Source: http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/THE second Communique which ASUU omitted from its publication, ASUU Communiques: 1981 – 2009, was issued at the end of the meeting of the Union’s National Executive Council (NEC) held at the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, on October 24, 1981. It was signed by Dr. Mahmud Tukur, the Vice President (acting for Dr. Biodun Jeyifo, the substantive President) and Dr. T. Uzodinma Nwala, the General Secretary.
The meeting was called to consider the Whitepaper which President Shehu Shagari’s Federal Government issued on the Report of the Cookey Commission it had appointed, and to respond to government’s action in taking the Industrial Dispute with ASUU to the Industrial Arbitration Panel. In its communication to ASUU the Panel had informed the Union that accepting the Panel’s jurisdiction meant that ASUU would “return to the position in existence before the Commission was set up”.
In other words, ASUU NEC argued, “the Cookey Commission’s Report and the Whitepaper will be treated as if they do not exist”. The Council, of course, rejected government’s action and decided to continue its industrial action. But it instructed its lawyers to “consider and take appropriate legal action to establish the legality of the order of the Tribunal on the Union”. The Union’s definitive position was that “the Government Whitepaper, the Cookey Commission Report and ASUU Memorandum are the basis for negotiations”.
In the ASUU NEC Communique is this other important statement: “Government thinks we are a bunch of mercenaries who are interested in mere salaries and who would jump at the sight of figures. No! Our main concern is the totality of the conditions in the Universities who affect staff and students”.
The third and final document which I am suggesting should be included in future editions of the ASUU publication under appreciation is the Communique issued at the end of the Union’s 1982 National Delegates’ Conference (NDC) held at the University of Calabar from April 16 to April 17, 1982. The Communique was signed by Dr. Biodun Jeyifo (the out-going President), Dr. T. Uzodinma Nwala, (the General Secretary) and Dr. Mahmud Tukur (President-Elect). The Conference “critically examined issues affecting ASUU specifically and the nation in general,” and passed resolutions on six key issues, namely: ASUU-Government Relations; Restoration of benefits to lecturers illegally dismissed in 1978; Death of Mrs. Ingrid Essien-Obot; Recent University of Calabar student crisis; Dismissed professors at the University of Lagos; and the state of the nation’s economy. I shall be looking at the first three issues.
On the ASUU-Government relations, the Conference, according to the Communique, “commended both sides for the spirit of give-and-take demonstrated in the negotiation, especially by our own side”, but insisted that the “very crucial” question of University autonomy was still to be addressed. The Conference therefore launched the Phase II of the Union’s struggle which centred on the “democratisation of University administration in Nigeria, the principle of accountability by authorities within each University, efficient and economic management of University funds and the general principles of high professional ethics befitting those working within the University system”.
On the question of lecturers illegally dismissed by the military government in 1978, the Conference noted with satisfaction “government adherence to its agreement” to unconditionally reinstate these lecturers, but called on the government and the University Councils concerned to restore the privileges of these lecturers and pay all their outstanding entitlements, in accordance with government agreement with ASUU on this issue “without any further delay”. And on Mrs. Ingrid Essien-Obot, who was murdered on April 21, 1981, in her residence on the campus of the University of Calabar, the Conference called on the appropriate authorities to “ensure a prompt and thorough investigation”: of the murder and release the findings of the autopsy conducted and bring suspects, if any, to book “without further delay”. Essien-Obot, a radical leftist and feminist, was the Secretary of the University of Calabar branch of ASUU at the time of her murder.
Between 1981 and 2009, the period covered by the ASUU Communiques, the country passed through seven regimes: President Shehu Shagari (1979-1983); General Muhammadu Buhari (1984-1985); General Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993); General Sani Abacha (1993-1998); General Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999); President Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) and President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (2007-2010). Within the same period, ASUU had the following leaderships: Dr. Biodun Jeyifo (1980-1982); Dr. Mahmud Tukur (1982-1986); Dr. Festus Iyayi (1986-1988); Dr. Attahiru Jega (1988-1994); Dr. Assisi Asobie (1994-2000); Dr. Dipo Fashina (2000-2004); Dr. Abdullahi Sule-Kano (2004-2008); and Professor Ukachukwu Awuzie (2008- ).
I had earlier said that ASUU Communiques is a study in the political history of Nigeria. To further appreciate this, you may construct a composite ASUU leadership / regime chart by matching successive ASUU leaderships against corresponding regimes in the country. If you do this and then read or re-read the publication under appreciation you are most likely to learn more not only about ASUU’s language and tactics of struggle – over time – but also the differences in the characters of the regimes the union had faced as well as the range of specific issues of struggle that developed between ASUU and the Nigerian state – again, overtime. You will, of course, also appreciate the range of leaderships that ASUU has had.
What is left for me to do here is to highlight, testify to, and commend two declarations in the Foreword. First is ASUU’s “avowed mission of saving Nigeria from its local captors and their foreign collaborators at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank (IMF/WB)”. And the second is its “commitment to remain in the vanguard of the struggle to build a Nigerian nation founded on the irreducible principles of industrial democracy, socio-economic justice, and home-grown development’. ASUU would have added “popular democracy” which, as the publication shows, has been a constant element in ASUU’s platform, over time.
We may now conclude this appreciation with a look at the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the author of the publication. What would be my reaction if someone, after reading what I have so far written, asks: “Are these not the same lecturers who sexually harass their female students; sell marks, grades and degrees; exploit their students in various ways, while doing very little teaching?” Suppose I am also questioned on the less-than-commendable performance of Nigerian academics – over time – in public office? I would not rush into stupid refutation and self-defence especially when confronted with concrete evidence and illustrations and demonstration of pervasiveness. Nor would I simply admit the charges. I would rather take my hypothetical interrogator through a dialectical analysis of his or her observations.
With luck, if tempers do not boil over, we may succeed in reaching the following agreements: First, that even if only a fraction of what is alleged against University teachers is true, this will only remind us that the academic community is part and parcel of the larger society and afflicted by some of the larger society’s maladies. Secondly, that, if most of the allegations are true, it means that the academic community, once thought to be an island of exception, has sunk, or is sinking deeper, into the larger society.
Thirdly, that the allegations being minimally or maximally true does not, by itself, erase the exemplary political achievements recorded by University teachers, organised under ASUU, although it might have considerably affected their sociopolitical credibility and impact, as a group and as individuals. And, finally, that ASUU should now open or –re-open another front, a vigorous front, in its struggle. The front is that of moral and ethical self-reform.
