Muhammad Ali, the American boxing phenomenon whom the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) voted the sports personality of the 20th century in 1999, often promoted pugilistic enterprise in verse. When the ruler of the country formerly known as Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo), Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu wa za Banga, invited him to a contest against then reigning champion, George Foreman, for the undisputed heavyweight boxing championship of the world in October 1974, Ali christened the contest as “Rumble in the Jungle”.

One year later, in October 1975, Filipino dictator, Ferdinand Marcos, thought to imitate his friend in Zaire by inviting Ali to fight his long-time rival, Joe Frazier, for a third time for bragging rights to the title of greatest of all time (GOAT). Never short of a keen lip for every occasion, Ali promised that it was going to be “a killa and a thrilla and a chilla when I get that gorilla in Manila.” The fight went into the history books as “Thrilla in Manila.”

Over five days in the last week, three different judges in two court systems in Nigeria – one state and one federal – have gone mano-o-mano in Kano in judicial pugilism deploying a fusillade of mutually contradictory ex-parte and interim orders, all and each purporting to comfort one side or the other in the contest over the destination and future of the Kano Emirate.

Like the legendary manager of Arsenal FC, Arsene Wenger, who always seemed not to see awful things that he was reluctant to pronounce upon, Yakubu Maikyau, the physically imposing but somnolent president of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), on this occasion got unusually exercised by the judicial blood-sport in Kano. In an uncharacteristically forthright statement, Mr. Maikyau, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), denounced “the conducts (sic) of counsel and the courts in handling the proceedings, which culminated in the orders issued by the Federal High Court, the Kano State High Court, and again the Federal High Court”, describing them as “a circus”, which “have brought utter disgrace and shame to the profession.”

A statement from this president of the NBA on this kind of affair is so unusual that it is a spectacle on its own, there to be admired for the fact of its existence and not to be made the subject of any quibble. There are several things that this president of the NBA was reluctant to utter but whose acknowledgement is essential if the affliction that he has chosen on this occasion to recognise is to be lanced for good.

First, it must count as one of those judicial miracles that have become the staple of the Nigerian judiciary that two different judges of the federal high court managed to both defy the constitution and overrule the supreme court over a local chieftaincy question. Section 251 of Nigeria’s 1999 constitution makes it clear that the federal high court is a court of limited jurisdiction confined to issues over which the federal government has competence to make laws or to necessarily ancillary matters. A chieftaincy dispute, which is what the tussle over the Emirship of Kano is, is palpably beyond the scope of the federal high court under the constitution and the well-established jurisprudence of the supreme court.

36 years ago, following his 1986 deposition as the Emir of Muri by then governor of Gongola state, Yohanna Madaki, a soldier, Alhaji Umar Abba Tukur sued to enforce his fundamental rights before the Federal High Court in Kano. The supreme court made clear that the federal high court is a court of limited jurisdiction and warned: “Courts in this country, without exception, have no power to prescribe jurisdiction for themselves. Neither do they have power to expand or reduce their area of jurisdiction.” Even more telling was this line from the judgment of Otutu Obaseki speaking in that case for a unanimous supreme court: “All the breaches of the fundamental rights alleged flow from the deposition of the appellant from the office of Emir of Muri by the Military Governor of the State. The office of Emir of Muri is a chieftaincy office and the deposition of the Emir is a chieftaincy question which only a State High Court has jurisdiction to determine.”

Second, Abdullahi Liman, the judge of the federal high court, who issued the first order, recognised explicitly that there were “constitutional and jurisdictional issues apparent on the face of the application.” Rather than caution him to tarry, this recognition appears to have inspired Abdullahi Liman to undue haste in issuing a rather muscular end-run of the jurisdictional inquiry.

Third, the case before Abdullahi Liman concerned the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law of 2024, assented to by Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf on May 23. After indicating his assent to the law, the governor publicly asked what time it was, to which the response came that it was 5:10 pm. All court registries in Nigeria were already closed. A few hours later on the same day, however, Abdullahi Liman claimed to have issued an order directing parties to “maintain status quo ante the passage and assent to the bill.” The natural question that he alone must answer is: when was the case filed and in what registry?

Fourth, Simon Amobeda, another controversial judge of the same federal high court, proceeded to issue another order on the same subject matter despite confessing on the face of the order to being “mindful of the order made” five days earlier by Abdullahi Liman.

