Felix Oyeleye
Accreditation is one of the most important mechanisms for safeguarding the quality of higher education worldwide. In every serious university system, periodic accreditation exercises are designed to evaluate whether academic programmes meet established standards for teaching, research, infrastructure, staffing, curriculum delivery, and student learning outcomes. Accreditation serves as a mirror through which institutions examine themselves and identify weaknesses requiring improvement.
In Nigeria, the responsibility for this exercise largely rests with the National Universities Commission, which conducts accreditation and re-accreditation exercises across universities to ensure compliance with minimum academic standards.
It is a government regulatory agency established in 1962 for overseeing and accrediting degree-awarding programs at all Nigerian universities to ensure quality standards.
In principle, accreditation should strengthen universities. In practice, however, many accreditation exercises have become elaborate performances designed not to reveal reality but to conceal it. Rather than serving as opportunities for honest self-assessment, they often become exercises in institutional image management.
The unfortunate result is that while accreditation reports may suggest progress, the realities experienced daily by students and lecturers often tell a different story.
The Original Purpose of Accreditation
The essence of accreditation is simple: quality assurance.
Accreditation seeks to answer fundamental questions:
- Do students have access to functional laboratories?
- Are libraries adequately equipped?
- Are classrooms conducive for learning?
- Are academic staff sufficient in number and qualification?
- Are research facilities available and functional?
- Is the curriculum being delivered effectively?
- Are graduates acquiring the competencies expected of them?
The purpose is not to embarrass institutions. Rather, it is to identify deficiencies and create a basis for improvement.
In developed university systems, accreditation findings often guide funding decisions, infrastructure investments, curriculum reforms, and strategic planning. Weaknesses discovered during accreditation become evidence used to justify requests for additional resources.
Unfortunately, in many Nigerian universities, accreditation has evolved into something entirely different.
The Emergence of a Culture of Cover-Up
A disturbing pattern has become entrenched across parts of the Nigerian university system.
As accreditation approaches, institutions frequently enter what many academics jokingly refer to as “accreditation season.”
During this period, extraordinary efforts are made to create an appearance of compliance.
Departments scramble to assemble facilities that may not ordinarily exist.
Equipment is borrowed from neighbouring institutions.
Laboratories are temporarily furnished.
Books appear on shelves only for the duration of the visit.
Computers suddenly become available in centres where students rarely see them.
Buildings receive emergency renovations.
Records are reorganized to present a more favourable image.
In some instances, obsolete equipment that has not functioned for years is displayed as evidence of laboratory capacity.
Stories abound of departments borrowing microscopes, laboratory reagents, computers, and other equipment solely for accreditation purposes. Once the accreditation team departs, these items disappear with equal speed.
The institution passes accreditation, but nothing meaningful changes.
The façade remains successful while the underlying problem persists.
When Accreditation Becomes Theatre
The irony is striking.
Universities often invest enormous energy in impressing accreditation teams while neglecting the actual educational environment.
Delegates may be welcomed with elaborate receptions.
Accommodation, transportation, and hospitality arrangements may receive greater attention than the state of laboratories.
Red carpets are rolled out.
Ceremonies are organized.
Presentations are polished.
Yet immediately after the exercise, students return to overcrowded classrooms.
Researchers return to dysfunctional laboratories.
Lecturers resume teaching without adequate resources.
The accreditation process then becomes less about evaluating quality and more about staging quality.
What should have been an audit transforms into theatre.
Why Institutions Engage in Cover-Up
Several factors drive this behaviour.
Fear of Sanctions
Universities fear that poor accreditation outcomes may damage their reputation or lead to restrictions on programme admissions.
Consequently, administrators often perceive accreditation as a threat rather than an opportunity for improvement.
Competition for Prestige
In a highly competitive environment, institutions seek to project strength and excellence.
Admitting deficiencies may be viewed as institutional weakness.
As a result, appearances become more important than reality.
Chronic Underfunding
Many Nigerian universities genuinely struggle with inadequate funding.
Laboratories deteriorate.
Research infrastructure becomes obsolete.
Libraries cannot maintain current resources.
Rather than openly documenting these challenges, institutions often attempt to conceal them.
Weak Accountability Structures
Where consequences for misrepresentation are minimal, incentives for honesty decline.
Institutions may calculate that temporary compliance is easier than long-term reform.
The Real Victims: Students and Society
The greatest victims of this culture are not accreditation teams.
They are students.
Students enrol in programmes believing that accredited status guarantees quality.
