The Oracle

The Oracle: Blood on the Benue: Weeping for Beleaguered Nigeria

Published

7 months ago

June 20, 2025

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Yelwata in Benue state has been drenched in blood. Last October, I launched 50 books at the same time in Abuja to mark my birthday. One of the books is titled “Blood on the Niger and Benue: Nigeria’s Grim Insecurity Situation”. Everything said in that book has just bee reenacted in Yelwata, Benue State.

In the quiet hours of Friday night, June 13, 2025, the farming village of Yelwata in Guma Local Government Area of Benue State lay cloaked in the familiar darkness of rural Nigeria. There was no forewarning, no alarm. Only sleep. Then, like a storm without thunder, horror descended.
Armed men, suspected to be killer Fulani terrorist herders, emerged from the shadows and set upon the defenceless community with brutal precision. For more than two hours, they maimed, slaughtered, burned and razed. By the time the sun rose on Saturday morning, the landscape had transformed into a grotesque tapestry of charred ruins, still-smouldering debris and lifeless bodies sprawled across crimson soil. Over 200 people were reportedly confirmed dead at the scene and the toll would rise in the days that followed, with some reports placing the number of victims at over 300. Among the dead were children, pregnant women and elderly farmers, civilians caught in the indiscriminate cruelty of a calculated massacre. I most unequivocally condemn this horror, this man’s inhumanity to man. It must never happen again. NEVER!
Witnesses recounted how petrol was doused on thatched homes before they were set ablaze. Whole families perished in their sleep, trapped by flames and collapsing roofs. The night echoed with the crackling of the burning and the screams of the wounded and the orphaned. Survivors stumbled through the darkness, scorched and bleeding, in search of refuge. At the Benue State University Teaching Hospital in Makurdi, doctors worked frantically, overwhelmed by the influx of casualties. Medical personnel issued urgent calls for blood donations as the wards filled with the critically injured, many clinging to life with little more than hope.

In a land where yam festivals should flourish, the earth has instead flourished with drunk blood. A serene and prosperous village, producing large quantity of food is now a ghost community, no thanks to deadly attacks by killer herdsmen, who pose as innocent cattle rearers.

A PEOPLE LEFT FOR DEAD: THE HUMAN TOLL

What occurred in Yelwata cannot be dismissed as a “clash,” nor cloaked in the diplomatic cowardice of euphemisms that seek to sanitize horror. This was not a skirmish. It was not a misunderstanding. It was a massacre! A premeditated act of mass violence, executed with recklessness and impunity against a defenceless civilian population, in total defiance of laws and moral conscience. The people of Yelwata have become mourners in their own homeland, dressed in black, forever gathering the bones of the innocent. The village has been painted over with the sorrow of the grieving and the brushstrokes of trauma.

Among the victims was the family of Michael Ajah, a survivor now left hollowed by grief. Ajah lost twenty members of his family in a single night! Eleven perished in one house. Eight were killed in another. The others died in the chaos, scattered across a village that now exists only in ashes. His stores were burnt. His home was destroyed. Standing barefoot in the ruins, he described how he escaped only with the clothes on his back. “This is the only thing that I have now,” he said. “There is nothing else with me.” Bature Bartholomew, Joseph Kwagh and countless others suffered a similar fate.
Apparently, prior threats had been made, as they often are, but villagers had grown used to such messages. The community had seen warnings before. And in the past, some security forces had pushed back similar threats. The villagers believed it would be the same this time. They likened it to the story of the crying wolf. They were wrong.
Let the world hear it: the peaceful people of Yelwata were not victims of chance. They were targeted. They were hunted. And they were massacred.

DEAFENING SILENCE AND DEADLY INACTION BY GOVERNMENT

The massacre in Yelwata is not just a story of blood and loss. It is a harrowing indictment of leadership failure, systemic neglect and institutional cowardice. In the face of rising tensions and repeated warnings, those entrusted with the security of Benue State and Nigeria at large chose silence. Security forces knew the fragility of peace in Yelwata. They were not blind to the pattern. From Guma to Agatu, Logo to Turan, the script has played out over and over: villages burnt, families erased, justice deferred. Yet, no preventive measures were taken. No fortified presence. No aerial surveillance. Only the eerie stillness of a nation too used to the scent of scorched earth.

When the killers struck again, it was not a surprise. It was an inevitability made possible by deafening silence and deadly inaction. The people of Benue have cried themselves hoarse, year after year, massacre after massacre. But their grief has been met with bureaucratic apathy and public relations condolences. Governor Hyacinth Alia’s response to the massacre was not merely inadequate; it was an affront. His delay in visiting the scene, his refusal to speak, tweet, or even mourn publicly until after President Tinubu’s very belated visit, has been interpreted not just as incompetence but as possible complicity. In the face of over 200 dead, the Governor offered the nation a figure of 59, thus inimizing the scale of bloodshed and insulting the graves of the murdered. What even if it were one? Instead of naming the perpetrators, he set up an investigative panel that tactfully avoided attributing blame, as if the truth was inconvenient, as if justice might provoke too much discomfort.
When President Tinubu finally arrived in Benue, the expectations of a grieving people were clear: solidarity, seriousness, swift action and restitution. What they received instead was a grotesque display of political theatre. Placards bearing the President’s image lined the roads. Schoolchildren, soaked and shivering, were forced to line the streets under a heavy downpour, waving soggy banners while mass graves still steamed in the earth nearby. What should have been a moment of solemnity turned into an unofficial 2027 re-election rally, a tasteless spectacle that traded the blood of Yelwata for photo ops. This was not condolence. This was campaign optics.
This playbook is not new. On New Year’s Day in 2017, over 200 people were slaughtered in Benue for resisting the destruction of their crops by cattle. On December 25th, 2024, as Christians marked the birth of Jesus Christ, suspected armed herders invaded Ityuluv, Tse Azege and Innyiev Ya in Kwande Local Government, killing eleven people mid-celebration. The images are consistent: corpses laid out under church roofs, burning homes, the wails of mothers who will never again hold their children. Yet from the corridors of power, the same recycled rhetoric flows: “We condemn,” “We are investigating,” “We urge calm.” But no arrests. No convictions. No justice. Just the thud of fresh bodies hitting the ground.
Even the words of comfort are now hollow. President Tinubu’s lamentations, “Enough is enough… perpetrators must be arrested… communities must dialogue”, ring with irony. Dialogue with whom? With the men who crept through the rain to burn babies alive? With those who hacked entire bloodlines to death because they were asked not to graze on people’s farmland? Dialogue implies equal grievance. This is not war. This is terrorism. Pure and simple. And to place dialogue and reconciliation above accountability is to trample on the memory of the dead.

