Continued from last Friday’s
BY MOHAMMED DAHIRU AMINU
THIS systemic weakness undermines the claim that Nigeria provides an enabling platform for globally acknowledged research in most fields, including medicine. If some Nigerians argue that the country’s public universities are performing at a level where graduates who study in Western countries can return and make meaningful contributions, this claim can be easily challenged. One might ask why Nigerian public universities are predominantly staffed by Nigerians, at least 99 percent of the faculty and staff are local in most public universities. If it were true that people with advanced degrees, particularly in STEM fields, could seamlessly reintegrate and thrive in Nigerian universities, we would expect to see a significant presence of academic staff from other nationalities. Globally, universities are considered universal institutions, attracting talent from diverse backgrounds and nations. The absence of such diversity in Nigerian public universities suggests otherwise. It indicates that their dominance by Nigerians may stem less from the applicability of advanced skills acquired abroad and more from factors like national ties and personal circumstances. This observation undermines the argument that skills gained through foreign education can readily be applied within the Nigerian public university system.
Also, even the most advanced training abroad can become obsolete or underutilized in Nigeria’s academic environment. In virtually all technical fields, researchers are often unable to build on their expertise or contribute innovative solutions due to the lack of infrastructure and specialized resources. Returning to Nigeria then becomes more about surviving the system’s limitations than creating ground-breaking impact. Scholars trained to address complex issues like energy, climate and technology find themselves restricted to tasks that barely utilize their capabilities, leading to professional stagnation and unfulfilled potential. Patriotism should not be measured by geographic location but by the intent and impact of one’s work. Many Nigerian professionals, myself included, work from various parts of the world and contribute to the African continent’s development. My work, for instance, focuses on creating positive impact for Africa, despite being globally oriented. In some cases, those based abroad can make a more meaningful impact than those who remain physically present on the continent. Through international research collaborations, funding streams or policy advocacy, Nigerians abroad can drive change in ways that transcend borders. Nigerian institutions need to recognize that, in a globally connected world, physical presence within Nigeria is not a requisite for impactful contribution. Another argument often made is that scholars on government-sponsored scholarships should fulfil return bonds regardless of Nigeria’s internal conditions. This view overlooks the purpose of these contracts, which is to create opportunities for scholars to apply their skills for national benefit. If the environment does not support or value their expertise, enforcing bond obligations becomes counterproductive. Scholars returning to conditions that fundamentally hinder their work contribute little to national development. The concept of force majeure is also relevant here. Typically invoked in contractual law to relieve parties from obligations due to extraordinary circumstances beyond their control, force majeure reflects the lived realities in Nigeria. Power failures, inadequate infrastructure and security issues in certain regions fundamentally alter the context in which these bonds were initially signed. Recent reports highlight how cities especially in northern Nigeria have been without electricity for days, leaving hospitals, businesses and educational institutions in crisis. For scholars expected to return to such conditions, fulfilling their bond is more an exercise in personal sacrifice than a contribution to national progress.
Under these circumstances, enforcing a bond can seem unjust. The value of a bond is lost if it fails to fulfill its purpose of fostering national development. Requiring, for example, a nuclear engineering expert to return to a university without facilities for nuclear research undermines both the person’s potential and the nation’s goals. The question becomes not whether bonds should be enforced but whether the conditions allow these scholars to contribute meaningfully upon their return. For many Nigerian PhDs, securing high-paying jobs abroad makes fulfilling their bonds not just feasible but relatively trivial in financial terms. While the debate often frames bond repayment as a significant financial burden, it is worth noting that well-paying employers in Nigeria rarely impose these bonds. Lower-paying institutions, however, tend to bond employees, and the sum typically involved is a fraction of the salary many scholars earn abroad. For scholars in STEM fields, where they can quickly earn enough to offset years of Nigerian university salaries, fulfilling these bonds is not a difficult task.
Addressing this complex problem would require Nigerian institutions to create more attractive conditions for skilled professionals. Simply enforcing bond repayment does little to tackle the root causes preventing scholars from returning. If we want to stop this cycle of talent loss, the focus should be on creating a supportive environment that aligns with the expertise and aspirations of returning scholars. These reforms might include improved infrastructure, competitive salaries and research funding that empowers scholars to continue their work at an international level from within Nigeria. Framing the issue solely as a moral obligation for PhDs to return home and fulfill their bonds by teaching undergraduates or managing operational issues in Nigerian public universities is neither practical nor respectful of their training. No one pursues a PhD solely to manage issues like water, electricity or security problems that do not require advanced degrees to solve. Enforcing return bonds without addressing these fundamental barriers will only prolong this discussion for decades. The issue is not about morality but about building a system that can support and make use of advanced expertise. Scholars are not defaulters in a moral sense but people making rational choices based on the conditions they face.
The suggestion that past generations who returned were more self-sacrificing overlooks the structural and economic changes over time. Scholars today face a global job market where they are not only able to work abroad but also to be compensated according to their skills. This was not necessarily the case in previous generations, where both the global job market and Nigeria’s own systems were different. Rather than viewing these scholars as morally deficient for choosing to stay abroad, we should recognize the limitations of Nigeria’s institutions in providing the environment they need to thrive. If we are serious about tackling the root causes of bond breaches, we need a systemic approach that goes beyond enforcing repayment. Many scholars who choose not to return do so because they have found significantly better opportunities abroad, where just a few months’ salary can offset the entirety of their bond obligations. Expecting them to return and serve in environments that do not allow them to use their skills fully is a disservice not only to the scholars themselves but to the nation’s potential for development. Rather than focusing on morality, the solution lies in building a system that provides these scholars with the support and resources they need to thrive at home.
Concluded
