The National Association of Nigerian Students has launched a strong attack on former Kogi West senator Dino Melaye over his comments on the Nigerian Education Loan Fund, describing him as a “comedian” and “jester” while accusing him of misunderstanding how the Federal Government’s student loan programme operates.
The controversy intensified on September 30, 2026, after Melaye questioned the value of the NELFUND programme, arguing that ₦20,000 could not pay the annual school fees charged by Nigerian tertiary institutions. His comments triggered responses from NANS and presidential aides who said he had confused the monthly upkeep allowance with institutional fees paid separately under the programme.
“Do people still take Melaye seriously?” NANS said in remarks reported following the controversy. The student body described the former senator as a comedian and jester and said anybody taking him seriously was “very unfortunate.”
NANS also questioned Melaye’s contribution to education during his period in the Senate, challenging him to identify scholarships or bursaries he provided for students in his former constituency. The criticism represents NANS’ assessment of Melaye and should not be treated as an independent description of the former lawmaker.
In a separate formal statement signed by its National President, Akinteye Babatunde Afeez, NANS said Melaye had wrongly presented the ₦20,000 received by beneficiaries as though it represented the entire financial support available through NELFUND.
“My attention has just been drawn to a publication making the rounds by Dino Melaye on the NELFUND initiative,” Akinteye said, before accusing Melaye of claiming that the programme pays only ₦20,000 to students in higher institutions.
The NANS president said institutional charges and upkeep payments are different components of the student loan programme.
According to NANS, approved institutional charges are covered separately, while the ₦20,000 payment at the centre of Melaye’s criticism represents monthly upkeep support for eligible beneficiaries who apply for that component.
That distinction is central to the dispute.
Melaye had described NELFUND as a “haven of corruption” and questioned how the government could claim to support students with school fees when, according to his presentation, beneficiaries were receiving only ₦20,000.
The allegation of corruption is Melaye’s political claim. The comments reviewed did not establish evidence proving that NELFUND itself is a “haven of corruption,” and the allegation should therefore not be reported as an established finding.
NANS said criticism of the programme was legitimate but argued that such criticism should be based on an accurate understanding of how the scheme operates.
“If he wishes to criticise the policy, he is free to do so, but such criticism must be founded on facts,” the association said in its statement.
The student organisation further accused Melaye of reducing what it described as a broader education-financing intervention to its ₦20,000 upkeep component.
Information from NANS concerning recent NELFUND payments also confirms that upkeep allowances are treated separately. In July, Akinteye announced that payment of outstanding June and July upkeep allowances had commenced and told beneficiaries that arrears would be processed in batches.
This means the ₦20,000 figure should not be presented as a student’s total annual NELFUND entitlement.
Under the programme, institutional charges approved for beneficiaries are handled separately from upkeep payments. The distinction matters because combining the two can give readers an inaccurate impression of how much financial assistance a student receives.
The controversy also attracted the attention of Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser on Information and Strategy to President Bola Tinubu.
Onanuga backed NANS’ criticism and accused Melaye of making a “brazen lie” by suggesting that NELFUND gives students only ₦20,000 per year.
He went further, rhetorically questioning what the former senator had “smoked” before making the comments on television.
Onanuga’s language, like the insults directed at Melaye by NANS, forms part of the political response to the controversy and does not itself establish the effectiveness of the student loan programme.
The more important factual issue for students is how NELFUND works and whether beneficiaries are receiving the assistance promised under the scheme.
NANS has publicly engaged NELFUND over payment delays in the past. In July, its president announced the resumption of upkeep payments following an upgrade to the payment system and assured students that outstanding allowances would be cleared.
That history demonstrates that supporting the student loan programme does not prevent questions about its implementation, delays or effectiveness.
Students can legitimately scrutinise how quickly applications are processed, whether institutions receive payments on time, whether upkeep allowances are adequate for current living costs and whether beneficiaries understand their repayment obligations.
Those questions are different from claiming that ₦20,000 represents the entire amount the government provides for a student's education.
The current NANS leadership is headed by Akinteye, who was elected national president in May 2026 following the association’s convention at the Old Parade Ground in Abuja. NANS’ official leadership record says he received 349 votes and lists NELFUND payment and refund advocacy among the priorities of his administration.
NANS has also publicly praised some education policies introduced under Tinubu, including the student loan programme. Earlier in September, Akinteye said Nigerian students were monitoring government policies and their effects on education and welfare, while highlighting NELFUND among initiatives he considered beneficial.
That background provides context for the association’s forceful defence of the programme against Melaye’s criticism.
However, NANS’ support for NELFUND does not by itself settle wider questions about the scheme’s performance. Those questions are better assessed through independently verifiable information about applications, actual disbursements, institutional payments, repayment arrangements and experiences of beneficiaries.
Likewise, Melaye’s criticism of the Tinubu administration does not establish that his description of the ₦20,000 payment was accurate.
The dispute illustrates the importance of separating political rhetoric from the underlying policy.
The verified distinction is straightforward: the ₦20,000 repeatedly mentioned in the controversy is an upkeep payment rather than the entirety of the institutional financial support available through NELFUND.
Whether ₦20,000 is sufficient as monthly upkeep amid Nigeria’s cost-of-living pressures is another question and remains open to legitimate debate.
For students and their families, that debate may ultimately be more consequential than the personal exchanges between politicians and student leaders.
The effectiveness of NELFUND will be determined not by insults exchanged in political arguments but by whether eligible students can access the programme, institutions receive the required payments and beneficiaries obtain support capable of reducing financial barriers to tertiary education.
NANS has chosen to defend the programme vigorously and has accused Melaye of speaking without understanding its structure.
Melaye, meanwhile, has raised broader concerns about the administration and the management of the student loan initiative.
As political arguments intensify ahead of the 2027 election period, Nigerians will increasingly encounter competing claims about government programmes. In the case of NELFUND, the clearest way to assess those claims is to distinguish institutional payments from upkeep allowances and judge the programme using verifiable disbursement and beneficiary data rather than political insults from either side.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments