{
  "id": 3408445,
  "title": "Accreditation is not a turf war: Why engineering needs both NUC and COREN",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/08/26/accreditation-is-not-a-turf-war-why-engineering-needs-both-nuc-and",
  "topic": "world",
  "section": "World",
  "published": "2026-08-26T02:28:03.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Daily Trust",
    "slug": "daily-trust",
    "url": "https://dailytrust.com/accreditation-is-not-a-turf-war-why-engineering-needs-both-nuc-and-coren/"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Dr. Sani Jauro's recent response to my article, \"Beyond the Certificate: Why COREN Must Be in the Classroom Before It Is at the Gate,\" has sparked an important national conversation. While we share the objective of ensuring well-trained engineers, our perspectives diverge on the institutional structure needed to achieve it. Jauro's position deserves respectful consideration, particularly his argument that NUC's accreditation process overlooks essential aspects.\n\nNUC's accreditation panels consist of professors, engineers, and specialists in relevant disciplines, but the crucial distinction lies in the questions they are mandated and equipped to ask. While an engineering professor on a NUC panel remains an expert in the field, the panel operates within NUC's framework, focusing on whether a university programme meets national academic standards. COREN, however, assesses a more critical question: does the engineering programme produce graduates who possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies for safe and effective engineering practice?\n\nThis distinction is vital for the Nigerian public, as international arrangements like the Washington Accord, to which Nigeria is a signatory, play a significant role. Membership in the IEA, the International Engineering Alliance, is not merely about allowing Nigerian engineers to seek jobs abroad; it's about ensuring their education meets internationally accepted standards. Engineering is inherently global, and graduates must be prepared to operate various systems and participate in multinational projects.\n\nJauro also raises a valid concern about the potential burden on universities from multiple accreditation visits, fees, and reporting requirements. The solution, he suggests, lies in harmonisation, not exclusion. NUC and COREN should work together towards coordinated accreditation visits, shared documentation, and clearly defined complementary responsibilities. This approach would avoid duplication without eliminating the need for professional engineering accreditation.\n\nThe Minister of Education's directive in 2025 for NUC, COREN, and other regulatory bodies to pursue joint accreditation arrangements based on agreed frameworks is a step in the right direction. COREN, as the only authority responsible for registering and licensing engineering graduates, must ensure that engineering programmes are duly accredited. Failure to uphold this responsibility could result in graduates being unqualified to practice in Nigeria, a situation we must avoid.\n\nIn essence, COREN's insistence on rigorous quality assurance should be appreciated and supported by all parents and students. Nigeria's infrastructure challenges, industrial accidents, and inadequate technical capacity underscore the need for a robust quality assurance system. The cost of inadequate engineering education is not just measurable in naira but also in lives lost due to collapsed buildings, failed infrastructure, and other consequences of weak technical capacity.",
  "summary": "I have read with considerable interest Dr. Sani Jauro’s rejoinder to my article, “Beyond the Certificate: Why COREN Must Be in the Classroom Before It Is at the Gate.” I appreciate his contribution to an important national debate and, importantly, his agreement that Nigeria cannot afford poorly trained engineers. Our disagreement, therefore, is not about the […]",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": "The push for joint accreditation arrangements between NUC and COREN signals a shift towards a more cohesive regulatory framework, likely easing burdens on universities while maintaining rigorous quality assurance for engineering education.",
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}