Dr. Daudu Ayu of Yelwata captured the fury of a betrayed people when he denounced the President’s framing of the massacre as a “conflict between warring communities.” There is no parity here. The Fulani attackers were not defending; they were invading. Their aim was clear: seize ancestral lands, decimate indigenous populations and spread fear as a weapon of conquest. To reduce this to “herder-farmer clashes” is to excuse genocide with semantics.

The numbers are staggering. Since 2009, Nigeria has lost millions of lives to insurgency and herder-farmer violence. Benue alone has absorbed blow after blow, turning its farmlands into open graveyards. The government’s failure to act, its refusal to label this terrorism for what it is, has emboldened the killers. Why would they stop when they face no consequence? Why retreat when their path is cleared by political hesitation and legal paralysis?
President Tinubu’s muted outrage and calculated ambiguity do not typify exemplary leadership. They are avoidance wrapped in grammar. His failure to draw a red line, to name the aggressors, to galvanize decisive military action, makes his ambition for a second term in 2027 more than politically distasteful; it makes it morally flawed. How do you govern the living if you preside over the slaughter of the forgotten?

Each delayed response, each muted condemnation, adds one more body to the pile. For years, as statistics ballooned into genocidal proportions, the government sermonized from podiums while the fields of Benue ran red. This latest atrocity in Yelwata is not the beginning of the story, but it must be the final warning. Because if Nigeria cannot protect its citizens, if the Constitution’s promise of security and welfare is conditional on tribe, location, or silence, then it is not a nation; it is a lie, a scam.

Enough, please. Condolences do not resurrect the dead. Nor do photo-ops rebuild homes. The people of Yelwata need more than pity; they demand justice. And if this government cannot deliver it, then it must step aside for one that will. The land of yams is now the land of tombs. And history will remember who stood up and who stood back while it all burned.

TERROR HAS A NAME! CALL IT BY ITS NAME!!

According to Fr. Remigius Ihyula, a long-time witness to these cycles of violence and trauma in Benue State, this is a coordinated effort to wipe indigenous Christian communities off the map. “These Fulani militias are not just killing, they’re clearing land to claim it,” he stated in what should have been a national alarm bell. “And they’re being allowed to do it.”

The silence that follows such clarity is complicity. These attackers do not crawl out of caves. They cross state lines. Emboldened, equipped and unchallenged. From neighboring Nasarawa. Armed groups are said to find safe haven in Lafia, the state capital; yet successive Nasarawa governors have refused to act. Not out of ignorance, but from calculation. What kind of leadership turns its face away while death marches across its borders in open daylight? What kind of democracy tolerates this level of carnage and calls itself whole?

And when the few voices brave enough to speak the truth rise, they are met with digital disinformation and diversion. Fr. Ihyula has strongly condemned attempts to scapegoat the Tiv people, refuting online rumors that Tiv militias orchestrated the massacre. “There were no Tiv fighters involved,” he said. “This is a deliberate attempt to muddy the truth and shield the real perpetrators.” In a country already fracturing under the weight of ethno-religious mistrust, such deflections are more than cowardly. They are dangerous.
David Onyillokwu Idah of the International Human Rights Commission gave name to what many have been too afraid to utter. “This is what the Nazis did to the Jews,” he warned. “It’s ethnic cleansing, step by step. First, they displace them. Then they come back and finish the job.” This is not sensationalism. It is a fact pattern. Entire villages emptied. Men and women slaughtered. Children hacked to pieces. Homes razed. Crops destroyed. Entire communities transformed into ghost towns with only ashes left to speak.

And where is the state? Where is the machinery of justice, the constitutional promise of safety, dignity and equal protection? Every law in Nigeria, beginning with the Constitution, affirms that the right to life is sacred. That the state has an inviolable duty to protect it. Yet in Yelwata, life was treated like expendable surplus. Background casualty in the theater of statecraft. Amnesty International has catalogued the horrors, calling attention to the government’s complete failure to stem the tide of violence. “Gunmen have been on a killing spree with utter impunity,” it reported, warning that the mass displacement of farmers would have ripple effects on food security and economic stability. Their statement, clinical yet urgent, highlighted not only a humanitarian disaster but also the erosion of constitutional order. “Without immediate action, many more lives may be lost.” The question is: does the government intend to act, or merely wait until there are no more villages left to bury?

POLICY OR HUMANITY FAILURE

What occurred in Yelwata is not only a breach of human dignity. It is a breach of law, of the very fabric that claims to hold Nigeria together. These are not mere attacks; they are crimes against humanity. Under international law, under the Rome Statute to which Nigeria is a signatory, a systematic attack directed against a civilian population qualifies as such. Ethnic cleansing, political protection of armed militias and the use of displacement as a weapon, all point towards a dangerous descent Nigeria cannot afford. This is not just Yelwata’s burden. This is a national stain.

