With public universities facing a massive on-campus accommodation shortage, the vast majority of students rely on costly, often insecure, and distant private off-campus residences. This has forced a growing chorus of voices calling for the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) to shift its intervention priorities. While institutional resistance from university managements and ASUU is expected, IYABO LAWAL reports that democratising the criteria for TETFund project selection could be the joker needed to turn things around.

For nearly three decades, the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) has been the single most significant financier of infrastructure and research in Nigeria’s public tertiary institutions.

Funded by a 2.5 per cent education tax on profits of registered companies, the agency’s impact is undeniable, with its signature projects, lecture theatres, administrative blocks, and research centres dotting the campuses of over 200 universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education nationwide.

Yet, as Nigeria grapples with a debilitating economic crisis and students face dire living and learning conditions, a powerful, new consensus is emerging: TETFund’s intervention model, long focused on “brick and mortar,” is now fundamentally misaligned with the most urgent needs of those that it was created to serve.

The argument, increasingly voiced by policy analysts and concerned academics, is that the agency must drastically pivot its focus towards students’ welfare and the enhancement of the direct learning experience, a shift that prioritises hostels, student learning spaces, and improved lecture rooms over administrative offices.

The ensuing debate pits the practical needs of millions of students against the institutional autonomy prized by university management and the long-standing demands of academic unions.

The agency was established by the TETFund Act of 2011, replacing the former Education Trust Fund (ETF). Its core mandate is enshrined as an intervention agency charged with managing and disbursing the Education Tax to public tertiary institutions in Nigeria.

This intervention is designed to supplement the resources traditionally provided by the federal and state governments for the rehabilitation, restoration, and consolidation of tertiary education.

The TETFund Act explicitly delineates specific areas where the funds are to be deployed. These are broadly grouped into academic, infrastructure, and project-based interventions.

Historically, the key permissible areas include infrastructure projects (construction of lecture halls, libraries, laboratories, administrative blocks, and student hostels), academic staff development (sponsorship of staff for postgraduate training (MSc/PhD), both locally and internationally), library development (procurement of books, journals, and IT infrastructure for libraries), research and development (funding institutional and national research projects, including the establishment of Research Centres and Technology Transfer Offices), and equipment procurement (purchase of laboratory and workshop equipment).

Over the years, the execution of the TETFund mandate has shown a distinct concentration in certain areas, particularly physical infrastructure (building interventions).

A review of the agency’s project portfolio often reveals a disproportionate investment in administrative and academic offices, including grand administrative buildings, Senate buildings, departmental staff offices and lecture theatres. These are large, often imposing lecture halls, but they frequently outnumber other critical student-centric infrastructure, such as hostels.

While these structures are crucial for expanding institutional capacity and providing necessary workspaces, critics argue that the overemphasis has created an imbalance, with the direct welfare and living conditions of students taking a secondary role to institutional prestige and the comfort of management.

The mounting argument for redirecting TETFund’s focus is simple: for learning outcomes to improve, the learning environment must be conducive, and this begins with the students’ immediate welfare and living conditions.

The demand for TETFund to prioritise student welfare is directly linked to the housing and academic realities on campuses. For example, the hostel crisis.

Nigerian public universities face a massive shortage of on-campus accommodation. Only a fraction of the student population can secure housing, forcing the vast majority to rely on costly, often insecure, and distant private off-campus residences.

This external pressure contributes to crime, poor attendance, and financial strain. So, TETFund’s intervention in building adequate, modern hostels, many contend, would immediately reduce students’ cost of living, improve security, and increase available study time.

Dedicated study spaces are another instance. Beyond lecture halls, students lack the necessary support infrastructure – 24/7 reading rooms, collaborative learning centres, and technology hubs. A dedicated focus on upgrading laboratories and modernising lecture rooms (with better ventilation, lighting, and digital tools) would directly impact the quality of instruction and learning.

Additionally, focus should be on improving learning outcomes. Regarding that, a policy analyst, Dr Aisha Bello, said: “You cannot expect a student who spends three hours commuting, who sleeps with eight others in a room, and who cannot access the library after 6:00 p.m., to compete globally. The welfare issue is academic. Focusing on buildings for management does not improve the pass rate; focusing on student comfort and access does.”

The perception that TETFund prioritises the construction of visually impressive administrative blocks over functional student facilities is a major driver of the public outcry.

This often leads to the accusation that interventions serve institutional vanity projects rather than core student needs. By continuing to fund large administrative buildings, critics argued that TETFund inadvertently supports a top-heavy, bureaucratic structure that does not substantially ease the burden on the average student.

Shifting TETFund’s focus, while popular among students and the general public, creates profound conflicts with the two most powerful stakeholders in the tertiary education sector: university management and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU).

University vice-chancellors and management bodies often resist any move that centralises control over intervention spending. They argued that campus needs are unique and that the institution, not the funding agency, is best placed to decide its priority projects.

University managers view the autonomy to allocate TETFund grants, even if they choose to allocate them to administrative blocks, as crucial to their institutional independence.

Restricting funds primarily to hostels or specific welfare projects, they feel, turns them into mere contractors for the agency, undermining the university’s strategic planning and mandate.

The counterargument to the mandate is that university managers often prioritise structures such as Senate buildings and staff offices because they are essential for accreditation, administration, and attracting qualified faculty, which they argue indirectly improve the student experience.

