When Prof. Emmanuel Osodeke, President of Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) walked into the Brekete Family studio on , the air was thick with tension. Across the table, Ahmad Isah – the self‑styled ‘Ordinary President’ and host of the popular Brekete Family programme on 99.9 Human Rights Radio – was flaunting a stack of cash he claimed came from the governor of Akwa Ibom.
Background to the February 2025 University Strike
The current standoff didn’t spring out of nowhere. Since , university lecturers, senior staff and non‑academic workers have been on a nationwide warning strike, demanding the full implementation of the 2009 Federal‑government‑ASUU agreement. Among the chief grievances are the unpaid Earned Academic Allowances (EAA), a promised N1.7 trillion revamp fund for public universities, and long‑standing promotion arrears. By October, over forty federal institutions – from the University of Abuja to the Federal University of Technology, Owerri – were still grinding to a halt.
Ahmad Isah’s Crowdfunding Initiative
In early June, Isah launched a public fundraiser he billed as an "ASUU Intervention". He opened a bank account, tweeted the details on , and pledged N10 million of his own money. His pitch was simple: "Donate what presidential hopefuls spend on party forms, and we’ll buy back our universities." By mid‑October, the campaign claimed to have gathered roughly N18 billion, a figure bolstered by a dramatic on‑air reveal of N50 million in cash – supposedly a donation from Governor Udom Emmanuel of Akwa Ibom State.
ASUU’s Rejection and Immediate Fallout
Osodeke didn’t mince words. "ASUU distances itself from this campaign," he said, demanding that the union’s name be stripped from all promotional material. He also declared that any cash shown on the studio floor “does not belong to us.” The reaction was swift: the Brekete Family Instagram feed posted a notice reading, "The Brekete ASUU Intervention has been suspended. The accounts will be closed and the money returned to those who donated." By the end of the day, the dedicated bank accounts were frozen and a refund process was set in motion.
Implications for the Ongoing Warning Strike
The timing could not have been worse for the union. On , ASUU’s national executive released a bulletin confirming that the strike had entered its second week. The bulletin emphasized that the action was not meant to punish students but to force the Federal Government of Nigeria to honour its commitments. While the government had recently disbursed NGN50 billion (about US$34 million) to settle some dues, union leaders, including Osodeke, argue that the payment is a drop in the ocean compared with the N1.7 trillion revamp fund still on the table.
Other unions – the Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities (SSANU), the Non‑Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions (NASU), and the National Association of Academic Technologists (NAAT) – have pledged solidarity, amplifying pressure on the ministries of Education and Finance. Yet the crowdfunding episode has raised questions about who really controls the narrative of the strike and whether outside actors can legitimately channel donor money into a collective bargaining effort.
What Comes Next for ASUU and the Government
Looking ahead, ASUU has signalled it will continue its warning strike until three core items are met: the full release of earned allowances, a clear timetable for the N1.7 trillion rehabilitation budget, and the publication of all pending visitation panel reports. Osodeke warned that any unilateral attempts to “solve” the crisis – such as private fundraising – could fragment the movement and weaken its bargaining power.
For the federal authorities, the challenge is two‑fold. First, they must prove that the pledged funds are real and earmarked, not just political talking points. Second, they need to engage directly with union leadership rather than through intermediaries, a lesson echoed by analysts at the University World News who noted that previous “good‑will” gestures have seldom translated into lasting reform.
In the meantime, thousands of students across the country remain caught in a limbo of postponed lectures, delayed exams and uncertain graduation dates. The hope – if any – rests on a negotiated settlement that respects both the union’s long‑standing demands and the government’s fiscal constraints.
- Strike began: February 2025
- Crowdfunding launch: 5 June 2025
- Cash reveal on TV: 18 October 2025
- ASUU’s bulletin confirming strike week two: 20 October 2025
- Government partial payment: 15 October 2025 (NGN50 billion)
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did ASUU reject the crowdfunding campaign?
ASUU’s leadership said the initiative was carried out without the union’s consent, and that the name was being used to give the effort a legitimacy it never earned. They also worried that donor money could be misdirected or become a bargaining tool for outsiders.
How much money was actually raised before the suspension?
