By Akanni Oluwasegun Michael
As Nigeria’s education system buckles under the weight of underfunding, inflation, and privatisation, UI Students are being nudged or perhaps shoved into taking loans to fund their basic education. 4,800 students at the University of Ibadan have so far applied for the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND). That’s over 11% of the student body in a public university in a so-called welfare state.
But in the face of this growing economic desperation, the Students’ Union, which is expected to fight for equity, affordability, and the public good, released a press release that reads more like a government press kit than a rallying cry. The May 25 press release by the Covenant-led administration triumphantly praised its “diplomatic engagement” with university management and encouraged students to “take advantage” of the NELFUND opportunity.
Yet, as the June 6 deadline looms, the real question remains unanswered, “What has the Union done to fight the deadline itself?”
For a body that claims to act in the interest of the students, the Covenant Odedele-led Students’ Union appears more concerned with being seen as “engaging stakeholders” than actually advocating for students burdened by fees they simply cannot afford. Its tone-deaf emphasis on formalities “interactive sessions,” “commitment from NELFUND,” “diplomatic channels” shows a disturbing disconnection from the raw economic struggles its own students face.
The leadership emphasis on engagement sounds like a step in the right direction. In the statements, they highlight meetings with university officials, dialogues with NELFUND representatives, and a commitment to help students navigate the application process. These are not necessarily bad moves. But taken together, they reveal something more troubling, the Union leadership is managing student expectations rather than challenging the power structures that created the crisis.
One glaring example is the statement that “students are encouraged to take advantage of the NELFUND opportunity.” The use of the word “opportunity” reframes what is essentially a loan debt burden as a benefit. In public policy, the use of such euphemisms is often a strategy to sell unpopular reforms. The use of this word blurs the line between advocacy and endorsement.
Nigerian student union leadership have mistaken access to university administrators as influence, but real influence is measured not by how many meetings are attended, but by what is demanded and won. And on this front, the Covenant odedele-led administration has come up short.
One of the most striking things about the Union’s response to the June 6 deadline is how passive it is. While acknowledging that students are struggling to pay their fees, and that thousands have yet to receive loans, the Union has not organized a single public action. No protest. No sit-in. No boycott.
Historically, student unions across Nigeria have played a crucial role in defending the right to education. From the anti-structural adjustment protests of the 1980s to more recent mobilizations against fee hikes, student movements have been most powerful when they embrace confrontation.
But this confrontation requires courage, it requires a willingness to risk backlash, to disrupt normalcy, and to make demands that power finds uncomfortable. The Covenant-led Union has shown no such willingness. It has opted for politeness in a time of pressure, paperwork in a time of poverty.
This lack of action sends a clear message to students, “you are on your own. If you can’t pay, apply for a loan. If the loan doesn’t come, try again. If it’s late, beg. But don’t expect your Union to fight with you.”
The long-term danger here is demobilization. When students see their leaders retreat into technical language and bureaucratic negotiation, they stop believing in collective power. They become cynical, apathetic, or worse, complicit.
But if the executive arm deserves rebuke, then the Students’ Representative Council (SRC) must bear the greater shame. They were not just absent, they were complicit. Elected to serve as the legislative check on executive power, the SRC has instead served as an enabler of the Executive Committee negligence of their vow to the student body. Their silence, without any sign of disciplinary action against the executive committee, has led to a profound erosion of student trust. It shows that the SRC is in alignment with the very executive they are meant to hold accountable.
According to UCJ’UI REPORT, On May 17, the Speaker of the Students’ Representative Council, Rt. Hon. Shoge Quadri, publicly decried the Union’s handling of the Congress. He revealed that the SU executives failed to issue proper notice for the meeting, violating an earlier Council resolution. Instead of a formal letterhead, a random WhatsApp message circulated hours before the sitting.
According to the Speaker, the Union’s Executive Committee conduct was so problematic that it would now face multiple disciplinary charges before the Council. For a Union already under fire for its weak advocacy, this only deepened student disillusionment.
The Congress should have been a forum for collective anger. Students were ready to debate the loan policy, demand transparency, and pressure both the school and the government. But due to poor mobilization and disregard for procedure, the congress didn’t even achieve quorum.
As of press time, the Congress has yet to be reconvened. The Speaker promised a Congress will be reconveyed the following week after the suspension and stressed the urgency of acting before the course registration deadline. But with time running out and no clear direction from the Union leadership, many students are beginning to wonder if the Union is deliberately avoiding their duties.
Had that Congress held, motions could have been moved, protests could have been planned, and resolutions could have been passed. Instead, students are left with silence and a ticking clock.
The Union’s inability to face Congress and explain its stance on NELFUND openly showed their fear. It shows weakness, not negotiation. A Union that hides from its own members cannot claim to represent them.
With the deadline for loan applications approaching and many students still locked out of the process, a second Congress must be called, this time with proper mobilisation, clear demands, and space for student voices to be heard.
The Speaker has promised sanctions for the executive’s failures. But sanctions are not enough. What’s needed is accountability, and more importantly, vision. Students deserve leaders who will not just follow instructions but who will fight for a better future.
The Congress may have failed once. But it must not fail again. It remains the last democratic mechanism students have to save their Union and possibly, their right to affordable education.
And if the Union leadership continues to run from that room, then students must run into it. Because power, no matter how small, must always be held to account.
