By Uzair Adam
Some training centres implementing the Federal Government’s Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) programme in Kano and Jigawa states are grappling with delayed payments, mounting operational costs and unpaid trainer allowances, raising concerns about the sustainability of the programme.
The Daily Reality gathered that the situation has left some centre operators struggling to meet their financial obligations, while trainers engaged to teach beneficiaries say they have gone for months without receiving their allowances.
There are also concerns over equipment promised to beneficiaries after training, with some graduates saying they completed their programmes without receiving the tools expected to help them establish businesses or secure employment.
The TVET programme is designed to equip unemployed Nigerians and others without sustainable employment with practical skills that can improve their chances of earning a livelihood. Beneficiaries are also expected to receive nationally recognised certificates and, in some cases, equipment packages after completing their training.
With more than 2,300 centres engaged nationwide after passing quality assurance processes, the programme covers more than 36 skills.
But a growing dispute over payments, particularly the application of a 65 per cent attendance requirement, is now threatening to undermine its implementation in some centres.
Payment Dispute Threatens Training
At the centre of the dispute is a payment condition requiring beneficiaries to attain at least 65 per cent monthly attendance before centres can receive payment.
Participating centre operators argue that the condition conflicts with what they understood to be the payment arrangement in their agreements with the government, which they said was based on the number of verified trainees and agreed programme milestones.
They also object to what they described as the retrospective application of the attendance condition, arguing that it should not be imposed on agreements already entered into.
The operators said they support biometric attendance monitoring and other measures to ensure accountability, but questioned why centres should bear the financial consequences when some trainees fail to attend classes regularly.
One centre owner, who asked to remain anonymous, described the new payment arrangement as an attempt to frustrate training centres.
He stated that, “The new system is to defeat the centres. Instead of the agreement that they would pay centres based on the number of students, now they said no.
“They did not revise the MoU, and they did not contact anyone. They just decided on their own on that 65 per cent,” he added.
According to him, the government was responsible for recruiting the beneficiaries, leaving centre operators with limited control over whether some of those trainees would remain committed to the programme.
He added, “They recruited the students themselves and they happened to lack interest in the programme.”
The centre owner argued that linking payments to attendance could leave operators financing training for beneficiaries whose recruitment and commitment were largely outside their control.
Centre Owners Count the Cost
Beyond the payment dispute, centre operators said they have continued to incur substantial expenses to keep their facilities running.
They are responsible for paying instructors, maintaining facilities and purchasing training materials while waiting for government payments.
One operator said a centre he knew received only N50,000 last month despite spending more than N300,000 on programme-related expenses.
He said his own centre had invested more than N10 million and expected to receive at least N15 million for the first month, but was paid only N3 million.
The disparity, he argued, makes it increasingly difficult for private operators to sustain the programme.
Another centre owner, Jamil Muhammad, not his real name, said operators could not continue financing government programmes indefinitely from their personal resources.
He stated that, “We cannot continue to finance the programme indefinitely while waiting for payments.”
For trainers, the financial pressure has also become a major concern.
Muhammad Kabir, not his real name, a trainer at one of the centres in Kano, said he had worked for almost three months without receiving his allowance.
He said the delay had affected the morale of trainers who depend on the payments to meet their personal and professional obligations.
Fear of Another Unresolved Government Programme
The payment difficulties have also raised fears among some operators that the TVET programme could eventually suffer the fate of previous government initiatives.
One centre owner said the programme might end without the government settling outstanding financial obligations to participating centres.
He cited N-Power and N-Skills under the previous administration, alleging that unresolved payment issues from those programmes remain a burden between operators and government.
He decried that, “We don’t want TVET to end the way N-Power and N-Skills ended. There are still backlogs with the government from those programmes.”
Our reporter gathered that for operators who have invested heavily in facilities, equipment and personnel, the concern goes beyond delayed payments.
They fear that prolonged financial uncertainty could force some centres to withdraw from the programme before beneficiaries complete their training.
Centres Seek Government Intervention
Centre operators have appealed to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Minister of Education, Dr Tunji Alausa, to intervene in the payment dispute.