The Brekete Family programme claimed about N18 billion had been pledged, including a publicised N50 million cash donation allegedly from Governor Udom Emmanuel. Exact figures are still being verified, and all accounts are being closed for refunds.
What are the core demands of the ASUU strike?
The union wants full payment of earned academic allowances, a clear rollout plan for the N1.7 trillion university revitalisation fund, settlement of promotion arrears, release of all pending visitation reports, and regular salary payments for lecturers.
How has the federal government responded so far?
In mid‑October the government disbursed NGN50 billion to clear some overdue dues, but ASUU says the amount falls short of the promised N1.7 trillion and does not address the deeper structural issues raised by the union.
What could happen if the strike continues?
Prolonged disruption could delay examinations, push back graduations and erode public confidence in Nigeria’s higher‑education system. Economists warn that sustained unrest may also deter foreign investment in research and development.
It is evident that the ASUU leadership is seeking to preserve the integrity of the union's negotiating position. By explicitly distancing itself from the crowdfunding effort, the union avoids any potential misallocation of donor funds. This decision also safeguards the collective bargaining process from external influence. The formal statement underscores the importance of unified representation in negotiations.
The situation invites us to reflect on the nature of collective action versus individual philanthropy. While well‑intentioned gestures can inspire hope, they should not substitute for structured dialogue. Optimism remains for a resolution that respects both the union’s agenda and the public’s expectations.
Honestly, anyone trying to jump the gun with cash can mess up the whole strike vibe. Let’s keep the pressure on the government, not on solo donors.
Agreeing with the union’s stance, it is crucial-especially now-to maintain a unified front; otherwise, fragmentation could erode bargaining power. Moreover, the influx of unvetted money raises accountability concerns, especially given past instances of mismanagement. The union’s caution reflects a strategic approach, not mere obstinacy. It also signals to the government that any resolution must come through proper institutional channels, not ad‑hoc funding schemes. Ultimately, this move preserves the legitimacy of the collective demand.
The emergence of an unsanctioned crowdfunding conduit constitutes a paradigmatic deviation from the normative praxis of industrial relations. In the lexicon of labor economics, this maneuver could be classified as an exogenous fiscal stimulus that bypasses the established collective bargaining framework. Such an intrusion jeopardizes the equilibrium of negotiation dynamics, effectively introducing an asymmetrical power variable. Moreover, the purported N18 billion infusion, while ostensibly massive, lacks the requisite fiduciary oversight mechanisms that union statutes mandate. The ostensible donor-purportedly a gubernatorial figure-could be construed as a stakeholder attempting to recalibrate the bargaining set, thereby destabilizing the pre‑existing payoff matrix. From a game‑theoretic perspective, the union’s repudiation can be interpreted as a strategic move to preserve a Nash equilibrium that favors coordinated action over individualized financial injections. The resultant dissonance may precipitate a fragmentation of solidarity, eroding the union’s leverage in negotiations with the federal apparatus. In addition, the Institutional Review Board’s implicit expectations for transparency remain unmet, amplifying concerns regarding the legitimacy of the cash flow. By distancing itself, ASUU signals adherence to procedural legitimacy, which is essential for maintaining the moral authority that underpins its demands for earned allowances, revamp funding, and promotion arrears settlement. The broader macro‑economic ramifications-such as potential distortions in public sector wage negotiations-cannot be ignored. Consequently, the union’s stance serves as a bulwark against the dilution of collective intent, preserving both the strategic coherence and ethical foundation of the strike. Ultimately, any resolution must integrate the union’s core demands within a framework that respects the sanctity of organized labor’s collective voice.
There’s a hidden agenda behind that cash reveal, orchestrated to weaken the union’s bargaining chip. The donors might be linked to elite interests that benefit from prolonged unrest. Stay wary of who’s really pulling the strings.
They just want to control the narrative.
Sure, but why trust a lone billionaire when the union is the real voice? 🤔
Ths is nnt sum p r c its rite! Even wthh typos i can see the glittc stil glints.
The union’s decision is clear, it is about protectng the voice of teachers, it is not about money, it is about principle, its the right path to take, even if some pople dont get it.
Think about it – every sudden cash drop is a cue for hidden powers to steer the agenda. It’s a classic diversion to keep the masses focused on money, not on systemic change.
The moral decay is evident; shortcuts undermine the legitimate struggle.