Critique Of Renaming University Of Maiduguri To “Muhammadu Buhari University”

 By Umar Ardo

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s decision to rename the University of Maiduguri as “Muhammadu Buhari University, Maiduguri” in honour of the late former President Muhammadu Buhari has raised fundamental questions regarding its logic, appropriateness and historical justice. While the gesture may appear symbolic on the surface, a critical examination exposes its lack of intellectual, cultural and moral grounding.

2. First and foremost, Muhammadu Buhari was a career military officer and a politician – not an academic, educationist or intellectual in any public sense. His legacy, whether praised or criticized, is rooted in his military career, his ascension to the presidency and his distinct governing style marked by authoritarian tendencies, economic conservatism and a controversial anti-corruption crusade. Renaming a university, a citadel of learning, knowledge, research and intellectualism, after someone whose relationship with academia is at best peripheral, if not outright tenuous, dilutes the institution’s identity and purpose.

3. ⁠Universities are ideally named after figures whose lives and legacies exemplify educational values, critical thinking, nation-building through scholarship or transformative contributions to education policy. In this regard, Buhari’s record does not resonate with such ideals. The naming of the university after him is thus a clear mismatch between legacy and institutional identity.

4. Instructively also, the University of Maiduguri is neither situated in Buhari’s home state of Katsina nor in his geopolitical zone of the North-West. It is in Borno State, a region with its own rich historical figures, political icons and educational pioneers who could be more appropriately celebrated in a naming gesture. Buhari did not attend, teach at or found the University of Maiduguri. Nor did he demonstrate any special affinity or leave an indelible mark on the institution during his presidency. In this light, the renaming appears arbitrary and lacking not only in cultural relevance to the host community, but also lacking of geographical and emotional relevance.

5. There is also the question of historical fairness. The University of Maiduguri, along with six other federal universities, was established by the late General Murtala Ramat Muhammed in 1975 as part of a visionary policy to expand access to tertiary education across the country. Yet, none of these institutions bear his name. General Murtala’s short but impactful leadership laid critical foundations for Nigeria’s modern administrative and educational systems. If any leader deserves to have a university named after him - especially one of the seven he established - it is Murtala Muhammed.

6. To overlook Murtala and instead honour Buhari, who did not initiate nor significantly reform Nigeria’s higher education sector, is to distort historical credit and deny rightful recognition. Not to have thus honoured him is a historical injustice to the late General Muhammed. 

7. If the intention was genuinely to honour President Buhari for his service to the country, several other avenues would have been more appropriate and meaningful:

          •        A military academy or barracks, given his identity as a soldier and former Head of State;

          •        A rural development institute, if one were to associate him with the “change” rhetoric and agricultural initiatives of his administration; or

          •        A public structure in Katsina, his home state, thereby maintaining a geographical and emotional resonance.

8. Honouring public figures posthumously is not inherently objectionable. But it must be done with a sense of proportionality, cultural sensitivity, institutional relevance and historical justice. The naming of national monuments or educational institutions should not be driven by political patronage, sentimental populism or hasty gestures of appeasement. This act, like the previous ones of the Tinubu regime, is a dangerous policy of politicizing institutions of learning by tying their identities to transient political figures rather than enduring national ideals or educational pioneers. Universities must transcend ephemeral politics and serve as beacons of critical inquiry, not as memorials to partisan figures whose legacies remain contested in the public sphere.

9. For any rational mind, President Tinubu’s decision to rename the University of Maiduguri, Alma Mater, after Muhammadu Buhari is ill-advised and conceptually misplaced. It undermines both the institutional integrity of the university and the historical contributions of those more deserving of such recognition. Nigeria must adopt a principled and thoughtful approach in immortalizing its leaders, especially in ways that inspire future generations and reflect the true spirit of the institutions being renamed. Rather than rewrite history to suit contemporary political narratives, we must honour history by upholding truth, merit and relevance. This gesture, unfortunately, fails on all counts.

* Umar Ardo, Ph.D, is a commentator on public issues