By Segun Otokiti
Nigerians have been reacting to the recent Federal Government’s approval of ₦48 billion for the upgrade of engineering and technology faculties in 12 selected universities.
The approval was disclosed on Monday, March 2, 2026 by Minister of Education, Dr. Tunji Alausa.
Since then, the reactions had been mixed with some applauding and others expressing worries. The approval has faced cautionary support and specific institutional push-back, particularly regarding its exclusion of certain schools.
Alausa had on that day inaugurated the Implementation Committee of the Tertiary Education Trust Fund Special High-Impact Intervention Projects, a programme aimed to produce job-ready, innovation-driven graduates by providing cutting-edge, industry-relevant facilities.
The intervention allocates ₦4 billion to each institution to rehabilitate existing facilities and the construction of new engineering workshops where necessary, and also to procure modern equipment and bridge the gap between theoretical learning and industrial application.
The Minister also added that an additional ₦20 billion is earmarked in the 2026 TETFund guidelines for upgrading engineering facilities in other universities nationwide.
In spite of Federal Government’s description of the N48 billion approval as a strategic investment to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical competence, critics, stakeholders and officials have flagged several potential loopholes and challenges that could undermine its success.
CONCERNS GENERALLY RAISED
Procurement and misuse concerns: Public skepticism exists regarding whether the funds will be used for their intended purpose—rehabilitating workshops and procuring modern equipment—or be lost to systemic corruption. There are calls for rigorous tracking to ensure the money does not “disappear” or simply enrich university administrators.
Commercialization gap: Stakeholders have pointed out that even with upgraded facilities, there is a risk that research outputs will continue to “end up on shelves” rather than being commercialized into industrial products and national progress.
Sustainability beyond infrastructure: Experts argue that the intervention’s success cannot be measured by physical infrastructure alone; it must translate into improved graduate employability and restored industry confidence.
Exclusion of other Institutions: While 12 universities were selected for the first phase, many other institutions with similar needs were not included, though the government has planned an additional ₦20 billion in the 2026 TETFund guidelines to address this.
Implementation and accountability risks: The Minister of Education and other officials themselves have explicitly stated that funding alone does not guarantee results. The success of the project relies heavily on strict adherence to standards, transparency, and the effectiveness of the newly inaugurated Ministerial Monitoring, Evaluation and Implementation Committee.
Reacting to the development, Dr. Wahab Adelogbon of University of Abuja told worldstagenews.com that special interventions as the one just announced are often manipulated for political patronage rather than long-term systemic planning. The don’s reaction refused to acknowledge Minister of State for Education, Suwaiba Said Ahmad’s explicit admission that funding alone was not enough to guarantee impact, and that the project’s success hinges on strict adherence to standards, transparency, and accountability.
The Minister himself introduced a critical counter-argument during the inauguration, stating that funding alone does not guarantee results. He warned that the success of the N48 billion depends entirely on effective monitoring and implementation, emphasizing immediate utilization of unspent funds, and recommending sanctions for institutions that allow funds to sit idle.
Adelogbon wouldn’t also consider government’s measure already put in place to address various public concerns. As part of measures to address shortcomings of the initiative, a Ministerial Monitoring, Evaluation and Implementation Committee was inaugurated to oversee project execution and ensure compliance with specifications.
Beside the don’s worries, public reactions on various platforms and at different fora equally raised concerns about the criteria for selecting the 12 beneficiary universities, with some critics alleging tribal hypocrisy, and claiming an uneven regional distribution of the selected institutions.
The 12 selected universities include Federal Universities of Technology (FUTs) and conventional institutions across Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones, among which are Federal University of Technology, Minna, Niger State; Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State; Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Imo State; Federal University of Technology, Babura, Jigawa State; Federal University of Technology, Ikot-Abasi, Akwa Ibom; Nigerian Army University, Biu, Borno State.