The issue is no longer one of mere policy failure. It is a test of our collective humanity. It is the measure of whether we, as a people, as a nation under law, believe rural Nigerian lives matter. Because every time a tactical unit is deployed after the massacre, every time officials show up after the mass burial, every time condolences are uttered while killers remain nameless and free—it tells the people of Yelwata that their blood is cheap. That their lives are expendable. That they are alone.

But the Constitution says otherwise. Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), declares the security and welfare of the people to be the primary purpose of government. Section 33 guarantees the right to life. Section 34 guarantees the right to dignity. Yet in the fields of Yelwata, once alive with farming, festivals and laughter, there is now only ash, silence and death. These rights, on paper, are being buried beside the people they were meant to protect.

If Nigeria still believes in its own laws, in its own humanity, then Yelwata must not be forgotten. Their stories must outlive the silence. Their names must echo louder than the rain that hid the footsteps of their killers.

This is no longer a rural crisis. It is a national reckoning. And history is already watching.

FROM CRIES TO JUSTICE: WHAT MUST NOW BE DONE

The carnage in Yelwata, like so many before it, leaves behind more than scorched homes and mass graves. It leaves a nation at a crossroads. In the place of swift justice, we have seen a cycle of condolences without consequence. In the place of leadership, we have seen silence, sluggishness and in some quarters, chilling complicity. And so, once again, a grieving people are left to ask: must our cries be louder than gunfire before we are heard? Must the soil drink more blood before the state will act?

The Northern Senators Forum, in a rare and firm voice, echoed the frustration of a people brutalized beyond measure. Chairing the statement, Senator Abdulaziz Musa Yar’adua called upon President Tinubu to ensure that his visit to the ashes of Yelwata would not dissolve into a photo-op footnote. “What the people of Benue and indeed all Nigerians, deserve is lasting protection, not repeated mourning.” In a nation where impunity now travels in convoys, that statement carries the weight of a challenge, not a courtesy.

But lip service will no longer suffice. Nigerians are not beggars at the gate of justice. They are constitutional citizens entitled to life, dignity and safety. Yet these rights have been violated repeatedly in Benue State, a region that has endured more than its fair share of bloodletting. Rural communities have become theatres of unrelenting terror. Ungoverned spaces stalked by militias, abandoned by the state and forgotten by a government too slow to respond, too quick to excuse. Yelwata is but a metaphor of what goes on across the length and breadth of Nigeria.

This moment demands more than mourning. It demands reckoning. The Constitution empowers the President to declare a state of emergency where there is a serious breakdown of public order and a clear and present danger is presented. That threshold has long been crossed. As Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, Esq, rightly noted, what we are witnessing is not communal misunderstanding. It is a transnational siege. Militants from across the Cameroon border continue to pour in, slaughtering with impunity, while the federal and state governments grope in the dark of denial.
And where was the governor, the supposed shepherd of the people? Governor Hyacinth Alia, elected to protect lives, stood muted while bodies were piled. The faint whisper of his voice came days after, long after the wails of the bereaved had risen to the heavens, long after Pope Leo XIV. It is not enough to wear a cassock; one must wield courage. It is not enough to call for prayer; one must demand justice. And if political office now weighs heavier than his conscience can bear, perhaps the pulpit is where he truly belongs. The hood does not make the monk after all.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Immediate Deployment of Adequate Security Forces
The first and immediate line of intervention must be the swift deployment of sufficient, well-trained and fully-equipped security personnel to the affected communities. But this cannot be business as usual. Our military and other security agencies must stop operating in separated silos. What we need is joint intelligence gathering, joint operations and joint accountability. Anything less is a betrayal of the people already left exposed and bleeding.

2. Declaration of a State of Emergency in the Affected Areas
The Federal Government must now invoke its constitutional mandate under Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution to declare a targeted state of emergency in the devastated areas. This should not be done as a mere political gimmick like in Rivers State but as a constitutional necessity. Such a declaration would allow for a unified, coordinated and rapid security response, free from the red tape that has too often cost lives. It would restore public order, unlock emergency relief and send a powerful message, not just to the perpetrators, but to the bereaved that Nigeria has not entirely lost its soul.

3. Establishment of a Judicial Commission of Inquiry
A robust, truly independent Judicial Commission of Inquiry must be established to thoroughly investigate these atrocities. It must dig deep; not just into who pulled the triggers, but into who enabled them, who funded them, who looked away. Justice must be more than ceremonial. It must be seen, heard and felt. Otherwise, we embolden the next set of killers.

4. Government Assistance to Victims and Survivors
The dead must not be buried with the silence of the state. Survivors must not be left to wander with grief as their only companion. The government must offer immediate and sustained relief, medical care, shelter, financial assistance, food, clothes, relocation support and psychosocial services. Compassion must walk hand in hand with justice. Not as charity, but as a right.

5. Tackling the Root Causes: Annexation and Occupation by the Fulani Herders; Poverty, Unemployment and Illiteracy
Peace is not built on military boots alone. It is built on dignity of the human person; opportunity and hope. The structural causes of this continuous violence must be tackled. First, the government must extirpate this sense of irredentist annexation and occupation of the land of the Natives all over Nigeria by fully armed Fulani herders. The grinding poverty, monumental unemployment and educational exclusion must be confronted and dealt with boldly. These are not background issues; they are the fuel that ignite the crises. A country that fails to invest in its people will eventually have to bury them.

6. Inclusive Dialogue with Traditional Rulers and Community Leaders

Security is not the exclusive preserve of the state. It must be co-owned by the people. Traditional rulers, faith-based leaders, youth groups and local stakeholders must be at the table, not as spectators but as partners. Their voices carry legitimacy and their cooperation carries weight. The road to peace must pass through the hearts of the people who live there.

