NIPSS Memoir: When Institutional Discipline Collides with Professional Dignity
By Fatih Lawal-Garu
“Long before SEC 47—before Kuru, before queries, before panels—I was Yushau Shuaib: communicator, professional, writer, public servant. Institutions may confer titles. They do not confer integrity. Integrity must be earned long before arrival—and protected long after departure.”
With these striking words, Yushau A. Shuaib closes Chapter Seven of his 205-page memoir, MNI Versus MNIPR in NIPSS: Tackling Institutional Bullying. They also capture what I consider the central tension running through the book: what should a professional be prepared to sacrifice for institutional recognition, and where should institutional discipline end when personal dignity and professional independence are at stake?
As its title suggests, the memoir chronicles Shuaib’s experience as a participant in the Senior Executive Course 47 at the National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru.
Established in 1979, NIPSS occupies an important place in Nigeria’s leadership and policy architecture, providing strategic training for senior professionals drawn from government, the military, academia, private enterprise and other sectors. Successful completion of its flagship Senior Executive Course comes with the prestigious designation of Member of the National Institute, or mni.
Yet, beneath that prestige, Shuaib presents an unsettling account of what he describes as the progressive erosion of professional dignity through institutional power.
His memoir is not structured merely as a catalogue of grievances. Rather, it attempts to document, chronologically, encounters that the author believes demonstrate how discipline, hierarchy and conformity can, when insufficiently moderated by procedural fairness and emotional intelligence, become coercive.
The central question is compelling: At what point does institutional discipline cease to develop professionals and begin to diminish their autonomy and dignity?
One of the earliest conflicts concerns a PRNigeria publication that came to the attention of NIPSS authorities.
Shuaib maintains that he neither wrote nor knew about the report before its publication, having delegated editorial responsibilities while attending the course. Nevertheless, he recounts being summoned by the Chairman of Study Group Seven, Group Captain Mato Irmiya Iliya, to meet senior Directing Staff, including Professor Elias Wahab and Rear Admiral A. A. Mustapha.
What followed, in Shuaib’s telling, was less an inquiry than an assertion of authority.
He recalls being instructed by Mustapha to remain standing despite available seats, an experience he interprets as deliberate humiliation rather than legitimate disciplinary procedure.
For Shuaib, this becomes his first direct encounter with what he calls “adult institutional bullying.”
Whether every reader accepts that characterisation is another matter. A memoir is necessarily written from the author’s perspective. But the episode effectively introduces the book’s broader concern: how individuals interpret institutional authority when discipline is exercised in ways they perceive as degrading.
On March 25, 2025, Shuaib submitted a response to a query concerning an alleged violation of his undertaking as a participant. He denied authorship of the publication and presented what he considered a factual explanation.
Rather than ending the matter, however, he recounts being advised by Professor Wahab to rewrite his response in a more apologetic tone—the so-called “NIPSS style.”
This episode is one of the memoir’s most revealing.
Shuaib says he was shown examples of responses written by previous participants, including accomplished professionals, in language he considered excessively self-reproaching.
For the author, the issue was no longer simply about obeying institutional rules. It became a question of whether compliance required the surrender of professional self-respect.
Here, the book invites a difficult distinction between humility and humiliation.
Every serious institution requires rules, and participants who voluntarily enter such institutions accept obligations. Yet, discipline is most credible when it corrects behaviour without diminishing the dignity of the person being disciplined.
That distinction lies at the heart of Shuaib’s argument.
Seeking advice, Shuaib consulted Dr. Samuel Osime, who reportedly encouraged pragmatic compliance. The logic was straightforward: sometimes, one must accommodate institutional culture to achieve a larger objective, including completing the course and earning the coveted mni designation.
Shuaib eventually revised his response.
Yet, according to his account, this did not resolve the matter. He was subsequently summoned before a disciplinary panel alongside other participants and later received a “Final Warning.”
The experience, he writes, also coincided with a health emergency requiring medical attention following a spike in his blood pressure.
More troubling to him was his claim that he was not given sufficient opportunity to fully present his case before the panel.
This is where the memoir moves beyond questions of etiquette and into the more consequential territory of procedural fairness.
