Why Nigeria’s Quota System in education should be reviewed

By Chioma Obinagwam

Nigeria’s quota system, introduced in 1958 and entrenched in the 1979 Constitution through the Federal Character Principle, was designed to address ethnic and regional disparities in access to education and public service. Its primary aim was to ensure equitable representation across Nigeria’s diverse population, particularly for educationally less developed states (ELDS). However, decades later, the system faces growing criticism for perpetuating inequality, undermining merit, and stifling educational progress. This article argues for a comprehensive review of the quota system in Nigeria’s education sector, drawing on public sentiment from social media, international case studies, and the Nigerian government’s own arguments.

Why Quota system

The quota system emerged to bridge educational disparities between Nigeria’s regions, particularly the northern states, deemed educationally disadvantaged, and the southern states, considered educationally advanced. In university admissions, for instance, 45% of slots are allocated based on merit, 35% on catchment areas, and 20% reserved for ELDS, often with lower cut-off marks for the latter. The government justifies this as a tool for national unity, arguing it prevents ethnic domination and fosters inclusivity. According to a 2021 article by Fredrick Nwabufo, “Quotaism became a principle in Nigeria in 1958, essentially, as a response to fears of marginalisation and ethnic domination in education and government.” The Federal Character Principle, enshrined in the 1979 Constitution, further codifies this approach to ensure no region is left behind.

However, critics argue that the system has outlived its original purpose, creating new forms of inequity. Social media platforms like Twitter (now X) amplify these concerns, with users calling for reform.

@novieverest tweeted, “The quota system in Nigeria’s education is a scam. It rewards mediocrity over merit and keeps the north-south divide alive. Time for a review!” Similarly,

@EnyaChukwu stated, “Why should a student with 300 in JAMB be denied admission while another with 180 gets in because of ‘state of origin’? Quota system needs urgent reassessment.” These sentiments reflect a growing frustration that the system penalizes high-performing students from “educationally advantaged” states while failing to address the root causes of educational disparities.

Call for reform

The lack of periodic review or assessment of the quota system fuels public discontent.

@Realchibuenyim tweeted, “Nigeria’s quota system is a relic of the past. Without regular evaluation, it’s just a tool for injustice. Let’s prioritize merit!” Likewise,

@LifeInSolace argued, “The quota system was meant to unite us, but it’s dividing us. No review, no progress. We need fairness in education.” Other users echo these concerns, with

@NaijaPatriot lamenting, “Quota system in education is why our best brains leave Nigeria. Review it or scrap it!” These voices highlight a consensus: the absence of a mechanism to evaluate the system’s effectiveness undermines its legitimacy.

Critics contend that the system entrenches mediocrity, as less qualified candidates gain admission over those with higher scores. A 2019 article on TheCable noted, “When an inferior candidate is considered above a more qualified person just because government wants to create a balance, striving for excellence becomes meaningless.” This perception is particularly strong in southern states, where students face higher cut-off marks. The south-east, as Nwabufo observes, is the “loudest antagonist of the quota system,” with many feeling it unfairly limits opportunities.

Lessons from other countries

Other nations have implemented affirmative action policies similar to Nigeria’s quota system, offering valuable lessons on navigating such systems through periodic review and adaptation.

United States: Affirmative Action in Higher Education In the U.S., affirmative action policies were introduced in the 1960s to address historical racial inequalities in education and employment. Universities used race-based admissions to increase diversity, but these policies faced legal challenges for discriminating against other groups. In 2003, the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger upheld affirmative action but emphasized that such policies must be narrowly tailored and subject to periodic review to ensure they remain necessary. By 2023, the Supreme Court ruled against race-based admissions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, citing that perpetual affirmative action without clear endpoints violated equal protection principles. The U.S. experience underscores the importance of regular assessment to prevent affirmative action from becoming a permanent fixture that creates new inequalities.

India: Reservation System India’s reservation system allocates quotas for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in education and public employment to address caste-based disparities. Initially introduced as a temporary measure in 1950, the system has been extended indefinitely, leading to debates about its efficacy. Periodic reviews, such as the 1990 Mandal Commission, expanded the system but also introduced creamy layer exclusions to prevent affluent members of reserved groups from monopolizing benefits. India’s approach highlights the need for dynamic adjustments based on socio-economic data to ensure quotas serve their intended purpose without entrenching privilege within disadvantaged groups.

South Africa: Post-Apartheid Affirmative Action Post-apartheid South Africa implemented affirmative action to redress inequalities caused by decades of racial segregation. The Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (BBBEE) framework, introduced in 2003, includes educational quotas to increase Black representation in higher education. Regular audits and scorecards assess the progress of these policies, allowing adjustments to address unintended consequences, such as the marginalization of other minority groups. South Africa’s emphasis on transparency and data-driven evaluation offers a model for Nigeria to emulate.

Nigeria’s Government: Arguments For and Against

The Nigerian government has historically defended the quota system as essential for national cohesion. A 2008 ResearchGate article noted that the system is seen as “an indispensable tool for inter-ethnic unity, harmony, and social cohesion.” Supporters argue that without quotas, southern states would dominate educational institutions, exacerbating regional tensions. The government also points to the establishment of federal universities across the country as evidence of its commitment to equal opportunity.

However, even government officials have acknowledged flaws. In 2017, Vice President Yemi Osinbajo criticized the system’s mismanagement, noting that it regenerates “mediocrities in degenerative order.” A 2023 study in the Ilorin Journal of Education found that universities abuse the ELDS quota to favor unqualified candidates, undermining the policy’s rationale. These admissions suggest that the government recognizes the need for reform, yet action remains limited.

Why Review Is Essential

The quota system’s original intent—to promote equity—remains noble, but its implementation has created unintended consequences. Without periodic review, it risks perpetuating division rather than unity. A comprehensive reassessment should:

1. Evaluate Effectiveness: Use data to assess whether the system has reduced educational disparities. For instance, has the literacy gap between northern and southern states narrowed significantly since 1958?
2. Prioritize Merit: Increase the merit-based admission quota (currently 45%) to reward excellence while maintaining provisions for disadvantaged regions.
3. Address Root Causes: Invest in primary and secondary education in ELDS to reduce reliance on lower cut-off marks.
4. Learn from Global Models: Adopt transparent, data-driven evaluation mechanisms, as seen in South Africa, to ensure the system evolves with Nigeria’s needs.

Nigeria’s quota system in education, while well-intentioned, has become a lightning rod for criticism due to its lack of periodic review. Social media voices like

@novieverest,@EnyaChukwu, @Realchibuenyim, and @LifeInSolace reflect a public demand for fairness and merit. International case studies from the U.S., India, and South Africa demonstrate that affirmative action policies must be dynamic, not static, to remain effective. Even the Nigerian government acknowledges the system’s shortcomings, yet reform lags. A thorough review is not just necessary—it is urgent—to ensure Nigeria’s education system fosters excellence, equity, and unity for all.

Please follow and like us: