The WAEC must not be held hostage by TheConclaveNg opportunists

The threat of industrial action recently launched by the Non-Academic Staff Union of Educational and Associated Institutions against the management of the West African Examinations Council raises serious questions, not just about employment relationships, but about institutional accountability, timing and the wider national interest.

At a time when public institutions across Nigeria are under pressure to improve efficiency, accountability and service delivery, it is difficult to understand the logic behind a strike threat aimed at one of the country’s most sensitive examination bodies, especially during an active examination season. The timing alone betrays a troubling disregard for the students, parents, schools and education system whose stability WAEC exists to protect.

Every year, millions of Nigerian students depend on WAEC exams for academic progression and career opportunities. Any disruption to the examination process carries enormous consequences, not only for candidates, but for families and institutions nationwide. For a union to deliberately threaten industrial action during this critical period does not suggest constructive engagement, but a calculated disruption designed to put maximum pressure on management regardless of the collateral damage on innocent students.

This approach cannot be defended as responsible trade unionism. Authentic trade union activism should seek a balance between worker well-being and institutional sustainability. What we are witnessing instead appears to be an attempt to use examination periods as a weapon to impose administrative concessions. Such a strategy undermines public trust in both the union and the institution itself.

One of the union’s most curious demands is its opposition to ongoing recruitment exercises involving exam officers and exam assistants. In a time when educational institutions and exam bodies are under increasing pressure to improve operational efficiency, staff strength and service delivery, recruitment should normally be welcomed, not resisted. WAEC is not a private enterprise operating in isolation. It is a major public examination institution with growing responsibilities in Nigeria and the West African sub-region. Expanding your workforce where necessary is not only sensible, but essential.

Indeed, instead of attacking management over hiring, stakeholders should praise efforts to strengthen manpower capacity. Exam administration is a demanding, technical responsibility that requires competence, speed, integrity and adaptability. Attempts to frustrate recruitment efforts raise legitimate concerns that some interests are more committed to preserving internal clientelistic structures than promoting institutional effectiveness.

Equally worrying is the union’s complaint about management’s decisions on investigative committees. In any serious organization, management retains the authority to establish panels of experts, investigate allegations, and maintain internal discipline. No institution can function effectively where disciplinary mechanisms are subject to union veto or politicization. Administrative panels are part of normal governance structures. Painting their constitution as illegitimate simply because they are not led by unions reflects a misunderstanding of organizational governance.

Management decisions are not made solely on the basis of sentiment or popularity. They are driven by institutional rules, operational needs and regulatory obligations. If every administrative decision must first meet union approval before being implemented, then managerial authority becomes meaningless. Institutions survive on structure, not on perpetual contestation.

It is equally difficult to justify the objection to reducing the duration of exams. Around the world, institutions continually review operating models to improve efficiency, reduce waste, minimize effort and optimize resources. Reducing unnecessary delays in examination processes should normally be seen as progressive administrative reform rather than an attack on workers. If the objectives of the exam can be achieved within shorter and more efficient times, then resistance to such reform appears more selfish than principled.

The same goes for the union’s criticism of the 40% minimum take-home policy, reportedly tied to additional work compensation. In an era where public institutions face intense financial scrutiny and sustainability concerns, organizations are forced to introduce measures that ensure responsible financial management while protecting the well-being of workers. It is neither unusual nor overwhelming for institutions to set financial thresholds aimed at balancing compensation with operational sustainability.

Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the union’s position is the accusation that management is attempting to weaken the union through member distortion. That statement is serious, but seriousness alone is no substitute for evidence. Accusations without evidence only inflame tensions and distract from substantive engagement. If there are verifiable cases of anti-union practices, there are established procedures to address them. Public accusations unsupported by evidence only exacerbate mistrust and create unnecessary institutional instability.

The complaint relating to the violation of the seniority principles also deserves a more in-depth examination. Modern institutions no longer operate solely on the basis of seniority-based advancement. Competence, performance, professionalism, innovation, discipline and leadership skills are now central considerations in appointments and placements. Experience matters, but experience alone cannot be the sole determinant of accountability in a complex and evolving institution like the WAEC.

To insist that progress must depend only on years of service is to ignore the reality of contemporary organizational management. Institutions thrive when merit complements experience. Promoting individuals solely because they are older in service, regardless of performance or skills, would ultimately harm institutional effectiveness.

The union’s criticism of the layoffs and sanctions raises perhaps the most fundamental question of all. No serious organization can survive without discipline. Rules exist to protect institutional integrity, operational standards and public trust. If disciplinary actions are taken against erring staff after due process, such actions should not automatically be described as victimisation. The alternative would be institutional permissiveness, where misconduct is tolerated in the name of labor solidarity.

Discipline is not oppression. Responsibility is not persecution. Institutions that fail to enforce standards ultimately end in dysfunction. For an exam body responsible for certifying the academic future of millions of students, integrity and discipline are not optional values. They are existential necessities.

None of this suggests that unions aren’t necessary or that workers shouldn’t support fair treatment. Unions remain important pillars of workplace protection and social justice. However, trade unionism must be exercised responsibly, especially within institutions that carry enormous public obligations. Union activism loses moral credibility when it appears driven more by obstructionism than by constructive commitment.

WAEC occupies a particularly sensitive position within Nigeria’s educational architecture. Its operations cover schools, universities, employers, parents and students across the country. Any disruption to its operations has nationwide repercussions. This is why moderation, dialogue and institutional responsibility must prevail over brinkmanship and sensational ultimatums.
At this critical moment, the wisest path for all parties is constructive engagement rather than escalation. The union must recognize that institutional reforms, administrative restructuring, recruitment procedures and disciplinary systems are integral components of organizational management, not automatic evidence of hostility towards workers.

Nigeria’s education system has undergone enough upheavals over the years. Students should not once again become victims of avoidable industrial conflicts. What WAEC requires now is stability, professionalism and collective commitment to its core mandate. Anything less would be tantamount to placing sectoral interests above national educational priorities.

■ Rhodes, a public affairs analyst, sent this piece from Lagos. He can be reached at rhodes1988@gmail.com

Related