By Ganiu Bamgbose, PhD
The decision of the Federal Government of Nigeria to grant universities greater autonomy in the recruitment of their workforce is a laudable development in the administration of higher education. Beyond the administrative convenience it offers, the decision presents an opportunity to rethink the philosophy of university employment, particularly the criteria for identifying and engaging those who shape the intellectual future of the country. However, the success of this policy will depend less on the freedom it grants universities and more on how responsibly that freedom is exercised. The central question is whether universities will use their new autonomy to recruit the desirable or merely settle for the available.
For years, the Nigerian university system has operated within administrative arrangements in which recruitment processes have sometimes been influenced by considerations beyond the immediate needs and priorities of individual institutions. Granting universities greater control over employment can potentially reduce bureaucratic bottlenecks, improve the responsiveness of recruitment, and enable institutions to identify candidates whose expertise aligns with their academic visions. Universities understand their peculiar needs, the demands of their programmes, and the competencies required to sustain their relevance. They should, therefore, be empowered to make employment decisions that reflect these realities.
Yet, autonomy is not an achievement in itself; it is an opportunity whose value depends on its application. Giving universities the authority to recruit their employees without insisting on competence, commitment, and institutional accountability would amount to changing the structure of recruitment without improving its outcomes. The freedom to employ must translate into the capacity to employ well.
One of the persistent concerns in Nigerian higher education is the presence of teachers and lecturers who approach teaching as an occupation they have, rather than a vocation they desire. Some entered the profession because it was the available option at the time, not because they possessed a genuine interest in teaching, research, mentoring, or the intellectual development of young people. Although there is nothing inherently wrong with accepting an available opportunity, problems arise when the circumstances of entry become a permanent justification for professional indifference.
The university classroom should be a space where knowledge is interrogated, curiosity is encouraged, and intellectual confidence is nurtured. Unfortunately, these expectations are difficult to realise when the person responsible for facilitating learning has little enthusiasm for the task. A dispassionate lecturer may deliver lectures, mark scripts, supervise projects, and attend meetings, yet remain disconnected from the deeper responsibility of producing thoughtful, competent, and independent graduates. Such a lecturer may fulfil the formal requirements of the job while failing to fulfil its educational purpose.
This distinction is important because academic competence goes beyond the possession of certificates and impressive academic qualifications. A candidate may have an excellent academic record but lack the pedagogical skills, intellectual curiosity, communication abilities, or willingness to engage students meaningfully. Conversely, a passionate individual without the required qualifications cannot simply be appointed on the strength of enthusiasm. Universities must, therefore, pursue a combination of demonstrable competence and a disposition to teach, research, mentor, and contribute to institutional development.
The new recruitment autonomy offers universities an opportunity to make this combination central to their employment philosophy. Recruitment panels should look beyond certificates, publications, and interview performances to assess candidates’ practical capacity to discharge their responsibilities. Teaching demonstrations, research presentations, problem-solving exercises, and structured interviews can help institutions determine whether prospective academics possess both the expertise and the disposition required for the job. Reference checks and evidence of previous professional engagement can also provide useful insights into a candidate’s work ethic and collaborative capacity.
Furthermore, universities must resist the temptation to turn recruitment autonomy into an instrument of favouritism, political patronage, ethnic preference, religious bias, or personal loyalty. Autonomy should strengthen institutional independence, not legitimise arbitrary employment decisions. Transparent criteria, competitive recruitment, independent assessments, and clear documentation of decisions are essential safeguards. Without these, the policy may simply transfer the power to make questionable appointments from one authority to another.
Equally important is the need to recognise that competence and passion must be sustained after employment. Universities should provide opportunities for professional development, pedagogical training, research collaboration, mentorship, and performance evaluation. They must also establish conditions that encourage academics to remain committed to their work. Poor remuneration, inadequate facilities, excessive administrative burdens, and limited research support can weaken even the enthusiasm of capable lecturers. Consequently, the responsibility for academic productivity cannot be placed entirely on individual employees; institutional leadership must create an environment in which excellence is possible and rewarded.
Ultimately, the university is not merely a workplace for those seeking employment. It is a knowledge-producing institution whose workforce influences national development, social mobility, innovation, and the quality of public life. Every appointment carries consequences beyond the individual hired. A dispassionate lecturer can diminish students’ interest in a discipline, weaken their confidence, and compromise the quality of graduates entering the labour market. A competent and committed academic, on the other hand, can awaken curiosity, inspire innovation, and shape generations of critical thinkers.
The Federal Government deserves commendation for opening the door to greater institutional responsibility in university recruitment. However, the more consequential task now belongs to the universities themselves. They must understand that the objective is not simply to fill vacancies but to find the right people to fill them.
The desirable must not continually lose to the available. Where the two coincide, universities should count themselves fortunate. Where they do not, institutions must develop the courage, patience, and recruitment strategies necessary to identify those who are both qualified for the job and willing to give it the commitment it deserves. University autonomy will become a genuine reform only when it produces a workforce selected not merely because its members are available, but because they are competent, committed, and desirable for the intellectual mission of higher education in Nigeria.
(c) 2026 Ganiu Bamgbose writes from Lagos.
Ganiu Abisoye Bamgbose, PhD
Department of English,
Lagos State University, Ojo
[email protected]
08093695359, 07084956118
