate with Gummi’s family for his detention or another one to Dr. Gummi to congratulate him after his release. Such a gesture would have assured Gummi that although Buhari was not in Government he would have done the same thing or perhaps better if he were in power. It will also put a burden on Gummi that will minimize whatever criticisms he will make on Buhari and his politics.

Now that Allah Has given power to Buhari, how many religious leaders did he bring close that did not support him? At least we have been seeing Rev. Kukah paying visits to state house even though he was not a supporter of Buhari before 2015. Politicians are known for doing their utmost to minimize their number of foes. I believe that is why people like Rev. Kukah were at various times at the state house and it is good. But what prevented the presidency from bringing people like Gummi close? Is it because he is considered to have no electoral value? Then that ends the matter. If APC considers Gummi as valueless and others see him as valuable what is the problem if he associates with those who value him? And of what use is making noise about a person without value?

People around PMB do not help matters. One of the closest associates of Buhari who later became his minister of Education was known for his unsavoury remarks on Late Sheikh Abubakar Mahmoud Gummi. How do you expect Late Gummi’s children or his students to be part of an arrangement in which such a person wields a lot of power? And of what electoral value are people like the honourable minister if you remove PMB?

The argument that Ahmad Gummi was there because he needed money has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. What it means is that a religious leader cannot associate with anyone who is wealthy or be involved in any process in which wealthy politicians are involved. This thinking is faulty considering the number of religious leaders, including His Excellency the Vice president who have been close to Tinubu and now in this Government. This faults the neutrality argument as well. 

If El-Rufai or Shehu Sani considered Gummi worthy of making reconciliation and invited him to make peace and he refused, he is wrong. But was there such an invitation? Now that Atiku invited him why did our analysts not criticize the Kaduna politicians for not inviting him like Atiku did? Why must the blame go to the Sheikh not the politicians?

On a final note, please let us leave Dr. Ahmad Gummi alone and concentrate on our support for PMB to continue to fix the nation. If you are offended by my remarks, you should be consoled by the fact that I’m only another human being entitled to my opinion.

The Du Pond: What the Army Should Do

Last Night I deliberately created time to watch the NTA news. Although I ‘m not a politician, I was particularly interested in knowing what has been happening in the National Assembly. Few weeks ago, I saw the National Chairman of APC insisting that the Senate president should either resign or get impeached. Later when the Speaker defected the same threat was repeated. Was it going to be business as usual or there would be some entertainment? Like Ali Nuhu or Mike Tyson, politicians sometimes provide my entertainment after a long day of dealing with students. If they are not playing some drama, they are engaged in fisticuffs; and in any case it is worth watching.

But there was no much entertainment. I was, in fact, impressed by the maturity with which the two chambers resumed their business and I hope they will maintain it. But before the first break, the anchor said after the break one Hamisu Rogo was going to give an update on the search of the missing General Alkali. My curiosity was raised for two reasons. Who is this Rogo? Rogo is a town in Kano state that serves as the headquarters of Rogo Local Government. But like yours sincerely, many people from Rogo also use the name of their hometown as their surname. One of such people was a female student of mine who enrolled for a degree in Electrical Engineering many years ago. She successfully graduated after five years of lectures, laboratories, workshops, field training, tests and examinations. But one thing happened before she graduated. I saw her and she saw me. We discussed and agreed to get married. She is now my wife. So the unknown NTA’s Rogo is naturally my brother-in-law.

The other thing that raised my curiosity is the report. The journalist told his viewers with visual illustrations that the people of Lafendeg have fled their homes. As his camera went round the village, there was no sign of human presence. Although the story of Du pond is now well known, let me recall it.

On September 3 this year, one Major General Idris Alkali who retired earlier in the year as the Director of Administration of the Nigerian Army left Abuja for Bauchi. Two days later when he did not reach his destination his wife raised an alarm which led to a search for him by the Nigerian Army. In the process the Army stumbled on information about the Du pond. As soldiers were about to start searching the pond, half-naked women from the Lafendeg village led by one Mary Yakubu came out to protest against it. Not only did they throw stones on the Army but they tried to disarm them. The Army did not open fire on them and the search began. The Army chief of staff ordered the pond to be emptied into a nearby pond. In the process, Alkali’s vehicle and some of his personal effects were discovered. Also discovered were other vehicles identified to belong to people who mysteriously disappeared over the past few years. 

Now as these discoveries are made, all eyes are on the Nigerian Army to see its next line of action. The Army have said that they are a professional organization which conducts itself according to the best international practices. But let me remind the Nigerian Army that it is the same Army that opened fire on Zaki Biam for killing 19 of its soldiers. It is the same Army that invaded Odi for the same reason. It is also the same Army that opened fire on the vehicle of a former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University for allegedly overtaking its convoy. They are also the same people that opened fire on Shiites for obstructing the passage of their chief. It is yet the same Army that cut the Gonin gora community to size for killing an Army officer. If they now simply empty the Du Pond, discover the vehicle of their former Director of Administration among other vehicles and leave the Lafendeg community to come back and continue with their atrocities, their image is gone and many assumptions will be made by Nigerians. One, it will confirm the insinuation in some quarters that the Army has different rules for different Nigerians. It may also be assumed that although all Army officers are equal, the equality of officers like General Alkali may not be as equal as that of others.

Not taking any action on the Du community will rubbish Army operations in the North East, the Niger Delta and other crises areas. That the Army has a responsibility to protect the lives and property of all Nigerians is why they are involved in those operations. Now here are a people who have established the culture of killing innocent travellers and dumping them in a particular place. Much like the Shiites they even have the guts of confronting and warning the Nigerian Army against carrying out their legitimate duty of investigating a crime against the state. What the Lafendeg people did is, in fact, worse than what the Shiites did. At least I have not read any report that the Shiites attempted to disarm soldiers in December 2015.

Now that the Du community has deserted their houses, the first thing I advise the Army to do is to level the village and replace it with an Army formation. This may be a barracks or a training school. In addition to serving as a deterrent, the Army presence will provide an additional security to the area.

That is not all. I expect the Army to look for the perpetrators of these crimes and ruthlessly deal with them.  The Army should not take it kindly with anyone who engages in any form of protest against any action it takes on this criminal community. The Army has sworn an oath to defend our nation and we have a duty to advise it.