Others are African Aviation and Aerospace University, Abuja (FCT); Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi State; Shehu Shagari University of Education, Sokoto State; Enugu State University of Medical and Applied Sciences, Enugu State; University of Ilesha, Osun State; and Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State.
Justification for the Intervention has been leveraged on certain considerations, including that most engineering departments suffer from dilapidated workshops and obsolete equipment, making practical training nearly impossible. The intervention has also been pinned on the factor of persistent gap between classroom theory and industry needs, making it to aim to produce job-ready engineers capable of global competition. The intervention, in addition to the Minister’s explanation of it, is to support the Renewed Hope Agenda, by focusing on skills development to drive economic diversification and industrial growth.
Critics also contend that though funds are designated for physical infrastructure (workshops) and equipment, some project aspects, such as non-contractable items like staff/student training and sensitization programmes, may not be fully covered by the primary bids, thereby potentially creating gaps in how the new technology is utilized.
Again, they express worry that given the Minister of Education admitting many federal universities currently operate at sub-optimal capacity, it therefore means that without broader systemic reforms, these one-off financial injections may not be sustainable.
Even Ali Rabiu, President of the Nigerian Society of Engineers (NSE) and Chairman of the Ministerial Monitoring, Evaluation and Implementation Committee of the fund, identified some loopholes in the upgrade intervention fund and highlighted the existing shortfall in graduate employability as a reason for need for strict oversight. His role is specifically to ensure the N48 billion does not become another credentialing exercise without industrial capability.
Adding her voice on the downside of the intervention initiative to our reporter, Hajia Alimat Fatima Onuche, Promoter of Educate the Child, an educational advocacy non-governmental organization based in Abuja, observes that the intervention may create discrepancies, and that the selective nature of funding will no doubt aggravate inequality between selected institutions and ones not selected. According to her, limiting the first tranche to only 12 institutions raises concerns about equity among the country’s many tertiary institutions.
But Onuche’s observation seems to have been addressed by government’s declaration that an additional ₦20 billion has been earmarked in the 2026 TETFund guidelines for other institutions.
While not against the funding itself, leaders of private institutions, on their part, have argued against the exclusion of private universities from such significant TETFund interventions. They argue that private institutions are integral to national human capital development and should not be sidelined.
Despite being officially presented as a transformative investment, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) also expressed serious worries on the selection process, accountability, and overall funding strategy. According to the Union, special interventions like these are often used for political patronage rather than long-term systemic planning.
It maintains that while the government announces large one-off grants, it continues to ignore “unresolved issues” such as the renegotiation of the 2009 agreement and the payment of earned academic allowances. In addition, it questioned government’s continued funding a small subset of selected schools while existing federal universities operate at less than 30% capacity.
While government cited recent agreements with ASUU as a sign of improved relations, ASUU representative, Prof. Michael Chikezie Ugwuene, kicked against the government’s overall handling of university funding, arguing that selective special projects often ignore broader, long-term renegotiated agreements and lingering systemic issues across all universities.
As ASUU, many of other academic unions argue that periodic special interventions do not address the root cause of university crises, such as the consistent failure to meet UNESCO’s recommended 26% budgetary allocation for education. They also point out that approving upgrade for existing schools while simultaneously allowing the proliferation of new universities (both public and private) weakens available resources and erodes global rankings.
Critics on social media and public forums similarly allege tribal hypocrisy and regional lopsidedness in the choice of the 12 beneficiary universities, with some proponents of private education criticizing the exclusion of private universities from such massive public funding and argue for a more inclusive higher education ecosystem.
Groups like HURIWA and various anti-graft coalitions raised alarms of secretive deals and the bundling of billion-naira contracts without competitive, public processes, fearing these funds may be diverted into private pockets.
While there have been general, widespread, and ongoing criticisms of the Nigerian education sector, including low budgetary allocations, poor infrastructure, and the need for greater transparency in funds management, reactions have mostly centered on the need for accountability in the project’s implementation.
