Posted on: Fri 26-06-2026

Nigeria's public health governance framework came under intense legislative scrutiny as the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC) urged lawmakers to reject aspects of a proposed bill establishing a National Institute for Public Health and Infectious Diseases, warning that the legislation could weaken rather than strengthen the country's disease surveillance and emergency response system.

The NCDC presented its position during a public hearing convened by the House of Representatives Committee on Infectious Diseases at the National Assembly, arguing that the proposed National Institute for Public Health and Infectious Diseases (Establishment) Bill, 2025 (HB 2629), contains substantial overlaps with the statutory responsibilities already assigned to the agency under the NCDC Establishment Act, 2018.

While reaffirming its support for initiatives aimed at strengthening Nigeria's health security and epidemic preparedness, the agency cautioned that creating another federal institution with similar mandates could introduce governance conflicts, duplication of functions, operational inefficiencies, and unnecessary financial burdens.

 

NCDC Defends Nigeria's Existing Public Health Architecture

Presenting the agency's memorandum, Director-General of the NCDC, Dr. Jide Idris, reminded lawmakers that Nigeria already possesses a legally established National Public Health Institute through the NCDC.

He explained that the Centre's statutory responsibilities encompass disease surveillance, outbreak detection and response, laboratory coordination, emergency preparedness, implementation of the International Health Regulations (IHR), workforce development, public health research, and coordination of national responses to epidemics and pandemics.

According to the agency, many of the responsibilities proposed for the new institute substantially replicate these existing legal mandates.

Health governance experts note that clearly defined institutional roles are fundamental to ensuring efficient emergency response, accountability, and effective coordination during public health crises.

 

Concerns Over Duplication and Emergency Coordination

The NCDC warned that assigning similar responsibilities to two federal institutions could create uncertainty regarding leadership, operational command, and accountability during disease outbreaks.

The agency specifically raised concerns over provisions designating the proposed institute as Nigeria's National Focal Point for the International Health Regulations while simultaneously assigning it responsibilities already vested in the NCDC under existing legislation.

According to Dr. Idris, overlapping mandates could create confusion among state governments, international organizations, development partners, and technical agencies that currently recognise the NCDC as Nigeria's official public health authority.

Public health specialists have consistently emphasized that effective epidemic response depends on unified command structures capable of coordinating surveillance, laboratory services, risk communication, emergency operations, and case management without institutional fragmentation.

 

Lessons from Previous Outbreaks

Drawing on Nigeria's response to Ebola virus disease, COVID-19, Lassa fever, cholera, meningitis, diphtheria, Mpox, and other infectious disease emergencies, the NCDC argued that the country's outbreak management capacity has evolved around a centralised national coordination system.

The agency cautioned that introducing parallel institutions with overlapping mandates could complicate decision-making during emergencies, when rapid coordination and clearly defined responsibilities are critical.

Experts note that successful outbreak control relies not only on technical expertise but also on streamlined governance structures capable of making timely operational decisions.

 

Financial Sustainability and Efficient Resource Utilisation

Beyond governance concerns, the NCDC questioned the financial implications of establishing an entirely new federal institution with national headquarters, zonal offices, state structures, governing councils, staffing requirements, and administrative systems.

Dr. Idris also expressed reservations regarding proposals to allocate portions of the Basic Health Care Provision Fund to support the proposed institute.

According to the agency, diverting resources from existing health programmes could place additional pressure on an already constrained healthcare financing system.

The NCDC further highlighted substantial federal investments already made in strengthening disease surveillance networks, laboratory infrastructure, emergency operations centres, genomic sequencing capacity, workforce development, and outbreak response systems.

Creating another institution with similar responsibilities, the agency argued, risks duplicating these investments rather than maximizing existing capacity.

 

International Best Practice Favors Unified Public Health Institutions

Referencing international public health governance models, the NCDC maintained that many countries operate through a single national public health institute responsible for coordinating surveillance, preparedness, laboratory systems, and emergency response.

Nigeria adopted this approach through the establishment of the NCDC in 2018, aligning its institutional framework with internationally recognized public health practices.

The agency therefore recommended strengthening existing institutions instead of creating parallel structures that could weaken coordination and efficiency.

 

National Assembly Weighs Competing Perspectives

Despite the NCDC's reservations, supporters of the proposed legislation argued that establishing a National Institute for Public Health and Infectious Diseases would significantly enhance Nigeria's long-term preparedness against emerging health threats.

Speaking at the hearing, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Tajudeen Abbas, represented by Hon. Bashir Zubair, described the proposed institute as a strategic investment in scientific research, disease surveillance, innovation, and national health security.

He noted that Nigeria's experiences during Ebola, COVID-19, Lassa fever, and other outbreaks exposed important weaknesses within the country's healthcare system and reinforced the need for stronger institutional capacity.

Similarly, Chairman of the House Committee on Infectious Diseases, Hon. Amobi Godwin Ogah, explained that the proposed legislation followed the committee's oversight assessment of the National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Training Centre in Saye, Zaria, where members identified significant but underutilized human and infrastructural resources.

The committee believes upgrading the facility into a national public health institute could strengthen infectious disease prevention, diagnosis, research, and workforce development.

 

Strengthening Public Health Without Fragmentation

The NCDC reiterated that it fully supports expanding Nigeria's public health capacity, including proposals to upgrade the National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Training Centre into a tertiary institution dedicated to clinical services, education, and research.

However, the agency urged lawmakers to amend provisions that establish what it described as a parallel national public health command structure.

Dr. Idris disclosed that the NCDC has submitted a comprehensive clause-by-clause analysis identifying areas where the proposed bill conflicts with the NCDC Act of 2018, including provisions that closely mirror existing legislation.

He concluded that the central policy question before lawmakers is not whether Nigeria should strengthen its public health system, but whether that objective is best achieved by reinforcing the National Public Health Institute already established by law or by creating another institution with substantially overlapping responsibilities.

For public health professionals, policymakers, and development partners, the legislative debate represents a pivotal moment in shaping the future governance of Nigeria's disease surveillance, outbreak preparedness, and national health security architecture.

---

---