Nigeria must abandon the lie that some lives are worth more than others. Whether in Lagos or Yelwata, the right to life is not negotiable.

Justice must rise. Not as a whisper but as a national roar. For each charred body in Yelwata cries out; not for pity, but for prosecution. Not for platitudes, but for policy. Not for remembrance, but for reform. Let the government stop sermonizing and start securing. Let the Presidency remember that it was elected to protect, not to pontificate. And let the nation rise to say: enough. Not one more grave before we act. Not one more child buried before we move.

IF NOT NOW, WHEN?

I have decried this nightmare too many times. My voice is now hoarse from screaming into the void. And if I, one far removed from; a mere citizen and a conscience with pen and protest feel this ravaged, this worn, then what must be the state of mind of the grieving people of Yelwata, of Benue? What must it be to live in constant dread, to bury child after child, to rebuild only for fire to raze it again?
The people of Benue State deserve better. They deserve a government that does not look away, a system that does not delay and a nation that does not devalue their suffering. The Yelwata massacre was not just a tragic event. It was an indictment. A blistering exposure of governance gone cold and a security architecture collapsed under the weight of its own rot. It laid bare the double standards that govern Nigerian responses to violence: swifter when it affects the elite and sluggish, if not silent, when it happens in the farmlands of the forgotten.

This was not just a failure of one government. It was the betrayal of institutions. A brutal failure by Governor Hyacinth Alia, who watched from within the state without uttering a word while the ashes of his constituents cooled. A glaring failure by the Tinubu administration, that merely sent condolences before justice and optics before concrete action. A catastrophic failure by the Nigerian state itself, whose primary constitutional duty, to protect life and property, was abandoned the moment the first gunshots rang out in Yelwata.

This massacre cannot be allowed to happen again. Not under any guise. Not cloaked in politics. Not silenced by power. Not dulled by time.

We end not in quiet despair, but in thunderous resolve. This grief will not make us mute. This pain will not make us passive. The dead of Yelwata are not numbers to scroll past—they are names, families, futures. They are stories etched into our conscience.

And so we write and will monitor the implementation of our recommendations.
We will not stop until the soil of Yelwata no longer tastes of blood, but of justice. Until the lives lost become the spark for national reckoning. Until silence is replaced by outrage and condolences give way to action.

The Oracle

The Oracle: The University As Catalyst for Societal Development (Pt. 4)

Published

5 days ago

January 9, 2026

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

Last week, we discussed the various educational theories in the context of universities and the society. Today, we shall continue with and conclude on the same theme- focusing on the Triple Helix Model. Thereafter, we shall conclude with an x-ray of the Core Functions Of Universities As Tools For Societal Development-wherein we shall discuss: Knowledge Creation and Dissemination; Human Capital Development, amongst others. Read on.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS LINKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION TO SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT Continues

TRIPLE HELIX MODEL

The Triple Helix model, developed by Henry Etzkowitz (http://www.triplehelix.net/team.html> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) and Loet Leydesdorff (https://www.leydesdorff.net/ntuple/> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), conceptualizes innovation as the product of dynamic interactions between three key actors: universities, industry and government. Rather than functioning in isolation, these spheres increasingly overlap, with each actor capable of assuming hybrid roles. Universities, for instance, are no longer confined to the production of knowledge but are becoming entrepreneurial actors engaged in commercialization and spin-offs. Industry not only generates demand and develops technologies but also funds applied research and co-produces innovation. Governments, meanwhile, move beyond regulation to actively create enabling environments through policy, funding, and the provision of public goods (https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/pii/S2197192723000011> Accessed on 8th September, 2025.).

This model highlights the importance of overlapping networks, intermediaries, and institutional hybridity in fostering knowledge-based regional development. It explains the proliferation of technology transfer offices (TTOs), science parks such as Stanford Research Park (https://stanfordresearchpark.com/> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) and North Carolina’s Research Triangle (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/books/NBK158811/> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), and university spin-offs that translate academic discoveries into economic value. In many countries, it has provided the theoretical backbone for regional innovation strategies that deliberately position universities at the heart of economic clusters, ensuring that knowledge creation and economic growth are tightly interlinked.

Empirical evidence supports the explanatory power of the Triple Helix in accounting for many of the world’s most successful innovation ecosystems. However, outcomes are highly path-dependent. Cultural norms, institutional capacity, funding ecosystems, and governance quality all shape whether a triple-helix configuration translates into broad-based growth. Critics point out that the model sometimes privileges techno-economic goals at the expense of social inclusion. In contexts with weak institutions or poor governance, it can even reproduce elite capture, where the benefits of innovation are concentrated among a few powerful actors rather than distributed widely.

For universities, operationalizing Triple Helix thinking requires deliberate strategies. This involves creating and professionalizing TTOs and incubators while measuring impact through broader indicators than short-term licensing revenue. It also means co-designing research agendas with industry partners while safeguarding academic autonomy, to ensure that the pursuit of profit does not eclipse the pursuit of knowledge. Universities can also play an advocacy role, pushing for policy instruments such as matching grants, cluster funding, and innovation vouchers that strengthen the link between research and commercialization. Finally, an inclusive approach is critical: knowledge generated in universities should not only serve global corporations but also support local firms and communities, ensuring that innovation contributes to equitable and sustainable development.

CORE FUNCTIONS OF UNIVERSITIES AS TOOLS FOR SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT

At its very core, the goal of the university is education, that is, the transfer of skills and knowledge. This begins with direct tutelage in theoretical concepts and continues through practical research work, where these theories are applied to real-life situations and tasks. Universities thus provide a dual platform: the acquisition of both foundational and specialized knowledge, and the creation of new knowledge through research. They foster critical thinking, nurture creative problem-solving, and equip students with the intellectual flexibility required to make informed decisions in complex and changing environments.

