News Analysis – Abdul Lauya
The recent suspension of Yushau Shuaib, a renowned Nigerian public relations expert and participant of the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 47 at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, has ignited a significant debate over academic freedom, digital privacy, institutional conduct, and leadership ethics in Nigeria’s top policy think-tank. Shuaib’s case is more than a disciplinary issue, it is a mirror reflecting tensions between institutional authority and democratic values in elite leadership grooming.
Shuaib, nominated by the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR) after receiving a global PR award, joined SEC 47 in October 2024. In March 2025, his platform PRNigeria published an article titled “NIPSS Goes Digital” celebrating the Institute’s paperless transformation. Though he neither authored nor edited the piece, he was issued a query, warned, and later suspended in May after another article, “Understanding the Blue in the Blue Economy”, was published under his byline, again applauding President Tinubu’s reform agenda.
NIPSS claims these actions violated its confidentiality rules, particularly the Chatham House-style rule of non-disclosure during the course. However, Shuaib insists his articles did not disclose any internal deliberations and were based on public policy discourse. He further alleges that NIPSS accessed PRNigeria’s editorial email unlawfully, an act he described as cyberbullying and a violation of Nigeria’s Cybercrime (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act of 2015.
The Institute’s response was equally blunt. It dismissed his concerns as blackmail and insubordination, arguing that publishing on a theme under ongoing study, no matter the intent, was a breach of agreement. According to the Institute, all participants sign a pledge not to publish course-related content until after completion. NIPSS insists Shuaib violated this principle twice and was warned after the first offence.
However, this situation raises deeper questions about the nature of NIPSS itself. As Nigeria’s apex policy think-tank, established to research, train, and advise on national development, should it not encourage public engagement on national policy, especially in non-classified contexts? And can commentary supporting the government’s digital economy policy be equated with a breach of internal confidentiality?
Globally, institutions of similar stature such as Brookings Institution (USA), Chatham House (UK), SWP (Germany), NSG (South Africa), and RSIS (Singapore) operate under firm, but flexible frameworks that balance confidentiality with public engagement. While they maintain strict standards on classified information, they actively encourage fellows to write opinion articles, policy briefs, and commentaries, even during their fellowship or training programmes, provided they clarify that the views expressed are personal or represent their own institutions.
Moreover, these institutions maintain clear communication and media engagement policies. Participants know exactly what is deemed confidential, what must be approved, and what can be shared publicly. In contrast, Shuaib argues that NIPSS lacks any codified media communication or content classification framework, creating room for arbitrary interpretations of what constitutes a violation.
A more alarming accusation lies in the alleged surveillance of PRNigeria’s internal emails. If confirmed, this could constitute a criminal breach of Nigeria’s cyber laws, including sections on unlawful access and data interception. NIPSS has not denied the access but instead justified the queries based on the email content. This omission speaks volumes and raises concerns about respect for digital rights, especially by a federal institution tasked with modeling national leadership.
Even more worrying is the pattern of punitive measures. Shuaib alleges he was not only suspended but also socially ostracised and denied participation in international tours, despite paying ₦18.2 million for the course. He was also barred from social groups and suffered health issues from the ordeal. Such measures resemble exclusionary practices more common in authoritarian systems than democratic leadership academies.
There’s also the matter of selectivity. While NIPSS claims rules were uniformly applied, multiple reports suggest that other SEC 47 participants were similarly sanctioned for relatively minor actions: giving a vote of thanks to a state governor, arriving late due to a family emergency, or attending an external event. This raises concerns over inconsistency, excessive rigidity, and lack of proportionality in disciplinary measures.
NIPSS, in its defense, insists it is training leaders “with emotional intelligence” and expects discipline. But emotional intelligence is not synonymous with blind compliance; it also includes empathy, fairness, and the capacity for dissent in a democratic context. Training leaders by militarising academic environments contradicts global best practice, especially for institutes modeled on dialogue, policy innovation, and strategic foresight.
Critics of NIPSS argue that its reaction to Shuaib’s writings is symptomatic of a larger institutional malaise: a fear of independent thinking. Instead of encouraging innovative policy advocacy aligned with national goals, as Shuaib clearly attempted, the Institute chose to punish transparency. This suggests an insecurity about its internal processes or a rigid adherence to authority over engagement.
NIPSS’s ambition to rank among Africa’s top three think-tanks by 2025 now hangs in the balance. Its response to this crisis could either project maturity and reform or reinforce a reputation for suppression and insularity. True think-tanks thrive on discourse, constructive dissent, and public trust, not internal secrecy and punitive control.
From the evidence, Shuaib appears to have acted within ethical and public-interest boundaries. He may have underestimated institutional rigidity, but his intentions were aligned with national development goals. NIPSS, while right to uphold discipline, has responded disproportionately, failed to communicate transparently, and risked its credibility by ignoring privacy laws.
Ultimately, this saga challenges the very soul of Nigeria’s top policy institute: is NIPSS training policy thinkers, or policy enforcers? Are participants being shaped to manage public narratives or merely to obey institutional commands?
Shuaib is largely absolved based on current evidence and global best practices. NIPSS, though established to train visionary leaders, has in this case projected an overly defensive posture inconsistent with international standards. It must introspect, codify transparent policies, respect digital rights, and rethink its approach to discipline and dialogue if it is to remain relevant in a democratic age.