Fifth, the real scandal in this matter is what the federal high court has turned into. Under the watch of its current chief judge, John Tsoho, the court has developed a reputation as a safe harbour for a coven of judicial renegades specialised in the business of issuing scandalous pay-as-you-go orders at the urging of predictable political clients. The lineup of judges of the federal high court to whom these cases usually get assigned cannot exist or thrive except with the knowledge and complicity of the chief judge of the court who assigns the cases to the judges and posts them to various stations.

Under the leadership of Chief Judge John Tsoho, this corrupt judicial coven has authored a self-serving power-grab, turning the federal high court from a forum of specialised and limited jurisdiction envisaged by the constitution and sanctified by the supreme court, into a court of unlimited jurisdiction of their invention with non-existent supervisory competence over the state high courts, which the constitution created as courts of unlimited and general jurisdiction. They countermand, overrule, and review state high courts at will based on entirely fictional perversions of their significance. To be fair, many judges of the federal high court are honest, hard-working and scandalised by this development. But the existence of this coven and the fact that this chief judge of the federal high court is complicit in its judicial brigandage can no longer be denied.

For the better part of the past four years, Chief Judge John Tsoho has been voluble in complaining that judges of his court are “overburdened with work.” It is difficult, therefore, to see beyond corruption and perversion in explaining how two judges of the same court can go rampaging beyond their permissible scope to invent jurisdiction that they know they don’t have.

The only hopeful thing in this sorry story is that it has taken this judicial mano-o-mano in Kano to rouse a set of actors who have for long chosen to be part of the problem in offices that require them to be part of the solution. The Nigerian Bar Association claims to promote the rule of law. It is, therefore, disappointing when its president creates a false equivalence between the federal high court and a state high court on a question of chieftaincy. There is none. As for the proposed encounter between the outgoing chief justice of Nigeria and the pugilists next week, anyone holding their breath does so at their own risk. This chief justice embodies the problem.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Those who allowed themselves to be distracted slept last night as free people; they woke up this morning in slavery. So, please refuse to be distracted. As you discuss the president’s strange choice of anthem over people’s hunger, pay due attention to everything his government is doing. Pay more than ordinary attention to the local government autonomy case at the Supreme Court. That is a case with a potential to determine (or undermine) your freedom, the health of our country and the safety of our democracy. Why is fox suing hawk in defence of chickens? Autocracy incubates itself in populist confusion. The case is about that. We need vibrant states to checkmate the behemoth in Abuja. We need the local governments to drive development at the grassroots. The rapacious Federal is the elephant unsettling the room. Think of an imperial president with very rich 774 ‘liaison officers’ sitting as council chairmen across the country. Think of a federal government with limitless powers engaging a disparate set of 36 weakened, impotent states. Think of Nigeria as a unitary state. The court case that continues this month has the potential to achieve that. The deft moves of today have replicas in history. Think of Napoleon Bonaparte and France of 1799. Think of Germany of 1933 and the rise of the strongman. Think of the aftermath. Think”.

The Japanese national anthem is a one-stanza song known as Kimigayo; its English translation approximates ‘The Reign of Our Emperor’. The worth of the anthem is in its adulation of limitless power:

“May thy reign last long!

May it last for tens of thousands of years

Until tiny pebbles grow into massive boulders,

And moss covers them deep and thick.”

When I heard that our president has brought back a national anthem discarded 46 years ago, I told myself that if a peacock person would be a thief, he should steal an item of diamond’s worth (Bí oge ó bá j’alè, a gbé oun t’óye é). A president who wills a thing and it is done (be, and it is) deserves more than the tepid ‘Nigeria We Hail Thee’. If you and I had sung the Japanese anthem to our president last week, he probably would have grabbed it as his ‘priority’. He would have dropped the expired alien song he adopted.

If it takes Nigeria sixty-four years to run mad, how long will it take it to enter the market naked? In theme, notes and mood, the new Bola Ahmed Tinubu anthem expired a long time ago. And this is not just about the archaic “thee” in the opening line. Nor is it about the cliched insults embedded in “native” and “tribe” – racist words that string together the author’s ‘superiority’ thought. The anthem expired because it was composed for a season, and its reason is long gone. Take for instance the lines: “Our flag SHALL be a symbol/That truth and justice reign.” In syntax and semantics, that promise could be said to be appropriate at independence in 1960. But sixty-four years after using our Green-White-Green flag, is it not too late in the day for the flag to start promising something? We cannot have a ‘new’ anthem in 2024 that sings a pledge on behalf of a flag which went up in 1960.