Knowledge Creation and Dissemination

A university is more than a space for absorbing facts; it is a crucible for knowledge creation and dissemination. Unlike other institutions of learning, it not only preserves inherited wisdom but also produces new ideas, subjecting them to rigorous inquiry and testing. Through laboratories, research institutes, and collaborative networks, universities expand the frontiers of discovery across medicine, engineering, social sciences, and the humanities. In doing so, they play a central role in advancing innovation, driving economic growth, and fostering intellectual curiosity. As one study notes, higher education institutions are “the primary source of renewable resources—knowledge and discovery—that will determine an economy’s competitiveness.”

Yet the creation of knowledge alone is not sufficient. Dissemination is equally central to the university’s mission. Structured teaching, mentoring, scholarly publications, conferences, seminars, and increasingly, open-access platforms ensure that the insights generated within universities do not remain confined to the so-called “ivory tower.” Instead, they are made available to society at large, informing policy, guiding industrial strategies, enriching cultural life, and advancing social justice. This dual function of knowledge creation and dissemination ensures that universities act not merely as centers of learning but as catalysts for societal transformation.

Beyond intellectual development, universities prepare their students for the workforce in concrete, practical ways. Through partnerships with industries, alumni engagement, and internship programs, they create pathways for students to gain first-hand experience in their chosen fields. These opportunities allow students to build networks with established professionals, develop employable skills, and begin constructing their portfolios before graduation. As a direct by-product of this preparation, universities open up career opportunities across multiple industries, giving graduates tools for self-sustenance and social mobility. In many cases, education becomes a pathway out of poverty, enabling individuals to increase their productivity and earning potential, thereby breaking cycles of deprivation for themselves and their families.

This preparation for the world of work extends beyond the immediate years of formal study. Universities are increasingly embracing lifelong learning through online and adult education, ensuring that distance, access, or age is not a barrier to the pursuit of knowledge. In today’s knowledge economy, where innovation and knowledge production are recognized as the most renewable resources, such lifelong learning becomes indispensable to national competitiveness.

Moreover, the modern university often assumes the role of an “entrepreneurial university,” actively commercializing research outputs through mechanisms such as Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs), science parks, and start-up incubation hubs. These initiatives ensure that knowledge does not remain theoretical but is translated into tangible goods and services with economic and social value. However, this commercialization is not only about revenue generation; it is also about ensuring that knowledge contributes to the public good, addressing pressing societal needs and promoting inclusive development.
Human Capital Development

Human capital development is best understood not as an abstract concept, but as a living force made tangible in the lives of individuals and communities. One compelling example is the story of Hammed Kayode Alabi, a Nigerian social entrepreneur whose educational journey through the University of Ilorin and later the University of Edinburgh positioned him to establish the Kayode Alabi Leadership and Career Initiative (KLCI). Through this initiative, he has provided over 8,500 underserved youths across Africa with 21st-century skills that enhance employability and social mobility. His story captures how the university is not merely a transmitter of certificates but a generator of capacity that reshapes destinies and multiplies opportunities across society.

This transformative power is not limited to individuals alone but extends to entire regions. In Somalia, Gedo International University (GIU) has emerged as a lifeline for human capital development in the Beledhawa District. Its graduates—such as midwives Aisha Abdirahman and Fardowsa Sh. Ahmed, and pharmacist Abdiqafaar Ali—testify to how its curriculum equipped them with the skills to deliver healthcare services in underserved communities. These professionals are not just products of a university; they are embodiments of how higher education, even in fragile contexts, can translate into immediate improvements in public health and community well-being (Abdiaziz Abdullahi Hussein (Mubarak), Human Capital Investment in Universities: A Case Study of Gedo International University https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8110183).

Beyond personal narratives, empirical research underscores the national significance of higher education. Studies in Nigeria confirm that university education correlates strongly with human capital development, which in turn fuels economic growth and societal advancement (Idongesit David, “University education and its impact on human capital development in Nigeria” (2021) Formazione 24(1). In other words, the productivity of a nation is tied to the investments made in nurturing the minds and skills of its people. When universities empower citizens, they indirectly expand national capacity for innovation, governance, and sustainable development.

Sustaining this momentum, however, requires more than producing graduates—it demands strong leadership and institutional resilience. Research on Nigerian universities highlights that effective leadership and continuous staff development play a decisive role in improving educational outcomes and retaining academic talent. Similarly, findings from private universities in Southwestern Nigeria reveal that staff development programs directly strengthen academic retention and teaching quality, ensuring that institutions continue to generate value across generations.

The ripple effect of human capital development is also evident in sectoral performance. At the University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, for example, staff members who benefitted from robust university education demonstrated superior performance in healthcare delivery. Their qualifications, technical knowledge, and interpersonal skills translated into measurable improvements in patient care, showing that university-generated human capital has direct implications for the efficiency of public institutions.

Taken together, these cases illustrate that human capital development through universities is not a distant ideal but a present reality. It is visible in individuals like Alabi who scale up youth empowerment, in institutions like GIU that sustain communities, in national growth trajectories, in staff retention within universities, and in the performance of public services. To invest in human capital through higher education is, therefore, to invest in the very engine of societal transformation.

To be continued…

THOUGHT FOR THE WEEK

“The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn”. (Alvin Toffler).