An institution has the right to enforce its rules. But disciplinary authority becomes more defensible when the accused person understands the allegation, is allowed to respond meaningfully and can trust that the outcome follows a fair examination of the evidence.
The tension deepens with what Shuaib describes as the “Blue Economy” episode.
Following the disciplinary experience, he turned to fasting, sporting activities and writing as means of regaining personal equilibrium. During this period, he wrote an article on Nigeria’s emerging blue economy, which he regarded as a professional analysis aligned with national policy priorities.
Yet, according to his account, the publication again attracted institutional concern.
This episode raises perhaps the memoir’s most important question about professional autonomy.
If a participant is already an established journalist, public relations practitioner, writer or researcher before entering an institution, to what extent should participation limit the exercise of that pre-existing professional identity?
NIPSS may reasonably expect participants to respect confidentiality and institutional rules. But Shuaib’s argument is that such obligations should not automatically extinguish professional expression unrelated to confidential institutional activities.
The tension is therefore not simply between obedience and rebellion. It is between institutional responsibility and professional independence.
The contradictions become even more visible during the course’s Abuja engagements.
Shuaib recounts occasions when institutional arrangements appeared uncertain and he informally deployed his professional networks to facilitate engagements and prevent possible embarrassment to NIPSS.
This creates an interesting paradox in his narrative.
The institution, as presented by the author, could benefit from the networks, experience and professional judgement participants had accumulated before arriving at Kuru, yet appeared uncomfortable when those same individuals exercised independent professional discretion.
That contradiction becomes particularly striking during a diplomatic engagement when Shuaib says a senior official interrupted his cordial interaction with a host ambassador on protocol grounds.
For him, the incident symbolised an institutional culture in which control could sometimes take precedence over the relational instincts expected of experienced communication professionals.
It raises a legitimate question: How should an institution balance protocol with the professional judgement of accomplished participants?
This is where the memoir’s title acquires deeper significance.
The conflict is not literally between two professional designations. Rather, mni becomes symbolic of institutional prestige, while mnipr and Shuaib’s wider professional record represent an identity established before NIPSS.
His argument is essentially that institutional recognition should add to a person’s professional identity rather than require its surrender.
The coveted mni designation carries undeniable prestige. But Shuaib asks the reader to consider whether any title should become so important that a professional feels compelled to tolerate conduct he considers degrading or unjust.
His answer is clearly no.
Still, MNI Versus MNIPR in NIPSS should be read with the critical distance appropriate to any memoir.
This is Shuaib’s account of events, filtered through his experiences, documentation and interpretation. Terms such as “bullying,” “humiliation” and “domination” represent his characterisation of particular encounters.
A complete assessment would require examining NIPSS rules, correspondence, disciplinary records and the perspectives of officials and participants involved.
That does not diminish the value of the memoir. In fact, it highlights one of its strengths: it places the author’s version of contested institutional events on record and invites scrutiny, discussion and, where necessary, rebuttal.
Memoirs do not always settle disputes. Sometimes their greater value lies in ensuring that difficult experiences are documented rather than forgotten.they
Ultimately, Shuaib’s memoir is about more than NIPSS.
It is about power within institutions and how accomplished adults navigate systems built around hierarchy and conformity. It asks whether discipline can remain firm without becoming demeaning, whether institutional loyalty can coexist with independent thought, and whether prestigious organisations should periodically examine how their internal cultures are experienced by those subjected to them.
Shuaib does not reject discipline. His argument is that discipline should be accompanied by fairness, proportionality, emotional intelligence and respect for professional identity.
Without those safeguards, authority risks being perceived as domination rather than development.
That brings me back to the words with which Chapter Seven closes.
Institutions can confer titles. They can grant certificates, fellowships, memberships and prestigious post-nominals. Those recognitions can open doors and become important markers of professional achievement.
But there are things no institution can award.
Character is one. Integrity is another.
Perhaps that is the enduring argument of MNI Versus MNIPR in NIPSS: Tackling Institutional Bullying: the true value of an institution should not be judged solely by the prestige of the titles it confers, but also by the fairness, dignity and humanity with which it treats those entrusted to its authority.
After all, titles may accompany a name.
Integrity must accompany the person.
Fatih Lawal-Garu is a PRNigeria Fellow and can be reached via [email protected]