With its lyrics and music made by aliens, the ‘Nigeria-We-Hail-Thee’ anthem came in 1960 with a stained banner. Its conception and birth sat to put on its forehead incisions of bastardy. When it was announced as our national anthem days to independence, Nigerians roundly rejected it as an unwanted baby from two strange wombs. Ezekiel Mphahlele’s ‘Nigeria on the Eve of Independence’ published in 1960 speaks to the complaints and controversies: “A couple of musicians went out to prove that the (anthem’s) music was, in part, a plagiarism from an English church hymn; others thought the idiom was altogether foreign and the composition had captured little or nothing of the Nigerian atmosphere; still others blatantly said Nigerian music should, in the name of independence, have been chosen from the 500 entries that came from Nigerians themselves. Others again had argued that the music should have been composed first and then the lyrics fitted to it, instead of the other way round.”

Anthems have emotive, mobilisation reasons. They are battle cries; fanfares and flourishes of patriotism. They are songs of praise and of heroism. In their anthem, Russians sing daily about “our sacred country” and “our beloved country”. They tell their country “We are proud of you.” Like the Russians, Argentines sing “to the great people of Argentina”; Mexicans to “Oh Fatherland.” Every word of those anthems was homemade and, so, they resonate with all who sing them. We don’t have that here again with the imported, second-hand song imposed on us. Do the anthem dictators know that babies respond not to lullabies from strangers? The old-new anthem of Nigeria is just a song. Where the president and I come from, our heads do not swell from chants made by strangers. We say an alien – an àjòjì – can sing rárà but he must not use it to serenade our mother. No one can sing our song better than we, just as no one can carry a baby better than its mother would do.

We have a president whose attention is away from Nigeria as the keystone of his decisions. We have a president who has just impulsively borrowed charity from abroad. In doing what he and his servile lawmakers did last week, Tinubu and our band of legislators have rendered in vain the labour of our heroes past. They brought down a national anthem composed by Nigerians for Nigeria; they proudly exhumed and re-foisted foreign-made ‘Nigeria We Hail Thee’ anthem on us. And they, without shame, celebrated it with flutes and bèmbé drums.

The Englishman’s charity begins at home. Britain’s ‘Rule Britannia’ was written by the Scotch poet, James Thomson. The music was composed by an Englishman, Thomas Arne. It is called Britain’s Patriotic Song, not its anthem. But its famous opening and closing line “Britons never, never, never will be slaves” speak to a people with enormous self-pride and self-respect. Their anthem, ‘God Save The King’, is not an importation, it couldn’t have been. The lyrics of America’s ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ belong to the muse of poet Francis Scott Key, an American. Germany’s ‘Deutschlandlied’ was written by a German, August Heinrich Hoffmann von Fallersleben in 1841. Credit for the words and music of France’s ‘La Marseillaise’ goes to Rouget de Lisle, a Frenchman. Our tiny West African neighbour, Togo’s anthem is ‘Terre de nos aïeux’ (Land of our forefathers). Its words and music were authored by Alex Casimir Dosseh-Anyron, a prominent Togolese musician. Our regional rival, Ghana, does not have our self-hate, self-disdain malaise. It preens in its pride as the star of black Africa. Ghana’s anthem is ‘God Bless Our Homeland Ghana’. It was written by a Ghanaian, Michael Kwame Gbordzoe.

Tinubu’s anthem is a mis-adornment, an old tapestry on a false wall, a bale of velvet from an alien loom. It is an adoption without modification; an anachronism and a classic in reverse patriotism. My people say a real man’s adornments (oso) must follow him from home to the street; it should not be the other way round. But it is the other way round with this àlòkù (second-hand) anthem. Our readopted anthem was written by Lillian Jean Williams, a British expatriate working in a federal ministry in Lagos in the late 1950s. The music of the anthem belongs to Frances Benda (real name Charles Kernot), said to be a professional pianist and private music teacher at the Carol Hill School of Classical Ballet, London.

National anthems are totems of identification; they are signs by which nations reaffirm their identity boundaries. That is what Karen Cerulo, author of ‘Symbols and the World System: National Anthems and Flags’ said. If we agree with this author and with others who have knowledge and sense, then whatever we adopt as our national anthem must necessarily be homegrown. That was the spirit that changed the anthem in 1978 to ‘Arise O Compatriots’, a brew from five Nigerian poets and a music genius from the Nigeria Police.