The Oracle

The Oracle: The University As a Catalyst for Societal Development (Pt. 3)

Published

3 weeks ago

December 27, 2025

Eric

By Prof Mike Ozekhome

INTRODUCTION

The previous installment examined the history of universities and tertiary institutions worldwide, focusing on Germany, Africa and, of course, Nigeria. This week’s piece discusses the various educational theories in the context of universities and the society. Enjoy.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS AND MODELS LINKING UNIVERSITY EDUCATION TO SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT

HUMAN CAPITAL THEORY

Human Capital Theory treats education, training and health as investments in individuals that raise productivity and yield economic returns; analogous to investing in machines or physical capital. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/human-capital-theory> > Accessed on 8th September, 2025. The concept was popularized in the 1960s by economists such as Theodore W. Schultz and Gary Becker, and it underpins much economic analysis of education policy, labour markets, and public investment decisions (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/032715/what-human-capital-and-how-it-used.asp > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).

Since human capital is the engine of growth, universities then are central economic actors: they produce the skilled labour force, certify competencies and supply the tacit knowledge that firms use. This viewpoint justifies public and private investment in tertiary education, scholarship programs and vocational streams tied to labour market needs. It also explains why governments measure returns to education (wage premiums, productivity gains) and why universities are increasingly evaluated on employability and graduate outcomes.

Human Capital Theory can however be reductive. It tends to treat education as a private good (individual returns) rather than a public good (citizenship, democratic capacity). It may downplay social, cultural and distributional aspects (who gets access to education) and does not fully account for structural constraints (e.g., labour market segmentation or discriminatory hiring). Because it privileges measurable returns, it can encourage narrow vocationalization at the expense of broader civic or critical functions of universities.

MODERNIZATION THEORY

This theory links societal development to social and cultural change: industrialization, urbanization, mass education and bureaucratic institutions produce modern political and social systems (including democracy). See https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/modernization-theory?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025. Early models (e.g., Rostow’s stages of growth) posited relatively linear transitions from “traditional” to “modern” societies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rostow%27s_stages_of_growth > Accessed on 8th September, 2025).

Under modernizationism, universities are engines of modernity: they train bureaucrats, scientists and professionals; diffuse new norms (rationality, meritocracy); and anchor public infrastructure for national development. Expansion of higher education is thus seen as both a consequence and driver of modernization, boosting technical capacity, administrative competence and civic culture.

Modernization Theory has been critiqued for teleology and Eurocentrism (assuming every society follows a single Western trajectory). It can overlook power asymmetries, external constraints, and the role of historical contingency. In practice, simply increasing university enrolment does not guarantee progressive political change or even broad economic growth. Outcomes depend on institutional quality, labour market absorption and equitable access.

SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Social Learning Theory, developed most prominently by Albert Bandura (https://www.simplypsychology.org/bandura.html?> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), rests on the idea that people do not learn solely through direct instruction or reinforcement, but also by observing the behaviours of others and modelling them. Central to this framework are concepts such as imitation, role modelling, self-efficacy, and reciprocal determinism — the continuous interaction between personal factors, behaviour, and the surrounding environment. Learning, in this sense, is always contextual and socially mediated; it takes place within environments where norms, values, and practices are continuously displayed, reinforced, or challenged (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267750204_Bandura’s_Social_Learning_Theory_Social_ Cognitive_Leari ing_Theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025).

Universities are particularly powerful environments for this kind of social learning. While their formal role is to deliver structured knowledge through lectures, textbooks, and examinations, a significant portion of what students learn occurs indirectly, through observation and participation in academic and professional cultures. Students acquire tacit skills, professional norms, and ethical habits not simply from classroom instruction but from the examples set by faculty, supervisors, peers, and the wider institutional culture. The mentoring relationship between professor and student, the apprenticeship model (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325205611_A_Model_of_Supervision_Derived_from_Apprenticeship_ Training> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) of supervision in research or clinical placements, and the informal communities of practice that develop in research groups, laboratories, or student societies all serve as fertile grounds for modelling and imitation. Even the visibility of public intellectuals and successful alumni plays a role, offering aspirational figures whose trajectories implicitly teach what is possible within a given discipline or profession.

The culture of the university itself further shapes learning outcomes. Practices around academic integrity, collegiality, debate, and critical inquiry are not just rules or codes of conduct; they are behaviours continuously modelled and observed. The institutional environment signals what is valued, what is rewarded, and what is considered unacceptable, thereby reinforcing professional and ethical standards.

For university administrators and educators, the programmatic implications of Social Learning Theory are profound. It suggests that teaching should not be conceived narrowly as transmission of knowledge, but as the creation of social contexts in which desirable behaviours and practices are modelled, observed, and internalised. This is why experiential and observational learning opportunities — such as simulations, laboratory work, clinical rotations, internships, peer-learning programs, and scaffolded mentoring — are indispensable components of modern higher education. Equally, it underscores the idea that institutional signaling is as powerful as the curriculum itself: what a university models through its governance, culture, and every day practices often matters as much as what it formally teaches.

DEPENDENCY THEORY

Dependency Theory (https://www.britannica.com/topic/dependency-theory> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s through the works of scholars such as Andre Gunder Frank (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274283993_A_Discourse_on_Andre_Gunder_Frank’s_ Contribution_tohe_Theory_and_Study_of_Development_and_Underdevelopment_its_Implication_on_Nigeria’s_development_situation> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso with Enzo Faletto, offers a critical lens for understanding patterns of underdevelopment in the global South. At its core, the theory argues that poverty and economic stagnation in many countries are not simply the result of internal shortcomings, but are structurally produced by the way these economies are integrated into the global system. Within this framework, resources, labour, and value consistently flow from the “periphery” to the “core” — that is, from less-developed to more-developed nations — thereby reinforcing dependency and limiting autonomous development. This unequal exchange is further compounded by colonial legacies and by global markets that continue to privilege the interests of industrialised nations over those of emerging economies.

