Uites Express Concerns Over NELFUND’s ‘Less Important Courses’ Policy
Opemipo Olukoga
The past year witnessed a significant surge in tuition fees across federal universities in Nigeria, plunging countless students into financial turmoil. Many feared their dreams of earning a Bachelor’s degree would be dashed. The situation sparked a wave of crowdfunding campaigns on social media, with desperate appeals from students seeking financial aid. Unfortunately, these efforts often fell short, leaving students with limited options to fund their education. University administrations justified the fee hikes by citing inadequate government funding, and strike actions by student unions did little to reverse the changes. New students lived in constant anxiety, afraid of losing their hard-won admissions, while returning students faced an uncertain future, with the growing likelihood of dropping out due to financial pressures.
Amidst the challenges, the government introduced a potential lifeline: the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND). This scheme offered students loans to cover their tuition fees, with repayment expected within two years of graduation. While critics argued that the drawbacks outweighed the benefits, many welcomed the initiative as a crucial safety net. For students unable to rely on crowdfunding or family support, the loan provided a chance to continue their education. However, this situation underscored a deeper issue: if a significant portion of the population cannot afford tuition without resorting to loans or debt, it reflects a failure of governance and inadequate support for education.
Initially enacted on 12 June 2023, the Access to Higher Education Act outlined several stringent requirements for loan eligibility: family income of less than ₦500,000 per annum; at least two guarantors, one of whom must be a civil servant at level 12 or above; ineligibility if the applicant’s parents had defaulted on any prior loan; and coverage limited to tuition fees, excluding accommodation and living expenses. Despite its shortcomings, the loan programme provided some relief. By 3rd April 2024, however, an amended version of the Act—Students Loans (Access to Higher Education) (Repeal and Re-Enactment) Act, 2024—was signed into law, introducing significant changes: removal of the family income threshold; elimination of the guarantor requirement; verification via JAMB registration number, BVN, NIN, and admission letters; inclusion of a maintenance allowance to cover living expenses; ensuring student eligibility regardless of parents’ loan history; and penalties for providing false information, with offenders liable to three years imprisonment.
According to Akintunde Sawyerr, Managing Director of NELFUND, the fund has disbursed ₦110 billion to students across tertiary institutions. However, the new policy also raised concerns about its long-term sustainability, given the saturated job market and the reliance of many graduates on informal employment or side jobs.
In a recent virtual conference titled “Student Loan Masterclass: Why, What, and How?”, Mr Sawyerr announced a controversial update. Moving forward, the loans would prioritise courses aligned with the nation’s development needs, such as engineering and medicine, while deprioritising fields deemed less critical, such as the arts and humanities. “Language courses are less important to our national development than engineering or medical courses,” Mr Sawyerr stated. “As a developing country, we need skills and people educated to a level where they can contribute directly to the country’s growth.”
This policy shift sparked widespread criticism, with students, educators, and observers condemning the perceived bias and undervaluation of certain disciplines. Many questioned why such courses were offered at universities in the first place if they were considered less relevant to national development.
At the University of Ibadan, students expressed their frustrations with the new policy. Gideon, a Sociology student, criticised the government’s stance: “Every course is important. If a course isn’t relevant, the university shouldn’t admit students to study it. This policy is inconsiderate and discriminatory. Equal opportunities should be provided for all students.”
Joseph, a Political Science student, acknowledged the loan’s benefits but pointed out potential repayment challenges: “The loan helped me and my friends stay in school. While the policy shift is unfavourable, I believe the selection process is tied to repayment capacity. However, thorough consideration is needed before implementing such changes.”
A student from the Department of Archaeology, who preferred to remain anonymous, voiced similar concerns: “Courses like archaeology are undervalued, but they contribute to fields like tourism, forensics, and cultural heritage management. Every discipline has a role in national development. Discriminating against certain fields is both unfair and short-sighted.”
Another anonymous student added: “No course is less important than another. Segregating students based on their field of study is unjust. If certain courses are irrelevant, they should be removed from the university system altogether.”
As the academic session draws to a close, many students are left wondering how they will finance their next tuition fees, especially with NELFUND’s policy shift. For some, the loan was their last hope of continuing their education. With increasing financial constraints and restrictive policies, the future of accessible higher education in Nigeria remains uncertain.
photo credit: businesstoday.ng