Nigerians are appalled by what their president and his lawmakers have done. Online and offline, they puff and reject the stale insult from the past. But our president is not remorseful. He told a group of northern leaders on Thursday that going back to the nationally rejected anthem was his priority. He said he did it with the relish of fulfillment. That is the stuff emperors are made of. Their crush must be their people’s love. It is compulsory.

Even Tinubu’s ardent backers are embarrassed. The few who mumble support excuse the misadventure with the claim that he did it to demilitarise our lives. They say the homegrown anthem was a product of the military in government. I told a former university vice chancellor on Friday night that here, no one is allowed to be half lame. If you would lose limbs, you lose both; if you would be blind, you do completely in both eyes. The one-eyed is a potential wrecker of peace. I told the ex-VC that the president should have gone further back to hoist the British flag – the Union Jack – inside Aso Rock and on the dome of his National Assembly complex. He should henceforth make us sing his master’s ‘God Save the King.’ The professor added to the list. He said since Tinubu wanted to cancel every national symbol the military gave us, he should get rid of the naira and go back to the Nigerian pound. He said the president should decree that driving on the right lane should be abolished and left-hand-drive cars outlawed. Even the Villa, the Dome and the whole of the Three-Arms Zone in Abuja should be demolished and rebuilt. They are all products of the unwanted military.

“Some people say, okay…say what? Is that your priority? It’s my priority. I agree with the National Assembly…”, the president told Arewa leaders on Thursday. I feel him. He apparently loves the song of his youth. I agree with Distinguished Professor Ali Mazrui that “patronage for the arts can be nostalgic.” Yes, we all like oldies. But a president or king is not allowed to have an elephantine affection and a morbid longing for symbols of his people’s slavery. Besides, it is perilous for a nation to have drivers glued to the rearview mirror. They will crash the vehicle. The president (and his lawmakers) will be begged, going forward, to embrace the present and the future and drop unnecessary nostalgia. We will implore them to pick knowledge and reason and drop prejudice. We will beg Tinubu to talk to his habitual blind impulse and go hug deep reflection. It is only then that we will be safe from ghastly mishaps such as this alien anthem and its predecessor, “subsidy is gone.”

If what we were singing was not sweet and meaningful enough, could we not write and sing another? A country of 200 million people, with world class poets and musicians, has just completed a cycle of shame importing an expired national anthem. Our panting lawmakers with their uncharacteristic speed in bringing back the dead had no time for reflections. They and their principal in the Villa had no thought for our pride as a people and the history of our freedom as a nation. ‘Independence’, to them, is just a word. The dead are too dead to know how much it costs to dig the grave and buy a coffin.

If we had known that this president and his National Assembly boys were dead serious about traveling back to 1960 – and to the cemetery of colonialism – to exhume the skeletons of an anthem for our children to learn and sing, we would have begged them to protect our pride and honour as inheritors of a goodly heritage of resistance to servitude. We would have told them that yes, you don’t kill vulture and you don’t eat vulture. Our fathers say it is taboo to do either and both. But they also say you can kill vulture and you can eat vulture and survive doing so if you listen to your inner self. There is a method to every madness. If you must dance to an alien beat and get sprayed with crisp dollar and naira bills, you must step the song down on your street and let your transformer work on its tension. Paul Nettl (1889-1972), German-American musicologist, was a pioneer in national song scholarship. In 1967, he published his classic work with the title: ‘National Anthems.’ Its English translation was by Alexander Gode. In that seminal work, Nettl enthused that nations can borrow songs and melodies from wherever but must do it with sense and competence. He writes that “one people will not adopt the melodies of another without letting them undergo certain alterations commensurate with its (the people’s) own character.”

If we must go back to the colonial past, why couldn’t we review, update and make fresh the old? But, just as our leaders have no time for self-improvement, they had no patience to read through, update and detoxify the rustic anthem. With all the racial prejudices in the song, they hoisted it in our heads. They can still redeem their image by editing and amending what they have done. ‘Shall’ is a modal verb that predicts the future, expresses intent and shows determination. The line about the flag promising to be a symbol of something can be tinkered with by replacing the ‘shall be’ there with (the to be verb) ‘is’. Having “Our flag IS a symbol/ That truth and justice reign” – although a white lie – would still have sounded well and better than the embarrassingly forever promise we have there today. How about taking out the problematic ‘tribe’ and let ‘faith’ come in for peace to reign? Our old-new anthem may then read “Though faith and tongue may differ…” The offensive “native land” can also yield the space it currently occupies for, maybe, “homeland.” Countries review the lyrics and melodies of their anthems. Our neighbour, Ghana, did it a couple of times.

