By Jideofor Adibe
Tinubu’s first three weeks in office have been packed with actions – fuel subsidy was removed on his inauguration, some aides have been appointed, the Naira has been floated and a Bill establishing an education loan scheme has been signed – among others. Though the actions so far have been mostly policy pronouncements that are yet to be implemented and tested, some people, carried away by the giddiness of the actions, have wrongly declared that Tinubu’s first 15 days in office have been better than a whole four-year term spent by past administrations.
This piece interrogates the Access to Higher Education Act 2023 (otherwise known as the education loan scheme), flagging the promises and issues it raised:
One, contrary to the
belief in some quarters, the education loan scheme was not an initiative of
Bola Tinubu. The bill was first introduced in 2016 by Femi Gbajabiamila, the
immediate past Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Tinubu’s
protégé and Chief of Staff. It was reintroduced in 2019 and received more
attention from the National Assembly in November 2022 following an eight-month
industrial action by the Academic Staff Union of Universities, ASUU.
Two, contrary to the impression in some
quarters, the education loan scheme is an attempt to address just one of the
several challenges in our higher education system– namely the financial
encumbrance for indigent students who want to pursue education in
government-owned institutions of higher learning. The truth however is that the
challenges in our higher education go far beyond the issue of access for
indigent students because it is actually cheaper to obtain higher education
from government- owned tertiary institutions than to train a child in primary
school in even a third-rate privately owned school. In fact, Nigeria’s public
tertiary institutions are currently tuition-free.
Though students pay for course registration
and make other sundry payments, it is officially tuition-free. The key
challenges of higher education in Nigeria include inability to make these
institutions real citadels of learning, poor research and teaching traditions,
inadequate funding, poor remuneration of staff and several contradictions
within the higher education system itself. There is also a wrong assumption
that higher education should be for everyone. This has led to an over-emphasis
on paper qualifications, with people who should spend time on other vocations
trying to obtain paper qualifications in fields they have no aptitude for.
Three, the structure of the education loan
scheme makes it vulnerable to capture and inheriting the inefficiencies
prevalent in other government-owned institutions. For instance, the proposed
education fund is to be domiciled in the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, and
managed by an 11-person special committee chaired by the CBN governor. This
necessarily means it will be hamstrung by red-tape and vulnerable to capture by
top politicians who will want to use it to bolster their standing in their
communities.
Again, the fact that the loans are interest
free (even in periods of high inflation) and the sources of the funding (one
per cent of all profits accruing to the Federal Government from oil and other
minerals; one per cent of taxes, levies and duties accruing to the Federal
Government from the Federal Inland Revenue Service, FIRS; Nigeria Immigration
Service, NIS; and Nigerian Customs Service, NCS; education bonds,
education endowment fund schemes, donations, gifts, grants, endowment and
revenue accruing to the fund from any other source) do not suggest that
government wants it to be run efficiently in a self-sustaining manner.
In contrast, in the United Kingdom, student
financing is managed by the Student Loans Company, which was set up in 1989. It
is owned by the UK Government’s Department for Education (85%), the Scottish
Government (5%), the Welsh Government (5%) and the Northern Ireland Executive
(5%). The company has undergone several transformations based on experiences
from practices. One of the most profound of these transformations was in 1998
following the introduction of tuition fees when it replaced the mortgage type lending(which
it had used previously) with an income-contingent repayment, ICR, scheme. From
2006, loans covered the cost of tuition fees in addition to living costs.
Interest is charged from the day the Student
Loans Company makes your first payment to you or your university or college
until your loan is repaid in full or cancelled. The interest rate is based on
the Retail Price Index or RPI, which measures changes to the cost of living in
the UK. Last Fall, the UK Department for Education set a maximum interest rate
of 6.3 per cent on student loans but it has jumped to 6.9 per cent since then,
and it is going up again to 7.3 per cent. Repayments for these loans are
collected by HMRC via the PAYE tax system. In the UK, everyone understands that
the loan is not free lunch. An opposite impression is given in the case of the
Access to Higher Education Act 2023.
Four, the eligibility criteria for the loan
make no sense. For instance, to be eligible, an applicant’s family income
(combined income of both parents or guardians) must be less than N500,000 per
annum. This means essentially that a family earning more than the paltry sum of
N41,667 per month will not qualify. Since a family where both parents or
guardians have such joint monthly income will be classified as being on minimum
wage (and therefore exempt from paying taxes), such a family will be unable to
produce their tax receipts which is another requirement for accessing the
loans.
Another criterion is that
applicants must provide at least two guarantors, each of whom must either be a
civil servant on at least level 12, or a lawyer with at least 10 years
post-call experience, or a judicial officer, or a justice of peace. But how
realistic is it to expect people on such low income to be able to get such guarantors
who will undertake to repay the loans if they default? Moreover, since most of
the indigent students come from households where the parents or guardians are
in the informal sector of the economy, it can only be imagined how daunting it
will be to compile evidence of eligibility.
Five, the application process appears
cumbersome. To apply for the education loan, candidates are required to submit
applications to the chairperson of the CBN-governor-headed committee through
their respective banks. The application is to be accompanied by a cover letter
signed by the head of their institutions and students’ affairs officer of the
institution. Applicants are also required to submit a copy of their admission
letter, at least two guarantor letters addressed to the chairperson of the
committee, two passport photographs from each of the guarantors, their employer
and evidence of employment. In cases where the guarantor is self-employed,
their business registration with the Corporate Affairs Commission, CAC, or any
other appropriate authority and their bankers, will be required.
Six, the repayment process is also
problematic. It requires that payment starts two years after NYSC –
irrespective of whether the beneficiary has got a job or not. The scheme also
wrongly assumes that any self-employed person is making a profit and demands
that 10 per cent of their total monthly profit shall be remitted as part of the
repayment plans. Meanwhile, defaulters risk a N500,000 fine, two years jail
term or both if they fail to repay their loans. This compares poorly with the
practice in the United Kingdom and other advanced countries where payment is
weighted by income and there is an income threshold before the repayment kick
starts.
In essence, while the thinking behind the Access
to Higher Education Act 2023 is noble, there are many fine-tuning that will be
needed before the scheme is put into practice.
*Prof Adibe
is a commentator on public issues
No comments:
Post a Comment