Their demands include settling outstanding payments, reviewing the 65 per cent attendance condition, and deciding that any new payment arrangement should apply prospectively rather than retrospectively.
They also want a mechanism to replace beneficiaries who stop attending classes, withdraw from the programme, or fail to meet attendance requirements.
The operators maintain that such a system would protect public funds while preventing training centres from bearing the cost of beneficiaries who are no longer participating.
The dispute has already prompted some centres to threaten to suspend participation if the payment issues remain unresolved.
The Daily Reality recalls that the operators had previously raised concerns over the financial implications of the attendance-based payment arrangement, warning that continued delays could make it difficult for centres to sustain their operations.
Graduates Left Without Promised Equipment
While centre operators struggle with payments, some beneficiaries are facing a different problem: completing their training without receiving the equipment they were promised.
Kabir Muhammad, another centre operator, alleged that beneficiaries from the first cohort were promised equipment after completing their training, but some graduated months earlier without receiving anything.
He further alleged that beneficiaries in the second cohort were told they would receive equipment before or around the time of their training, but some were already several months into the programme without receiving the promised package.
For beneficiaries, the equipment is not simply an additional benefit. It is expected to provide the means to apply the skills acquired during training and, potentially, begin earning an income.
Aisha Muhammad, not her real name, a graduate of the first cohort, said she completed her training but received no equipment afterwards.
“After we graduated, nothing was given to us,” she said.
The absence of the equipment has raised questions about what happens to beneficiaries after they receive training and certificates if they lack the basic tools needed to put their newly acquired skills into practice.
Financial Burden Extends Beyond Payments
The financial burden on centres extends beyond delayed government disbursements.
Operators are expected to maintain suitable training facilities, engage instructors and provide the materials required for practical sessions.
Private centres, in particular, also face expenses such as rent, salaries, electricity, fuel and general maintenance.
An advocacy brief reviewed during the investigation also raised concerns about the pressure created by attendance-based payments.
.
It cited a Kano centre with 40 learners that received N50,000 for July, a figure the document said was insufficient to cover the centre’s operational expenses.
The centre operators argue that payment mechanisms must account for costs already incurred in delivering the training, rather than placing the entire financial burden on providers.
They said the government’s monitoring system should distinguish between centres failing to deliver training and centres that have fulfilled their responsibilities but are affected by beneficiary attendance.
Experts Question Sustainability
Education and skills development experts said the payment problems could affect centres’ ability to retain qualified trainers and maintain the facilities required for effective practical training.
Dr Abdussalam Muhammad Kani, Director, Career Services Centre, Sa’adatu Rimi College of Education, Kumbotso-Kano, said delayed payments could affect facilitator retention and centres’ ability to meet running costs.
He noted that training centres require money for facilitators, maintenance, fuel and instructional materials, stressing that prolonged delays could undermine programme delivery.
Dr Kani called for dedicated funding and a clear budgetary provision for the programme, alongside stronger monitoring, reporting and assessment mechanisms.
Sulaiman Dandago, a lecturer at Aminu Kano College of Islamic and Legal Studies (AKCILS), said the programme’s success depends largely on clear implementation arrangements, adequate facilities, and the availability of qualified instructors.
He said centres must be equipped according to the number of trainees enrolled, while private providers must also cover expenses such as rent and staff salaries.
Dandago warned that failure to pay participating centres and trainers could demoralise those responsible for delivering the programme.
“If the Federal Ministry of Education fails to pay dues, how can the programme attain its objectives?” he asked.
The concerns come at a critical stage for a programme intended to provide practical skills to thousands of Nigerians and improve their chances of becoming economically productive.
For beneficiaries, however, the initiative’s success will not be measured by training alone. It will also depend on whether centres can remain operational, trainers are paid, certificates are delivered and graduates receive the tools promised to help them turn acquired skills into livelihoods.
The payment dispute therefore raises a broader question about the programme’s sustainability: whether the government can maintain a system capable of supporting training centres throughout the process, from recruitment and instruction to certification and post-training assistance.
All efforts to obtain the Federal Ministry of Education’s response to the concerns raised by the centre operators proved abortive as of the time of filing this report.
