Built with public funds, priced beyond the public: Rethinking student housing

A federally funded student hostel at the University of Lagos, built to ease a long-standing accommodation crisis, now sits at the centre of a troubling contradiction. Reports indicate that bed spaces in the newly completed Femi Gbajabiamila Hall of Residence cost as much as ₦950,000 per session, placing it well beyond the reach of many students it was designed to support. For undergraduates already navigating rising living costs, this “solution” risks becoming another barrier rather than a bridge to access.

The tension is difficult to ignore. A project financed with public funds under the Zonal Intervention Project (ZIP) framework and supported by additional budgetary allocations is operating at pricing levels comparable to private hostels. At a university where accommodation supply remains critically low relative to demand, the expectation would be that public infrastructure expands affordability. Instead, it appears to be mirroring the very market pressures it was intended to moderate.

This reflects a broader and more persistent issue in Nigeria’s public sector: the gradual shift from public service provision toward quasi-commercial operations. The distinction between sustainability and commercialisation is critical. While institutions may need to recover costs, pricing structures that effectively exclude a large portion of intended beneficiaries undermine the purpose of public investment. When access is determined primarily by ability to pay, the social function of such infrastructure is weakened.

The scale of the accommodation gap further sharpens this concern. With tens of thousands of students competing for a limited number of university-managed bed spaces, the demand for affordable housing remains acute. In this context, high-cost options do little to relieve pressure. Instead, they push students toward difficult alternatives, long daily commutes from distant suburbs, overcrowded informal housing, or, in some cases, compromised academic engagement due to fatigue and time constraints.

Beyond pricing, the issue raises questions about ownership and accountability. Publicly funded projects are collective assets, yet the way they are presented can blur this reality. When infrastructure is strongly associated with individual political figures, it can create the impression of personal contribution rather than public provision. This perception risks weakening civic expectations around transparency, oversight, and equitable access.

The absence of clear and consistent frameworks governing the naming and operational structure of such projects contributes to this ambiguity. Without well-defined standards, public infrastructure can drift toward models that prioritise visibility and revenue over long-term public value. This, in turn, limits scrutiny and reduces pressure for alignment with the original purpose of the investment.

The implications extend beyond a single institution. Across sectors, there is a growing pattern in which publicly funded assets are expected to generate revenue at levels that resemble private enterprises. While this may address short-term financial constraints, it often does so at the expense of inclusivity. In education, where access remains uneven, such an approach risks deepening existing inequalities.

Addressing this challenge requires a clearer alignment between policy intent and implementation. Public student housing should be structured around affordability, with pricing models grounded in cost-recovery principles rather than market maximisation. Transparency is equally important. Publishing cost breakdowns, operational models, and maintenance frameworks would allow for more informed public scrutiny and help ensure that pricing decisions are justified and proportionate.

There is also a need for stronger institutional oversight. Clearer guidelines on the management and positioning of publicly funded projects would reduce ambiguity and reinforce the principle that such assets exist primarily to serve public needs. Ensuring that operational decisions reflect this principle is essential to maintaining trust.

At its core, the issue is about purpose. Student accommodation is not an auxiliary service; it is a foundational component of access to education. When the cost of shelter approaches or exceeds what many students can reasonably afford, the broader goal of expanding educational opportunity is compromised.

Public investment carries with it an implicit contract: that resources will be deployed in ways that advance collective welfare. When that contract is diluted, whether through pricing, positioning, or policy drift, the result is not just inefficiency but erosion of trust in public institutions.

Reclaiming the purpose of student housing requires more than new construction. It requires a consistent commitment to ensuring that such infrastructure remains accessible, accountable, and aligned with the needs of those it is meant to serve. Without that alignment, the system risks producing well-built facilities that fall short of their most important objective, expanding opportunity.

•Editorial By BusinessDay Newspaper