By Grace Chigbu
In January, President Bola Tinubu’s approval of over N640 billion as the 2024 intervention for universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education under the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFund) was met with anticipation for infrastructural advancements in higher education institutions nationwide. However, the subsequent directive by the House Committee on TETFund to halt the implementation of these interventions has sparked controversy, with institutions accusing the committee of overreach.
At the heart of the matter lies the tension between the oversight role of the House Committee and the autonomy of tertiary institutions in managing funds allocated to them. While the House Committee justifies its actions as constitutional oversight, institutions argue that the interference impedes their ability to address critical infrastructural challenges.
According to Sonny Echono, Executive Secretary of TETFund, President Tinubu approved a substantial sum of N683 billion for the 2024 intervention, earmarked to address infrastructure deficits and support ongoing projects in universities, polytechnics, and colleges of education. However, the House Committee’s directive to halt project implementation pending public hearings and verification has thrown a wrench into the works.
Allegations of extortion and undue influence have further muddied the waters, with institutions accusing the committee of demanding payments to expedite project approvals. The House, on the other hand, maintains that its actions are within the purview of its constitutional mandate, citing the need for accountability and transparency in fund disbursement.
Akintunde Rotimi, spokesperson for the House, refutes accusations of meddling, asserting that legislative oversight is essential for ensuring proper utilization of public funds. He emphasizes the constitutional authority granted to the National Assembly to authorize withdrawals from public funds, including those allocated to TETFund.
However, questions linger regarding the extent of the House’s authority to dictate the implementation of budgeted funds allocated to government agencies. While the TETFund Act outlines criteria for fund disbursement, the absence of explicit mention of National Assembly approval raises concerns over potential overreach.
Rotimi contends that the House’s directive to suspend project implementation aligns with constitutional provisions and aims to uphold accountability. He dismisses accusations of blackmail and emphasizes the importance of legislative oversight in combating corruption and ensuring good governance.
In response to the unfolding controversy, a joint public hearing organized by the National Assembly’s joint Committee on TETFund aims to address concerns raised by both parties. Rotimi underscores the House’s commitment to strengthening oversight functions to combat corruption effectively.
As the debate rages on, the fate of vital infrastructure projects hangs in the balance, highlighting the delicate balance between legislative oversight and institutional autonomy in Nigeria’s higher education sector. The resolution of this standoff will not only impact the future of these institutions but also shape the broader landscape of accountability and governance in the country.