Why are we even discussing this? Some wise persons have pinned the whole anthem exercise to a carefully laid out scheme of distraction. They say this regime rules by distraction; that the government overloads the attention of Nigerians by deliberately taking unnecessary disruptive steps. They may be right. Eunuchs do that; they needle their bride and display her pain as proof of their virility. The government was one year old last week; it had little gains, much pains as dividends for all of us, excluding its core directors. The regime brought the anthem controversy and got the hungry talking about something else apart from their hunger. I have read Thomas Cottle’s ‘The Art of Distraction’. I note his discussion of ‘distraction’ in the context of “life led with conflict and confusion”. I have also read James Williams’ ‘Democracy Distracted’. I note his claim that man has an “almost infinite appetite for distraction.” I hold that this government has demonstrated that it has a limitless, boundless capacity to satiate that appetite.

Those who allowed themselves to be distracted slept last night as free people; they woke up this morning in slavery. So, please refuse to be distracted. As you discuss the president’s strange choice of anthem over people’s hunger, pay due attention to everything his government is doing. Pay more than ordinary attention to the local government autonomy case at the Supreme Court. That is a case with a potential to determine (or undermine) your freedom, the health of our country and the safety of our democracy. Why is fox suing hawk in defence of chickens? Autocracy incubates itself in populist confusion. The case is about that. We need vibrant states to checkmate the behemoth in Abuja. We need the local governments to drive development at the grassroots. The rapacious Federal is the elephant unsettling the room.

Think of an imperial president with very rich 774 ‘liaison officers’ sitting as council chairmen across the country. Think of a federal government with limitless powers engaging a disparate set of 36 weakened, impotent states. Think of Nigeria as a unitary state. The court case that continues this month has the potential to achieve that. The deft moves of today have replicas in history. Think of Napoleon Bonaparte and France of 1799. Think of Germany of 1933 and the rise of the strongman. Think of the aftermath. Think.

It is 2040, his name is Tanko Ishaya, for the purpose of this conversation, he is just an ordinary man, but with academics are there really ordinary men. He is a professor, what you would call an expert professing knowledge in today’s AI world, the only difference is that, this is actually 2024, he is vice chancellor of the prestigious university of Jos.

The University of Jos, a beacon of academic excellence, innovation, and progress, stands poised on the threshold of a transformative journey into the future. In envisioning the University of Jos of tomorrow, we embark on a bold endeavor to redefine higher education, embrace technological advancements, foster interdisciplinary collaboration, and create an environment conducive to holistic learning and innovation.

Campus Infrastructure:

1. Smart Campus: The University of Jos will feature a state-of-the-art smart campus, equipped with advanced technologies such as IoT sensors, smart classrooms, and automated systems for efficient resource management.
2. Sustainable Architecture: Eco-friendly buildings utilizing renewable energy sources, green spaces, and sustainable materials will characterize the campus landscape, reflecting our commitment to environmental stewardship.
3. Advanced Laboratories: Cutting-edge research laboratories will facilitate interdisciplinary research across various fields, fostering innovation and scientific discovery.
4. Digital Libraries: Extensive digital libraries with access to vast repositories of academic resources, e-books, and online journals will provide students and faculty with unparalleled learning opportunities.

Academic Programs:

1. Future-Focused Curricula: Dynamic and interdisciplinary curricula tailored to meet the evolving needs of society, with a focus on emerging fields such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, renewable energy, and sustainable development.
2. Lifelong Learning: Continuous learning programs, micro-credentials, and professional development courses will empower students and professionals to acquire new skills and stay abreast of advancements in their respective fields.
3. Global Partnerships: Strategic partnerships with leading universities, research institutions, and industry partners worldwide will enable collaborative research, student exchange programs, and cross-cultural learning experiences.
4. Entrepreneurship and Innovation: Integrated entrepreneurship programs and innovation hubs will nurture the spirit of creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving among students, fostering a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship.

