Nigeria Youth Age Debate | SkyDNews Investigative Report
Nigeria Youth Age Debate Continues Because You Cannot Set an Age Limit for Youth Without Taking Responsibility for the Years Government Has Stolen From Them
The Nigeria youth age debate has recently sparked intense conversations about whether the official age bracket for young people should be increased from 30 to 40 years. While opinions differ, the debate exposes deeper problems in Nigeria's governance, education system and employment policies. The real question is whether young Nigerians should continue to suffer the consequences of leadership failures that have stolen their most productive years.
The Nigeria youth age debate cannot be separated from the failures of the country's educational system, where repeated industrial actions continue to delay students' graduation. Nigeria is a country where leadership failures have become so deeply entrenched that almost every sector of national life is struggling. Unfortunately, the greatest victims are the young people whose productive years are being wasted by a system they neither created nor control. Consider the Nigerian educational system. A child enters secondary school, progresses to higher education and looks forward to graduating within the stipulated period. But what happens? ASUU strikes, industrial disputes, unpaid allowances, poor funding, administrative failures and endless disagreements between government and university workers disrupt academic calendars.
A programme designed to last four years can take five, six or even seven years. Sometimes, students spend more time at home than they spend in lecture halls. Yet, when government eventually decides to regulate the age at which a young Nigerian can enter a university, it suggests 18 years as the appropriate minimum age. But did anyone ask the government whether it had put measures in place to ensure that these students would graduate without unnecessary interruptions? Did anyone ask whether university strikes would become a thing of the past? Did anyone ask whether government would honour agreements with lecturers, provide adequate facilities and ensure that students completed their programmes within the expected time?
Apparently, the government can regulate the age at which a child enters university without taking corresponding responsibility for the number of years that child may spend trying to graduate. This is where the injustice becomes obvious. Imagine a student who enters university at 18, encounters repeated academic disruptions and eventually graduates at 25, 26 or even 27. By the time the person completes the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) requirements, depending on the applicable age rules and circumstances, the opportunity to participate may already have been lost. Instead of the traditional NYSC discharge certificate, such a graduate may end up receiving an exemption certificate.
There is nothing inherently wrong with an exemption certificate where the law provides for it. The problem is when a young person loses an opportunity to participate in a national programme because of circumstances beyond their control. Now, let us move from the classroom to the labour market. The same government that presides over an education system that delays graduation turns around to advertise employment opportunities with an age limit of 30 years. And, as if that is not enough, some of these vacancies demand five years of working experience. Let us do the mathematics.
A young person graduates at 26 or 27, perhaps completes NYSC at 28, and is then expected to have five years of professional experience while remaining below 30. How does that work? When exactly is this young person expected to acquire the required experience? During the strikes? While waiting for admission? While struggling to complete a delayed academic programme? Or immediately after graduation, when many employers are unwilling to give fresh graduates an opportunity? Are we deliberately creating a system in which young people are expected to meet requirements that the same system makes almost impossible to achieve? Something is fundamentally wrong with this arrangement.
Nigeria Youth Age Debate and the Hypocrisy of Youth Empowerment
Government officials regularly speak about youth empowerment, entrepreneurship, innovation, employment and the need to harness the potential of Nigeria's youthful population. But what does empowerment mean when the same government places artificial barriers before the people it claims to empower? What does inclusion mean when a 32-year-old Nigerian with the requisite qualifications and competence is automatically considered too old for an opportunity? What does merit mean when a vacancy is advertised publicly, but the eventual beneficiary is allegedly determined by political connections, financial inducements, family relationships or who knows someone who knows someone?
At the heart of the Nigeria youth age debate is the contradiction between restrictive recruitment policies and the realities of delayed education and unemployment. We must confront this disturbing culture of patronage that has undermined public recruitment in Nigeria. Public employment should be about competence, qualifications, experience, integrity and the ability to deliver results. It should never become an avenue for rewarding political loyalists, accommodating relatives or recycling individuals whose only qualification is access to powerful people. When capable Nigerians are excluded because they lack connections, while less qualified candidates find their way into strategic positions, we should not be surprised when institutions fail. You cannot consistently sacrifice merit on the altar of favouritism and expect excellence to emerge.
And this is why I no longer find it difficult to understand the frustration of many Nigerian workers. Although individual workers must also be accountable for their responsibilities, government cannot continually neglect its obligations, fail to honour agreements, delay earned entitlements and then expect uninterrupted productivity. A government that does not respect the dignity of labour should not be surprised when industrial relations become strained.
Nigeria Youth Age Debate: Is 40 the New 30?
Personally, I believe the debate about extending the youth age from 30 to 40 deserves serious consideration. However, we must be careful not to mistake a change in definition for a solution to structural problems. Increasing the age bracket may create room for more Nigerians to benefit from youth-focused programmes, leadership opportunities, grants, training and employment initiatives. It may also reflect the realities of a country where economic hardship, unemployment and educational delays have significantly altered the transition into adulthood. But extending the definition of youth to 40 without reforming the systems that have disadvantaged young people will amount to treating the symptoms while leaving the disease untouched. We need policies that address:
1. Educational disruptions: Government must fulfil its obligations to educational institutions and ensure that students graduate within reasonable and predictable timelines.
3. Elimination of artificial experience barriers: Employers, particularly government institutions, should create opportunities for competent fresh graduates rather than demanding years of experience for entry-level positions.
4. Merit-based recruitment: Public employment must be transparent, competitive and free from political patronage, bribery and nepotism.
5. Youth economic opportunities: Young Nigerians need access to finance, entrepreneurship support, vocational training, agricultural opportunities and decent employment.
6. Policy consistency: Government must stop introducing policies without considering their implications for other sectors and the ordinary citizens expected to comply.
The youth population is not Nigeria's problem. The failure to create an environment where young people can thrive is the problem. A country cannot afford to waste the productive years of its citizens and then blame them for becoming too old to qualify for opportunities.
Nigeria Youth Age Debate and the Realities of Ageing
There is a humorous message circulating about the realities of growing older. It describes a stage in life when eating sugar becomes dangerous, avoiding food becomes equally dangerous, exercising brings aches, while refusing to exercise creates another problem. It humorously captures the contradictions of ageing, when even ordinary daily activities seem to come with their own complications. The message goes further to suggest that middle age begins at 50, the golden years at 70, old age at 80 and longevity at 90. Whether or not these age classifications have any medical or scientific basis, the underlying message is worth reflecting upon: life is a journey, and every stage deserves dignity, happiness and opportunity. We should not turn age into a weapon for excluding people from opportunities, particularly in a society where circumstances have already made life unnecessarily difficult.
At 30, a Nigerian may still be struggling to secure a first job. At 35, another may be trying to establish a business. At 40, someone else may finally be finding the financial stability that should have come much earlier. Does that make them less capable? Does it make their contributions to national development less valuable? Certainly not.
