Maroof Asudemade
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has reopened a national conversation that has remained unresolved for decades. Speaking to a delegation of Catholic Bishops, the President observed that the responsibility for returning mission schools to their original owners lies with state governments because primary and secondary education falls within their constitutional jurisdiction.

His remarks have reignited calls by missionary organisations for the restoration of schools taken over by governments in the 1970s. While the historical arguments for restitution deserve a fair hearing, the debate must not be driven by sentiment alone. It must be guided by the overriding public interest.

No one can deny the invaluable contributions of Christian and Islamic missionaries to the development of education in Nigeria. Long before governments appreciated the transformative power of formal education, missionaries established schools that produced some of the country’s finest leaders, professionals and public servants. Their sacrifices deserve recognition and gratitude.

However, history alone cannot determine present-day public policy. Those advocating the return of schools must answer some fundamental questions.

First, what becomes of the vast tracts of land on which many of these schools were built? In numerous cases, governments and host communities freely donated land to missionary bodies to establish educational institutions for public benefit. If the schools are returned, should the land automatically follow? Or should there be compensation where public assets are involved? These questions cannot simply be wished away.

Secondly, will education remain affordable. This is perhaps the most critical issue. The reality today is that many educational institutions owned by religious organisations charge fees beyond the reach of the average Nigerian family. Mission-owned universities, whether Christian or Islamic, are among the most expensive in the country. If public primary and secondary schools are handed back without safeguards, will the children of market women, artisans, farmers and low-income civil servants still have access to quality education?

Education is not merely another social service. It is a constitutional obligation of government and a fundamental right of every child. Returning schools in a manner that shifts this responsibility to private organisations could gradually erode one of the most important obligations of the state.

Nigeria is also bound by international commitments that recognise every child’s right to free and compulsory basic education. Any arrangement that places financial barriers before children from poor families would defeat both the spirit of our Constitution and the ideals of those international commitments.

Supporters of school restitution often point to the discipline, moral instruction and academic excellence that characterised mission schools before government intervention. There is truth in that argument. Many mission schools set standards that remain unmatched today. Yet the solution to declining educational standards should not be the exclusion of the poor.

The real objective should be to combine the strengths of both systems. Governments can retain ownership while partnering with missionary organisations to improve administration, discipline, value orientation and academic performance. Such partnerships can preserve the rich heritage of mission schools without sacrificing universal access to education.

Where any school is eventually returned, there must be binding legal guarantees. School fees should remain affordable. Admission policies should not discriminate on religious or economic grounds. Government’s investment over several decades should be acknowledged and protected. Above all, no Nigerian child should be denied education because of poverty.

The debate should never be reduced to a struggle over ownership. It should be about the future of Nigerian children.

If returning schools means restoring excellence while preserving affordability and equal access, it deserves serious consideration. But if it simply transfers public assets into private hands and makes education the exclusive preserve of those who can afford it, then the nation would have exchanged one problem for another.

As governments weigh this sensitive issue, they must remember one simple truth: schools may have founders, but education belongs to the people. The first duty of any education policy is not to reward institutions; it is to protect the Nigerian child.