Student Experience:

1. Holistic Development: A holistic approach to student development, encompassing academic excellence, leadership development, community engagement, and personal well-being, will be central to the University of Jos experience.
2. Student Support Services: Comprehensive support services, including academic advising, career counseling, mental health support, and mentorship programs, will ensure that students thrive both academically and personally.
3. Diversity and Inclusion: A diverse and inclusive campus community that celebrates differences, promotes cultural exchange, and fosters mutual respect and understanding will be fundamental to the University of Jos ethos.
4. Global Citizenship: Opportunities for international study abroad programs, cultural immersion experiences, and community service initiatives will cultivate global citizenship and social responsibility among students.

Research and Innovation:

1. Interdisciplinary Research Centers: Specialized research centers and institutes focused on key societal challenges, such as healthcare, environmental sustainability, and social justice, will drive collaborative research and innovation.
2. Technology Transfer: Robust mechanisms for technology transfer and commercialization of research outcomes will facilitate the translation of academic research into real-world solutions, driving economic development and societal impact.
3. Incubation Centers: Entrepreneurship incubation centers will provide aspiring entrepreneurs with the resources, mentorship, and networking opportunities needed to launch successful startups and ventures.
4. Open Access Initiatives: Commitment to open access publishing, data sharing, and knowledge dissemination will promote transparency, collaboration, and the democratization of knowledge.

As I sat down with Professor Tanko Ishaya, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of nostalgia wash over me. We were sitting in his office, surrounded by the trappings of a storied academic career, and yet, the conversation was not about the past, but about the future.

Professor Ishaya, a man of unassuming demeanor, spoke with passion and conviction about his vision for the University of Jos. His eyes sparkled as he spoke about the motto that had guided the institution since its inception – “Dedication and Discipline”. It was a mantra that he believed was essential for achieving excellence, not just for the university, but for Nigeria’s higher education system as a whole.

But our conversation was not just about the past. Professor Ishaya spoke about his dreams for the future, about the challenges he faced in bringing change to an institution steeped in tradition, and about his desire to leave a lasting impact on the university and the higher education system. He spoke about the need for transparency and accountability, and about his commitment to innovation and progress.

As we reminisced about the university’s history, I was struck by the parallels between our experiences. We had both been a part of the University of Jos at different times, and yet, our experiences were linked by a common thread – a commitment to excellence, and a belief in the power of education to transform lives.

The University of Jos, established in 1971 as a satellite campus of the University of Ibadan, had come a long way since its humble beginnings. From its early days as a pre-degree institution, to its establishment as a separate entity in 1975, the university had grown and evolved, adding new faculties and programs along the way. Today, it was a thriving institution, with a reputation for academic excellence, and a commitment to innovation and progress.

As we spoke, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of pride in the university, and in the man who was leading it into the future. Professor Ishaya’s vision for the University of Jos was not just about academic excellence, but about developing critical thinking, problem-solving, and innovation – skills essential for navigating the complexities of the 21st century.

I am a Josite, a proud one at that, not much anyone could do about it, I am also a proud Nigerian, whether its a call for compatriots to arise or it is to hail the nation of native nationals and tribes. I believe that INigeria needs an education system that focuses on developing critical thinking, problem-solving, and innovation skills to forge ahead.

We must emphasize experiential learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and innovation. Foster critical thinking, problem-solving, and entrepreneurship skills.

We must redirect our energy on producing graduates with digital literacy, data analysis, and cutting-edge technical skills, because this is seriously lacking, beyond project and dissertation writing and plagiarism and citation issues. We must encourage research and development, with a focus on solving Nigeria’s unique challenges.

Develops soft skills, such as communication, teamwork, and leadership, to enhance employability and global competitiveness. And off course, prioritize interdisciplinary approaches, combining arts, humanities, social sciences, and STEM fields. We must stop the study of Public and Business Admin just for the sake of getting a degree to work in the civil service.

Our universities must provides accessible, affordable, and inclusive education, leveraging technology and online platforms, while cultivating a culture of social responsibility, ethical leadership, and community engagement.

By adopting this approach, Nigerian universities can produce graduates equipped to drive innovation, economic growth, and sustainable development, forging a brighter future for the nation.

As our conversation came to a close, I couldn’t help but feel a sense of optimism about the future. The University of Jos, under the leadership of Professor Ishaya, was ready to embrace the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century, shaping the future of Nigeria, and beyond, and my belief remains that through the threshold of our current struggles lies a beauty—May Nigeria win.