The Breaking Point in NIPSS Memoir
By Oluwadolapo Bamigboye
Disagreements within institutions rarely begin with dramatic events. More often, they start with small issues that are poorly managed and gradually grow into something far more complicated. This is how Chapter Six: Queries and the Breaking Point in Yushau A. Shuaib’s MNI Versus MNIPR in NIPSS reads to me. It is the chapter where the author’s experience at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) shifts from professional engagement to personal struggle.
Up to this point, Shuaib’s journey to NIPSS had been framed as a major opportunity. He had stepped away from the daily running of his organisation, prepared his team for his absence and embraced the chance to learn alongside accomplished professionals. But Chapter Six reveals how quickly an environment built on discipline can become uncomfortable when communication breaks down.
The first sign of trouble comes through queries. According to the author, issues that could have been resolved through simple dialogue were escalated into formal disciplinary actions. At NIPSS, queries were not trivial; three could lead to expulsion. Receiving one was enough to create pressure, and receiving more meant the situation was becoming serious.
What makes this chapter compelling is not just the queries themselves but how they intersect with the author’s professional identity. Before joining NIPSS, Shuaib was already a well known public relations practitioner, publisher and founder of PRNigeria and Image Merchants Promotion Limited. He had stepped away from daily editorial responsibilities before resuming at NIPSS, yet publications by PRNigeria were still linked to him personally. This became one of the major points of tension.
It raises an important question: Should an individual be held responsible for the activities of an organisation they are no longer directly managing? For me, this question sits at the heart of the conflict. NIPSS had its rules and expectations, but the author had a professional identity that existed outside the programme. When these two realities collided, the disagreement became more than administrative—it became personal.
The chapter also highlights the emotional dimension of institutional discipline. The author does not present himself as someone who cannot be corrected. Rather, his concern is how the corrections were handled and how quickly they escalated. There is a difference between correcting someone and making them feel targeted. When professional reputation, organisational activities and personal character begin to merge into one disciplinary conversation, it becomes difficult to separate the individual from the issue.
This is why Chapter Six feels like a turning point. The conflict did not arise from one incident; it developed gradually. The queries created pressure. The publications created suspicion. The connection between the author and his organisation created misunderstanding. Before long, what began as administrative concerns had grown into a conflict that affected the author’s dignity and professional identity.
Reading this chapter, I found myself imagining how I would feel in the author’s position. If I had handed over my organisation to an independent team and still found myself being held responsible for its publications, I would also feel frustrated. Yet because this is a memoir, we see events mainly through the author’s perspective. This is where I believe the book could have benefited from more voices from the other side. Hearing directly from those who issued the queries or made the decisions could have helped readers understand why they believed their actions were justified.
Still, Chapter Six succeeds in showing how institutional conflict can grow from small misunderstandings into major disagreements. It is the chapter where the promising experience at NIPSS begins to unravel. It prepares the reader for the more intense conflict that follows in later chapters.
Beyond Chapter Six, the memoir itself is much more than a personal story. It is a reflection on institutional power, professional identity, individual rights and resilience. The book begins with an exciting opportunity: the author is selected to represent the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations at NIPSS. But accepting the opportunity is not simple. He has a business to run, a family to consider and the financial demands of the programme to manage. After receiving support from colleagues and loved ones, he decides to take the opportunity.
His arrival at NIPSS introduces him to a highly structured environment. Punctuality, dressing, mobile phone use, physical exercises and other aspects of daily life are closely regulated. Even small issues attract attention. His use of the professional title “mnipr” becomes an early sign of tension.
As the programme progresses, the author takes readers into the lives of participants—military officers, civil servants, academics, private sector professionals. There are elections, academic activities and discussions on national issues. But beneath these activities, disagreements between participants and the authorities begin to grow.
The situation becomes more serious when an official report on insecurity in Plateau State leads to restrictions on participants’ movements. PRNigeria publications become a major issue. Although the author had stepped away from daily management, NIPSS still holds him responsible. This becomes a turning point. Queries escalate into suspension and eventually withdrawal from the programme.
At this point, the memoir becomes deeply personal. The experience affects the author emotionally and physically. He is diagnosed with hypertension for the first time. Yet he does not allow the setback to define him. Instead, he redirects his energy toward professional growth.
His research on AI in crisis communication develops into a national symposium, the Crisis Communication Hub and a published book.
This part of the memoir carries an important lesson: disappointment can become redirection. Losing one opportunity does not mean losing every opportunity.
The story eventually moves from NIPSS to the courtroom. The author challenges his removal legally, raising questions about privacy, fair hearing, professional identity and institutional authority. NIPSS maintains that it acted according to its rules. The author insists he should not be held responsible for an organisation with its own editorial structure. The court dismisses his case, but he appeals, refusing to let the judgment be the final word.
One of the strengths of the memoir is its simple, clear language. The author’s storytelling allows readers to picture events vividly. The book begins with opportunity, moves through discipline and disagreement, enters disappointment and ends with resilience.
For me, the biggest lesson from MNI Versus MNIPR in NIPSS is resilience. The author’s journey—from selection to conflict, removal, legal action and continued professional achievement—shows that one setback does not define a person’s entire story.
The memoir is not just about NIPSS or a legal battle. It is about what happens when an individual finds himself in conflict with a powerful institution and chooses not to give up. It invites readers to think about discipline, professional identity, institutional authority and the importance of standing firm during difficult situations.
In the end, the book reminds us that while institutions may shape our experiences, they do not determine our destiny.
Oluwadolapo Bamigboye. Email: [email protected]