By Bola Babarinde
Nigeria stands at a delicate moment in its national development, a period that demands empathy, fairness, and deep reflection on how public resources are distributed within our Commonwealth. The ongoing debate over whether students in private universities should benefit from the Federal Government Student Loan Scheme is not merely an educational policy discussion; it is a moral question about justice, priorities, and the future of public institutions in Nigeria.
There is no doubt that students attending private universities are Nigerians and, constitutionally, may claim eligibility for national programs. However, public policy must go beyond legality and address purpose. The fundamental question is this: Who was this loan scheme designed to help?
The student loan initiative was conceived as a social intervention aimed at supporting young Nigerians from financially disadvantaged backgrounds who struggle to access higher education due to economic hardship. For decades, public universities served as the primary pathway for upward mobility. During earlier generations, public institutions were not only accessible but respected and functional. They produced professionals, leaders, and innovators without placing unbearable financial pressure on families.
Unfortunately, the same political elite who benefited from these public institutions presided over their gradual decline. The deterioration did not stop at education. Nigeria’s public healthcare system suffered a similar fate. Today, many public officials openly travel abroad for medical treatment, sometimes for ailments as minor as headaches, choosing destinations such as the United Kingdom, France, and India. This practice symbolizes a troubling disconnect between leadership and the systems meant to serve ordinary citizens.
Contrast this with governance culture in , where public accountability has historically discouraged routine medical tourism among government officials. Only in exceptional circumstances involving rare medical conditions do leaders seek treatment abroad. A notable example was , who received medical attention in Russia following alleged poisoning incidents that required specialized care. Similarly, the global icon received treatment and eventually passed away at the medical facility in Pretoria, Gauteng, demonstrating confidence in national institutions.
Nigeria must learn from such examples. Nations improve their public systems when leaders and citizens alike depend on them.
Allowing private university students to benefit from a limited public loan scheme risks undermining the very objective of revitalizing public education. If scarce resources are extended without clear targeting, the program may unintentionally favor children of wealthy families who already possess educational advantages. Nigeria’s billionaires and politically connected individuals could easily access funds meant for students whose dreams of higher education depend entirely on government support.
Empathy must guide policy at this stage. We must consider the millions of Nigerians whose families cannot afford private tuition fees and whose only hope lies within public universities. Expanding the scheme to private institutions may dilute its impact, leaving the truly needy competing with beneficiaries who are already economically secure.
If inclusion of private university students becomes acceptable, consistency would demand further subsidies for private hospitals, private housing, and other premium services. Such a path would blur the distinction between social welfare and public subsidy for privilege. Instead, national policy should focus on rebuilding public institutions so they regain their lost prestige and functionality.
Nigeria urgently needs bold reforms. One such reform should be legislation restricting foreign medical treatment for government officials except in rare, medically justified cases unavailable within the country. Even then, treatment within Nigeria should be prioritized, with strong preference for public medical facilities. When political office holders rely on the same hospitals as ordinary citizens, improvements will follow naturally. Infrastructure will receive attention, funding will be better monitored, and accountability will become unavoidable.
The student loan scheme represents more than financial assistance; it is an opportunity to restore faith in Nigeria’s public education system. Protecting its focus is therefore essential. The discussion about extending it to private universities should be approached with caution, empathy, and a clear understanding of national priorities.
At this critical juncture, Nigeria must resist policies that allow a small circle of elites and opportunists to corner opportunities meant for the vulnerable majority. Public resources must first serve those who have no alternatives.
Let the program remain a lifeline for students in public institutions. Let it help rebuild confidence in public education. And let empathy, equity, and national responsibility guide our decisions as we work toward a more just Nigerian Commonwealth.