Applied to higher education, Dependency Theory illuminates how universities can inadvertently reproduce dependency rather than foster genuine autonomy. For instance, many institutions import curricula, teaching models, and research frameworks designed in the global North, often without adequate adaptation to local realities. Research agendas are frequently influenced, if not dictated, by donor priorities or international funding agencies, which means that intellectual labour may serve external rather than national needs. Accreditation and evaluation systems also tend to valorize Western benchmarks of quality, sometimes at the expense of context-specific measures of success. Furthermore, the phenomenon of “brain drain,” where highly trained graduates migrate to wealthier countries in search of better opportunities, deprives developing regions of the very human capital they have invested in creating.

These dynamics raise urgent questions about intellectual sovereignty and the role of universities in national development. Dependency Theory thus motivates a range of responses oriented toward decolonization and autonomy. Universities are encouraged to build indigenous research agendas that prioritize local challenges and opportunities, to strengthen scholarship in local languages, and to invest in technologies that are context-relevant rather than imported wholesale. Equally, there is value in creating robust regional research networks that allow knowledge exchange across the global South, thereby reducing reliance on metropolitan centres of knowledge production.

Ultimately, Dependency Theory challenges universities in developing countries to move beyond the role of feeding foreign labour markets or servicing donor-driven priorities. Instead, it urges them to play a more proactive role in shaping national industrial strategies, technological innovation, and cultural identity. In this way, universities become not just sites of knowledge transfer but also engines of self-determined development and resistance to the structural inequalities embedded in the global economy.

KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY THEORY

The concept of the knowledge economy reframes the drivers of economic growth around knowledge, innovation and human capital, rather than relying solely on traditional physical inputs such as land, labour, and raw materials. In this framework, institutions that generate, diffuse, and commercialize knowledge — universities, research centres, and high-tech firms — assume a central role in shaping productivity and competitiveness (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations?utm_source=chatgpt.com> Accessed on 8th September, 2025). The policy discourse around the knowledge economy has been heavily shaped by global institutions such as the The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5152799_The_Knowledge Based_Economy_Conceptual_Framework_or_Buzzword> Accessed on 8th September, 2025, the World Bank (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/695211468153873436/the-knowledge-economy-the-kam-methodology-and-world-bank-operations> Accessed on 8th September, 2025) , and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114252> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), which have developed both conceptual frameworks and measurement tools for understanding innovation systems and knowledge-driven growth.

Within this paradigm, universities perform a wide range of overlapping economic functions. At the most fundamental level, they engage in both basic and applied research, producing new knowledge and technologies that advance science and industry. They also serve as sites of talent production, equipping graduates, researchers, and postdoctoral fellows with skills that fuel the labour market. Beyond this, universities act as engines of technology transfer, turning academic discoveries into practical innovations through patents, licensing agreements, and start-ups. They also provide policy advice and consulting, often shaping industrial strategies and informing public decision-making.

Governments and universities operationalize the knowledge economy through a variety of policy levers and institutional instruments. These include research and development (R&D) funding, research fellowships, and infrastructure investments that sustain academic inquiry. They also extend to structured university–industry partnerships, incubators, technology transfer offices, and science parks designed to accelerate commercialization. Intellectual property regimes, such as Bayh-Dole type reforms, have further enabled universities to retain rights over publicly funded research and translate it into marketable products. Alongside these measures, the use of metrics and indicators such as patents, publications, citations, and innovation indices has become an essential tool for benchmarking performance and guiding policy interventions.

Yet, the knowledge economy is not without its risks and critiques. The emphasis on commercialization and measurable outputs can sometimes push universities to prioritize short-term applied research over fundamental scholarship, which may undermine their broader educational and societal missions. There is also the danger of mission drift, as universities increasingly orient themselves toward market logics at the expense of cultural, ethical, and civic roles. Moreover, if access to the benefits of innovation is uneven. For instance, concentrated in wealthy nations or among elite groups the knowledge economy risks deepening inequality rather than mitigating it. (To be continued).

THOUGHT TOR THE WEEK

“The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and to think critically. Intelligence plus character – that is the goal of true education”. (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

The Oracle

The Oracle: The University As a Catalyst for Societal Development (Pt. 2)

Published

4 weeks ago

December 19, 2025

Eric

Prof Mike Ozekhome SAN

INTRODUCTION

The inaugural installment of this treatise was foundational, commencing (suitably enough) with an overview of relevant terms (“University”, “education” “societal/human capital development”, “innovation ecosystem”, “etc). We later develved into a brief history of universities and tertiary education in general worldwide. Today, we shall continue same focusing on Nigeria as an entity. Enjoy.

THE HISTORY OF UNIVERSITIES AND TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS GLOBALLY (Continues)

Universities and the Scientific Revolution

By the 17th and 18th centuries, universities had become laboratories of scientific discovery (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hccc-worldhistory2/chapter/the-popularization-of-science/> Accessed on 8th September, 2025). Figures such as Galileo, Newton, and Descartes advanced theories that challenged established doctrines. Universities shifted from preserving old knowledge to producing new insights that fueled the Industrial Revolution. While continental universities in Italy, Germany, and Scotland became central to scientific teaching and research, the English universities of Oxford and Cambridge remained more conservative, with much of the scientific activity shifting to metropolitan institutions like the Royal Society. Nevertheless, the scientific revolution fundamentally redefined the university’s role as an engine of discovery.

The German Research University and the Modern Model

The 19th century introduced another pivotal model: the German research university, most famously represented by the University of Berlin under Wilhelm von Humboldt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_University_of_Berlin> Accessed on 8th September, 2025). This model emphasized the unity of teaching and research, academic freedom, and the pursuit of truth for its own sake. It gave birth to the modern research university, where laboratories, libraries, and seminar systems became central. This template spread globally and remains the backbone of contemporary higher education.