Yet many graduate without adequate practical training.
Science students may complete degrees with limited laboratory exposure.
Engineering students may have insufficient access to modern equipment.
Medical and health science students may train under conditions that fall below optimal standards.
Social science and humanities students may lack access to contemporary research resources.
The consequences extend beyond individual students.
Poorly trained graduates enter the labour market.
Industries spend additional resources retraining employees.
Research productivity declines.
Innovation suffers.
National competitiveness weakens.
The entire society ultimately bears the cost.
The Misunderstanding of Accountability
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the culture of cover-up is a fundamental misunderstanding of who accreditation is meant to evaluate.
Many academics behave as though accreditation is an examination they must pass at all costs.
It is not.
Accreditation is primarily an assessment of institutional capacity and governmental commitment to higher education.
A department lacking modern laboratory equipment is not necessarily evidence of academic incompetence.
A lecturer cannot personally construct a laboratory.
A professor cannot independently fund an entire library.
When deficiencies are honestly documented, responsibility shifts to institutional management and government authorities responsible for funding.
In other words, accreditation should expose systemic weaknesses rather than conceal them.
The objective should be to generate evidence for reform.
How Cover-Up Protects Failure
When universities disguise deficiencies, they inadvertently protect the very failures they often criticize.
University administrators may publicly lament inadequate funding.
Academics may criticize government neglect.
Students may complain about deteriorating facilities.
Yet when accreditation arrives, the same stakeholders collaborate to create an illusion that everything is functioning adequately.
The result is predictable.
Government officials reviewing accreditation reports may conclude that conditions are satisfactory.
Funding agencies may see little urgency for intervention.
Policy makers may underestimate the scale of the crisis.
The evidence needed to drive reform disappears.
By hiding the wound, the patient loses the opportunity for treatment.
International Lessons
Globally, successful higher education systems rely heavily on transparent quality assurance mechanisms.
Institutions that perform poorly are often required to implement corrective action plans.
Weaknesses are documented openly.
Improvement strategies are monitored.
Funding decisions frequently reflect demonstrated needs.
Transparency enables reform.
Concealment prevents it.
The strength of accreditation lies not in identifying perfection but in identifying problems.
No university system is flawless.
What distinguishes successful systems is their willingness to acknowledge weaknesses and address them systematically.
Reimagining Accreditation in Nigeria
If accreditation is to achieve its intended purpose, several reforms deserve consideration.
Encourage Honest Reporting
Institutions should be rewarded for transparency rather than punished for disclosure.
Honest identification of deficiencies should trigger support and improvement plans.
Strengthen Verification Mechanisms
Accreditation teams should move beyond ceremonial inspections and adopt more rigorous verification processes.
Random audits and follow-up visits could reduce opportunities for temporary compliance.
Link Findings to Funding
Accreditation reports should become tools for resource allocation.
Departments with demonstrated needs should receive targeted interventions.
Promote Continuous Assessment
Quality assurance should not occur only during accreditation years.
Continuous monitoring would reduce incentives for short-term cosmetic improvements.
Protect Whistleblowing
Academic staff and students should have safe channels to report discrepancies between accreditation presentations and everyday realities.
Implications for the Nigerian University System
If the culture of cover-up continues, the implications are profound:
- The credibility of accreditation itself may be undermined.
- Graduates may increasingly lack the skills required for global competitiveness.
- Public trust in university qualifications may decline.
- Research capacity may continue to deteriorate.
- International collaborations may become more difficult.
- Universities may lose opportunities to secure genuine funding for infrastructure development.
- National development goals dependent on higher education may be compromised.
Ultimately, the future of Nigeria’s knowledge economy depends significantly on the integrity of its higher education quality assurance processes.
MY OPINION …
The crisis facing Nigerian universities is not merely one of inadequate funding. It is also a crisis of institutional honesty.
Government bears substantial responsibility for underfunding higher education. However, universities must also confront their own role in perpetuating decline through a culture of concealment.
Every borrowed microscope displayed during accreditation, every temporarily equipped laboratory, every staged demonstration of functionality contributes to a system that rewards appearance over reality.
Accreditation was never intended to be a public relations exercise. It was designed as a mechanism for improvement.
Until Nigerian universities embrace transparency and view accreditation as an opportunity for honest diagnosis rather than image protection, meaningful reform will remain elusive.
If government is responsible for starving the universities, then the culture of cover-up is the knife that helps complete the damage.
Dr. Felix A. Oyeleye is of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka
