The Federal Government’s student-loan scheme has become the centre of a fresh political dispute after former Kogi West Senator Dino Melaye questioned the value of support provided to Nigerian students under the Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND).
Melaye had claimed that students receive only ₦20,000 under the scheme and described NELFUND as a “haven of corruption”, prompting a sharp response from the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) and the Presidency.
NANS President, Comrade Akinteye Babatunde Afeez, faulted Melaye for presenting the ₦20,000 upkeep payment as though it represented the entire NELFUND intervention.
“Dino Melaye, in his cluelessness, has claimed that NELFUND only pays #20,000 to students in higher institutions of learning,” Afeez said.
He explained that the student-loan programme covers institutional charges separately from the money provided to students for personal upkeep.
“To be clear, the NELFUND initiative caters for all the fees payable by students, while the #20,000 is merely an upkeep support for students,” the NANS president said.
Afeez also questioned Melaye’s record of supporting students during his years in public office.
“Dino Melaye should come out and tell us if he has even given ₦5,000 as scholarship to students in his area, as bursary to students in his constituency,” he said.
He added: “If Dino Melaye had done some research at all, he wouldn’t have embarrassed himself like that on national television stating that just ₦20,000 was given to students per year.”
The NANS president maintained that the ₦20,000 is a monthly upkeep payment rather than the total value of the educational assistance.
“NELFUND has loan, and NELFUND has upkeep. Students are getting their educational loan and they are also getting the upkeep monthly,” Afeez said.
READ RELATED NEWS UPDATES
The exchange subsequently drew the intervention of Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy.
Onanuga backed NANS’ position and criticised Melaye over the claim.
“What did he smoke?” Onanuga asked in a reaction to the former senator’s remarks, before questioning the basis of the claim.
The presidential aide also referred to Melaye as a former senator and supporter of former Vice President Atiku Abubakar in his response.
The dispute, however, is not simply about the political exchange. It turns on how NELFUND payments are structured.
According to NELFUND, the student-loan scheme provides support for two distinct purposes: institutional charges and upkeep. Approved institutional charges are paid directly to the beneficiary’s tertiary institution, while the upkeep component is transferred to the student’s bank account.
This means that the ₦20,000 figure cited in the controversy represents the upkeep component, not the complete value of the assistance available to an eligible student.
The distinction matters because a student whose institutional charges have been approved under NELFUND may receive substantially more support than the upkeep figure suggests, depending on the approved charges payable to the institution.
NELFUND’s intervention has also expanded considerably since the student-loan system was introduced. The Fund’s published data show that more than one million students have benefited from the programme, with billions of naira channelled towards institutional payments and student upkeep.
Unlike a conventional scholarship, NELFUND assistance is structured as a loan. Beneficiaries are expected to repay after the applicable repayment period, with repayment arrangements linked to employment and income.
The latest dispute therefore raises two separate questions: whether Melaye accurately described what students receive and whether the amount provided for personal upkeep is sufficient amid Nigeria’s rising cost of transport, food, accommodation and other student expenses.
NANS has concentrated its response on the first question, insisting that Melaye confused the upkeep component with the entire loan package.
Onanuga’s intervention has given the controversy an additional political dimension, while the NELFUND structure provides a factual basis for separating school-fee payments from personal upkeep.
The issue now extends beyond the exchange between politicians and student representatives. For beneficiaries, the more immediate concern is whether approved institutional payments reach their schools promptly and whether the monthly upkeep sufficiently supports students as they navigate the rising cost of tertiary education.