Africa’s Pioneering Intellectual Heritage
Although the structures of modern higher education in Africa are often associated with European colonial frameworks (https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1079222.pdf> Accessed on 8th September, 2025), it is misleading to assume that advanced learning began only with colonial intervention. Long before the imposition of Western-style universities, Africa nurtured sophisticated systems of education at multiple levels, ranging from informal community instruction to highly organized institutions that rivaled, and in some cases preceded, their European counterparts.

One of the earliest and most celebrated centers of scholarship on the continent was the Academy of Alexandria, sometimes described as the Universal Museum Library, which flourished between the 4th century BC and the 7th century AD. This institution served as both a repository of knowledge and a vibrant intellectual hub, attracting scholars from across the Mediterranean and beyond. Within its walls, philosophy, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and literature were studied in ways that shaped intellectual developments far beyond Africa’s borders.

Africa also gave birth to universities that remain monuments of global intellectual history. The University of al-Qarawiyyin, established in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco, is widely regarded as the oldest continuously operating degree-awarding university in the world. Not long after, in 970 AD, al-Azhar University in Cairo (see: Times Higher Education, “Al-Azhar University”, https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/al-azhar-university > Accessed on 8th September, 2025) was founded, growing into one of the most influential centers of Islamic learning. Both institutions not only preserved knowledge but also generated new streams of thought, producing scholars whose works shaped jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, and the sciences across Africa, the Arab world, and Europe.

In West Africa, the city of Timbuktu (see: Emnet Tadesse Woldegiorgis, “The Changing Role of Higher Education in Africa: A Historical Reflection” Higher Education Studies 3(6) ), rose to prominence between the 12th and 16th centuries as one of the world’s most important centers of learning. The famed Sankore Madrasah and other scholarly institutions attracted thousands of students who engaged in studies ranging from law and theology to astronomy, mathematics, and medicine. The thousands of surviving manuscripts from Timbuktu attest to a sophisticated academic tradition that connected Africa to a global network of learning.

Equally remarkable is the intellectual legacy of Ethiopia, which developed a distinctive scholarly tradition anchored in its unique script, Ge’ez. For over 2,700 years, Ethiopia maintained systems of elite education within monastic schools, theological academies, and royal courts . This enduring heritage emphasized literacy, history, philosophy, and religious thought, ensuring that Ethiopia remained one of the most resilient centers of indigenous knowledge on the continent.

Taken together, these examples demonstrate that Africa was by no means a passive recipient of education. Rather, it was a pioneer and custodian of intellectual traditions that shaped civilizations both within and beyond its borders.

HISTORY OF UNIVERSITIES AND TETIARY EDUCATION IN NIGERIA

The history of university education in Nigeria began with the establishment of Yaba Higher College in 1930 (Yusuf Adulrahman, “Historical-Chronological Emergence of Universities in Nigeria: The Perspectives in ‘Colomilicivilian’ Periodization” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342247766_Historical-Chronological_Emergence_of_Universities_in_Nigeria_The_Perspectives_in_’Colomilicivilian’_Periodization accessed 7 September 2025, the first institution of its kind in the country. At the time, other forms of post-secondary training were also introduced in government departments—such as agriculture at Moor Plantation in Ibadan and Samaru near Zaria, veterinary science at Vom, and engineering in Lagos. The Yaba College offered courses in fields like civil engineering, agriculture, medicine, surveying, teaching, and later, commerce and forestry. Its main purpose was to train Africans for junior administrative and technical roles, thereby reducing reliance on expensive European expatriates.

However, the college faced criticism, particularly from Nigerian nationalists. Its goals were seen as narrow compared to a full university; its diplomas lacked international recognition; and its graduates were limited to junior posts, unlike their British counterparts who advanced to higher civil service levels. This fueled stronger agitation for a true university in Nigeria.

In response, the Asquith and Elliot Commissions of 1943 were set up to review higher education across West Africa (N.Okoji, “The History and Development of Public Universities in Nigeria Since 1914” International Journal of Education and Evaluation 2(1) 2016). While the majority recommended three new university colleges (in Ibadan, Achimota, and the Gold Coast), the minority proposed a single college at Ibadan with regional feeder institutions. With the Labour Party’s victory in Britain, the minority view was adopted. Thus, in 1948, the University College, Ibadan, affiliated with the University of London, was established as Nigeria’s first university-level institution.

Further expansion came after independence. The Ashby Commission of 1959 projected Nigeria’s manpower and educational needs and recommended broader access to higher education. Following its proposals, several universities were founded: the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (1960) (Nigeria’s first autonomous university with an American orientation) followed by the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University, 1962), Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (1962), and the University of Lagos (1962). By the same year, the University College Ibadan became a full-fledged university. Collectively, these five institutions are known as Nigeria’s “first-generation universities.”

Expansion continued with the University of Benin in 1970, later recognized by the National Universities Commission. During the Third National Development Plan (1975–1980), the federal government created seven additional universities—at Calabar, Jos, Maiduguri, Sokoto, Ilorin, Port Harcourt, and Kano—known as the “second-generation universities.” (ThisDayLive, “Endangered Universities: The Way Out” https://www.thisdaylive.com/2022/08/29/endangered-universities-the-way-out/ accessed 07 September 2025)

By the 1980s, with the creation of 19 states, the federal government sought geographical balance by approving universities of technology in states without federal universities (see: Bolupe Awe, “Quality and Stress in Nigerian Public Universities” 2020 American Journal of Educational Research 8(12). This marked the further spread of higher education across Nigeria, solidifying the university system as a central pillar of national development.

To be continued…