When the news first broke that the Federal University of Technology, Minna, was preparing to establish professional programmes in medicine, pharmacy, nursing, and allied health sciences, the excitement was almost electric. Across social media, jubilant voices declared it a long-overdue step forward. One commenter captured the mood when he exclaimed that it was “the most cheering news I have heard in recent times.” Yet, like most bold ideas, this development quickly stirred debates. Was this a natural evolution in the life of a university of technology, or a daring departure from its founding mandate?
The spark was a letter from the Vice Chancellor, Professor Faruk Adamu Kuta, dated June 16, 2025, addressed to the Executive Secretary of the National Universities Commission (NUC), and stamped as received the following day. The document requested approval for nine new programmes, including medicine and surgery, human anatomy, human physiology, nursing science, doctor of pharmacy, medical laboratory science, procurement management technology, and logistics and supply chain management—programmes already endorsed by the university’s Senate at its 503rd meeting earlier in February. Sensing the groundswell of public approval, the university wasted no time in sustaining the momentum. Almost immediately, a second announcement followed: “FUTMINNA Delegation Visits FMC Bida Ahead of NUC Resource Verification for Medical College.” The details, covered by Lydia Legbo, painted a vivid picture of optimism. Professor Kuta, flanked by his delegation, was warmly received by Dr. Usman Abubakar, the Chief Medical Director of FMC Bida. In his speech, the VC stressed that “medical training is a serious business because life is delicate,” underscoring the gravity of preparing the teaching hospital for NUC’s verification. The CMD assured the university that the Centre was not only prepared but aligned with national goals to increase Nigeria’s health workforce.
Online reactions poured in thick and fast. Enthusiastic prayers for success and gratitude to leadership figures like the Vice Chancellor and Pro-Chancellor reflected a collective hope that this was a historic leap forward. For many, the prospect of FUT Minna training doctors and pharmacists was almost symbolic, transcending old prejudices and local rivalries. Yet in other circles, the tone shifted. Critics argued that the university risked overstepping its statutory mandate. “Is it not an aberration,” one asked pointedly, “for a university of technology to train doctors and pharmacists?” This sentiment found support among academics like Professor NN Wannang, who insisted that “a wrong thing repeatedly done does not make it right.” The crux of his argument rested on institutional identity: technology universities should remain technology-focused. Others countered with history and pragmatism: Joe Adda recalled how FUT Makurdi once experimented with pharmacy, while some argued that since technology permeates every field, medicine and health sciences could easily find a home in a university of technology. The disagreement reflected a deeper philosophical divide about what universities should be: guardians of tradition or pioneers of change.
These arguments are not new. In January 2017, the then Minister of Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu, had issued a ban on unauthorized courses in specialized universities, directing institutions to stick to their founding mandates. The statement criticized universities of agriculture that had drifted into law, accounting, and business administration, warning that such deviations were “an aberration and should be stopped with immediate effect.” To some, this pronouncement seemed like a final word on the matter. Yet higher education, as scholars often note, is not static. Clark Kerr’s “multiversity” theory reminds us that universities are adaptive organisms, constantly reshaping themselves in response to societal needs. Around the world, specialized institutions have expanded beyond their original mandates. Imperial College London, once narrowly focused on science and technology, now boasts a renowned business school and humanities departments. Wageningen University in the Netherlands, famous for agriculture, houses a thriving faculty of social sciences. Even polytechnics, often considered technical bastions, have evolved to embrace humanities, commerce, and law-related programmes in countries like South Africa and the UK.
This tension between tradition and adaptation lies at the heart of FUT Minna’s bold move. On the one hand, the legal principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius suggests that institutions should not stray beyond what their establishing Acts allow. On the other hand, higher education has always thrived on reinvention. As technology and science blur boundaries, insisting that medicine, pharmacy, and nursing are alien to a university of technology seems increasingly anachronistic. After all, biomedical engineering, pharmaceutical technology, and health informatics are fields born precisely at the intersection of science, technology, and medicine. To argue that FUT Minna cannot host a medical school because of its name is, perhaps, to miss the larger picture. As one defender put it: “Technology is in every field now. Future thinking makes it right.”
The controversy, then, is less about right or wrong and more about vision. Should specialized universities remain frozen in time, or should they evolve with society’s needs? Globally, the best practice is clear: institutions may diversify, but they must do so responsibly—anchoring new programmes in strong infrastructure, meeting regulatory standards, and aligning with their mission. For FUT Minna, the challenge is to demonstrate that this expansion is not a careless drift but a deliberate stride into the future, where technology and medicine walk hand in hand. The law may frown, purists may object, but as history shows, it is often the boldest departures that shape the destiny of education.
Bagudu can be reached at bagudumohammed15197@gmail.com or on 0703 494 3575.
