NELFUND rules out public disclosure of student loan beneficiaries’ names

The Nigerian Education Loan Fund (NELFUND) has said it will not make the identities of students receiving loans under its scheme public, citing privacy obligations and the risk of exposing beneficiaries to stigma or unwanted attention.

The fund’s Director-General, Akintunde Sawyerr, explained that while NELFUND would continue to disclose the institutions receiving payments and the number of students supported, it would not release individual beneficiaries’ names.

He made the clarification in an interview with The PUNCH, amid growing demands for greater transparency in the management of the student loan programme, particularly as questions emerge about its financial sustainability and repayment arrangements ahead of the first repayment window in 2028.

Sawyerr argued that accessing an education loan should not become a source of public embarrassment for students. He also noted that making their identities available could expose some beneficiaries to unwanted attention or targeting.

According to figures released by NELFUND, the scheme had disbursed ₦375.28bn as of Monday, November 9, 2026, since the student loan portal opened on May 24, 2024. The amount comprises ₦194.77bn paid towards institutional fees and ₦180.50bn provided as upkeep allowances.

The fund also reported that 1,675,474 loans had been disbursed to students across 320 institutions.

Responding to suggestions that publishing beneficiaries’ names would improve accountability, Sawyerr maintained that data protection requirements made such disclosure inappropriate. He said students who obtained loans from financial institutions or individuals would generally not want their borrowing status displayed publicly.

He added that the fund could provide information about the schools paid and the number of students supported without revealing the identities of those who received the loans.

NELFUND defends interest-free loans

Sawyerr also confirmed that the fund had no immediate intention of introducing interest charges on loans issued to students, insisting that the current policy was to provide interest-free financing.

He said any possible review of the arrangement would be considered through further discussions if the need arose, but maintained that Nigerian students deserved access to loans without additional interest costs.

The NELFUND chief also disagreed with suggestions that the loans should be converted into grants, arguing that beneficiaries at tertiary institutions were generally adults who understood the purpose of borrowing to finance their education.

He said students were investing in qualifications that could help them secure employment and earn a living, making repayment a reasonable expectation once they became financially capable.

On concerns about whether NELFUND could remain financially viable in the long term, Sawyerr said loan repayments were important but should not be regarded as the fund’s only source of income.

He identified investments, donations and statutory allocations as other possible sources of funding, adding that educating and empowering more young Nigerians could strengthen the country’s tax base.

According to him, a larger population of educated and economically active citizens could generate more tax revenue, some of which could support further investment in education and the continuation of the loan programme.

Sawyerr disclosed that some beneficiaries had already begun repaying their loans, while other Nigerians had expressed willingness to contribute by paying the educational expenses of students.

He therefore called for a broader approach to financing education, rather than placing the responsibility for sustaining the scheme entirely on loan recovery.

Addressing concerns about the absence of a clear statutory funding arrangement, he said NELFUND already receives support through the development levy. He explained that the fund is entitled to 15 per cent of the four per cent development levy, which is distributed among designated beneficiaries.

Read also:

Token system introduced to prevent double payments

The director-general also explained the reason behind NELFUND’s introduction of a tokenisation system, saying it was designed to prevent duplicate tuition payments and give students greater control over transactions involving their fees.

He recalled that the fund initially transferred approved tuition payments directly to the accounts of institutions, while students received separate upkeep allowances.

However, the arrangement sometimes created complications when students had already settled their fees before NELFUND processed payments to their schools. This resulted in instances of double payment.

Some beneficiaries also struggled to confirm whether their institutions had received their tuition payments, particularly when they needed to meet examination requirements and other academic deadlines.

To address these problems, NELFUND introduced an electronic token system through which students receive payment tokens on their mobile phones and authorise the transfer of their tuition fees to their institutions.

Sawyerr explained that the tokens are restricted to the institutions where beneficiaries are admitted, meaning students cannot redirect the funds towards unrelated expenses.

He said the arrangement places the final authorisation of tuition payments in the hands of students while ensuring that the money reaches only the appropriate institution.

Fund introduces channel for disputing tuition fees

Sawyerr further addressed concerns that some tertiary institutions had increased their tuition charges in response to the availability of student loans.

He said NELFUND had warned institutions that it would not finance fees considered unreasonably high, adding that the fund had introduced a price dispute option on its new portal.

Through the feature, students can review the fees charged by their institutions before submitting loan applications and formally challenge amounts they consider excessive.

The complaints, he explained, would be referred to NELFUND for engagement with the institutions concerned.

However, Sawyerr clarified that the fund could not impose direct sanctions on schools that increased their fees because its legal mandate did not include disciplinary powers over tertiary institutions.

He said NELFUND’s available response was to withhold financial support where necessary, while regulatory bodies would be responsible for investigating and addressing violations.

He identified the National Universities Commission (NUC), National Board for Technical Education (NBTE) and National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) as the agencies with responsibility for regulating the institutions.

Sawyerr maintained that NELFUND would continue to engage with schools and the relevant regulators to address disputes over tuition charges and ensure that the loan scheme was not used to justify unreasonable fee increases.