By Sanusi A. S. Maikudi
The Federal Government’s decision to cancel the Bilateral Education Agreement (BEA) scholarship scheme—announced by the Minister of Education, Dr. Maruf Tunji Alausa—is an act of monumental short-sightedness. To dismiss such a noble, merit-based programme as a “waste of resources” is not only insulting to its beneficiaries but represents a tragic departure from the visionary ideals of Nigeria’s founding fathers and a blatant deviation from international best practices.
A Dangerous departure from National founding ideals
Our post-independence leaders understood that education—especially international education—is not a luxury but a foundation for national greatness. The BEA scheme reflects this foundational belief: that Nigeria must train its best minds at home and abroad to build a modern state. Generations of Nigerian professionals—engineers, doctors, scholars, and diplomats—were shaped through foreign training under state sponsorship. Abandoning this tradition is rejecting the very model that built Nigeria’s core institutions.
A tool of diplomacy, not just education
The BEA is more than an academic arrangement—it is a strategic diplomatic tool. Countries like China, Russia, Hungary, Algeria, and Egypt offer educational opportunities to Nigerians not out of charity but out of bilateral respect and cooperation. Cancelling this programme unilaterally risks weakening those ties and signaling Nigeria’s retreat from global academic and diplomatic engagement.
Misleading justification based on cost
The minister’s comparison of N9 billion for 1,200 students or N650 million for 60 to local spending ignores context. When placed against the backdrop of extravagant government expenditure, this is a modest investment in human capital. Public funds are routinely wasted on non-essential luxuries. Education, especially for the most brilliant among us, is the most justifiable expense in a developing nation. What’s unjust is punishing excellence due to administrative failures.
Contrary to international best practices
All 20 of the world’s largest economies actively invest in international education viz: China sends over 20,000 students abroad annually.
India supports marginalized students under its National Overseas Scholarships.
Germany’s DAAD, UK’s Chevening, Canada’s Vanier, and USA’s Fulbright are government-funded programmes designed to create global citizenship, boost innovation and advance national soft power. Global exposure is a development strategy, not a luxury.
An attack on the poor and middle class
The elite will not suffer from this policy. Their children will still fly to London, Dubai, Canada, and the U.S. The victims are children from Zaria, Aba, Maiduguri, Akure, and other cities—bright minds whose only passport to global relevance is state-supported education. The policy cuts off opportunity and widens inequality. It entrenches class privilege and denies upward mobility for those with talent but not wealth.
A Recipe for academic inbreeding and provincialism
This policy also risks fostering academic inbreeding, provincialism, and intellectual parochialism. When all scholars are trained in the same local system—limited in research infrastructure, global exposure, and cutting-edge practices—we lose diversity of thought and innovation. In an age of globalization, no nation can afford to be an island. The goal is to produce globally competitive active citizens, not intellectual hermits.
Countries that invest in global learning harvest cross-cultural competence, international networks, and cutting-edge skills that drive national development. Nigeria should be expanding this frontier—not closing it.
Superficial diagnosis, wrong prescription
If some students studied inappropriate courses in inappropriate countries, the solution is reform, not abandonment. Create stronger vetting criteria. Align course offerings with national development needs. Build robust academic monitoring. But don’t destroy the bridge because of a few cracks. That is not reform; it is abdication of responsibility.
Was this a thoughtful reform or executive fiat? Where is the process record?
Was there a committee? Were stakeholders consulted—university bodies, BEA alumni, foreign partners? Was there a White Paper, a parliamentary debate, or a cost-benefit analysis?
If not, then this is executive fiat disguised as reform. Such a seismic policy shift deserves rigorous debate, not anecdotal justification and spontaneous declaration.
Conclusion and Call to Action
We urge the Federal Government to immediately reconsider and reverse this regressive policy. Instead of cancellation, the BEA should be:
(+) Reviewed,
(+) Digitally reformed,
(+) Aligned with Nigeria’s developmental goals,
(+) And expanded to serve a broader demographic.
Education is not charity. It is strategy. Global competitiveness demands global exposure. Let us not trap our brightest minds within the walls of decaying local infrastructure while the world surges ahead.
Reform the BEA. Don’t kill it. Empower the future. Don’t deny it.
The author is of the Kaduna based Network for Justice, Nigeria
