Opposition Accuses Tinubu Government of Making University Education Unaffordable, Then Turning to NELFUND as a Loan Solution

The opposition has criticised the administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the rising cost of university education in Nigeria, arguing that higher education was considerably more affordable under previous administrations and that the current government has made the financial burden on parents and students significantly heavier.

According to the opposition’s argument, university education was once within the reach of many Nigerian families, but the economic pressures and increased institutional charges witnessed in recent years have changed that reality. It contends that the government first allowed the cost of obtaining a university education to rise and subsequently introduced the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) as a mechanism for students to borrow money to meet those expenses.

The criticism therefore centres on a simple question: if university education has become increasingly expensive, does providing loans actually solve the problem—or does it merely transfer the burden from parents today to graduates tomorrow?

The NELFUND programme was established under the Student Loans (Access to Higher Education) Act, 2024, signed by President Tinubu on April 3, 2024. The law provides a framework through which eligible Nigerian students can obtain loans to cover institutional fees and upkeep while studying in approved tertiary institutions.

NELFUND describes the initiative differently. The Fund says its objective is to remove financial barriers to higher education by providing interest-free loans for tuition and other institutional charges, alongside maintenance support for eligible students.

However, the opposition's concern is that a loan remains a financial obligation regardless of whether it carries interest. Under NELFUND's published terms, beneficiaries who participate in the National Youth Service Corps are expected to commence repayment two years after completing NYSC. Once employed, 10 per cent of their monthly salary is to be deducted at source toward repayment.

This is the basis of the argument that the government may be turning the cost of university education into a future financial obligation for young Nigerians.

The controversy has also been fuelled by disputes over institutional charges. In June 2026, NELFUND warned tertiary institutions against arbitrary increases in tuition and other charges, saying such practices undermine the objectives of the student-loan scheme. The Fund also raised concerns about institutions failing to refund students who had already paid their fees before NELFUND subsequently disbursed loans on their behalf.

Earlier reports also documented complaints from students over discrepancies between approved institutional charges and amounts appearing on NELFUND-related payment systems. These concerns prompted calls for greater transparency and stronger oversight of the scheme.

The Federal Government has subsequently introduced guidelines aimed at standardising institutional charges and improving transparency in the administration of NELFUND loans.

There is also an important distinction between tuition support and the upkeep component of the scheme. Recent fact-checking established that the widely discussed ₦20,000 figure represents the approved monthly upkeep allowance, rather than the total amount available for tuition. Institutional charges are handled separately and paid to the relevant institution.

Ultimately, the debate is not simply about whether NELFUND is good or bad. Its supporters see it as an important intervention that can prevent students from abandoning their education because their families cannot immediately afford institutional charges. Critics, however, argue that the more fundamental solution should be to make public university education genuinely affordable rather than relying increasingly on loans.

The opposition's position therefore remains that Nigerian families should not first be confronted with unaffordable university costs and then be offered loans as the solution to those same costs.

For many parents, the central question remains whether NELFUND represents a genuine pathway to educational opportunity—or whether it risks creating a generation of graduates who begin their working lives already carrying a government-backed education debt.