ASUU has long championed the cause of revitalising the university system. While ASUU is concerned with student welfare, its primary financial demand is centred on the revitalisation of the public universities agreement.

ASUU’s long-standing fight to overhaul university funding often overshadows calls for merely redirecting TETFund’s budget. Its focus is on the quantum of funding flowing into the system and improving staff remuneration, believing that a well-paid and well-equipped academic staff is the single most critical factor for improved learning outcomes.

Meanwhile, ASUU views TETFund as an intervention fund, distinct from the core governmental budgetary allocations needed for university stability.

Redirecting TETFund’s existing budget to student hostels might be seen as an attempt by the government to evade its primary responsibility for infrastructure funding under the main budget.

They want more money for the system overall, not just a reshuffling of existing TETFund funds.

According to a 2024 report by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS), over 60 per cent of students in Nigerian public universities live off-campus, often in substandard housing.

The average student spends N150,000 yearly on rent, transportation, and basic amenities – costs that could be mitigated by on-campus facilities. Meanwhile, TETFund disbursed over N300 billion in 2024 alone, with less than 10 per cent of the funds allocated to projects directly benefiting students.

A co-author of a 2024 study on TETFund’s impact, Dr Lawretta Onyekwere, said the fund has transformed campuses, but its impact on students is uneven.  She noted that a recalibration is needed to align spending with student needs.

If TETFund is to champion the cause of students effectively and sustainably, stakeholders held that a multi-pronged reform approach is necessary, integrating policy shifts with institutional buy-in.

A Professor of Geography at Bayero University, Kano (BUK), Usman Bulama, said the most direct mechanism would be for the TETFund Board to legally ring-fence a mandatory percentage of its total yearly disbursement, say, 40 per cent, specifically for student welfare infrastructure.

This could include hostel construction using a public-private partnership model, where TETFund provides initial financing and universities manage the operations to ensure cost recovery and maintenance.

Additionally, Bulama noted that Information and Communications Technology (ICT)/e-learning centres should be opened and equipped with high-speed Internet and power backup.

Similarly, he stated that campus medical centres could also be upgraded to address critical health and welfare concerns, including results-based funding for institutional interventions.

On his part, Dr Tunji Adebayo of Ekiti State University (EKSU) noted that, instead of funding buildings solely on proposals, TETFund could tie project funding to demonstrable progress on key performance indicators that directly impact students.

For example, a university seeking funds for a new Senate building must first demonstrate a significant reduction in student-to-hostel bed ratio, documented improvements in laboratory usage and maintenance, and high completion rates for previously funded TETFund projects.

To overcome institutional resistance, Adebayo said the criteria for TETFund project selection must be democratised. “ASUU and the student body must be given transparent, formalised seats on the project appraisal committees at the institutional level. This would ensure that the needs of the end-users, the students, are prioritised over administrative preferences.”

According to him, the solution requires not abandoning infrastructure, but redefining essential investments through a student-centric lens.

“TETFund must initiate a dedicated hostel development fund; innovative financing, particularly through Public Private Partnership (PPPs), can mobilise capital, deliver secure and affordable housing, and alleviate the most pressing welfare crises.”

Adebayo pointed out that public-private collaborations offer scalability, leveraging private management efficiencies, while safeguarding affordability and standards.

The agency’s investments must prioritise large-capacity, technology-enabled lecture halls equipped with stable power and smart classrooms. Digital and physical libraries, along with renewed laboratories, are imperative for enabling cutting-edge instruction. Infrastructure funding should guarantee operational, fully equipped spaces, not just bricks and mortar.

Augmenting physical assets, TETFund should significantly expand support for academic staff training, research grants, and teaching innovations. Funding workshops, conferences, and curriculum development will complement facilities investments, fostering a richer academic ecosystem. Dr Jude Nwankwo of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN), advocated for this flow.

“Infrastructure is necessary, but insufficient alone. It must be intimately tied to academic human capital development and resource availability,” Nwankwo said.

Some universities have begun piloting PPP models for hostel construction, notably the University of Lagos (UNILAG), which, despite housing fewer than 15 per cent of its 60,000 students on campus, is forging partnerships to increase capacity sustainably.

Similarly, studies, including one at Benue State University, identify PPPs as a promising route to sustainably address deficits, balancing public responsibility with private sector efficiency.

TETFund has been critical in staving off total tertiary system collapse; its edifices stand as visible monuments of survival and progress. Yet, transforming Nigeria’s higher education into a globally competitive, student-centred system demands strategic evolution.

The ultimate success metric must be student outcomes, encompassing the quality of learning, safety, and career readiness.

Nwankwo added: “The future of Nigeria’s youth depends on bold realignment. It’s time to build for students, not just for campuses.”

While the agency’s mandate encompasses broad intervention areas, the current clamour is for a strategic refocus, a realignment of investment that maximises student impact.

Navigating the political complexities presented by institutional autonomy and the ongoing ASUU struggles will require bold leadership from TETFund and a willingness on the part of university management to prioritise the immediate welfare of their students, the very future of the nation, above bureaucratic or institutional ambitions.

The success of Nigeria’s next generation of graduates hinges not just on the quality of their lectures, but also on the quality of life they lead while receiving them.

QUOTE