Bold claim: Nigeria’s health sector faces a real risk of regulatory apartheid if proposed amendments pass—and that jeopardizes patient safety and international standards. But here’s where it gets controversial: the people behind the bills say they’re simplifying oversight; JOHESU says they’d erase professional autonomy and invite substandard practice.
The Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU) are warning that proposed amendments to key health laws could create a one-profession regulatory regime, undermining other regulatory bodies and destabilizing how professional practice is governed. They urged the National Assembly to pause the bills to avoid destabilising the sector.
JOHESU leaders told reporters that Nigeria’s health system relies on a multi-professional, multidisciplinary approach. They argued that no single profession should dominate regulation, and that each group has its own statutory mandate, knowledge base, and legally defined regulatory framework designed to protect patients.
They pointed to past court cases that upheld the independence of non-medical regulatory bodies such as the Pharmacy Council of Nigeria (PCN), the Medical Laboratory Science Council of Nigeria (MLSCN), and the Radiographers Registration Board of Nigeria (RRBN). A 2007 Federal High Court ruling in Lagos affirmed the PCN’s power to regulate pharmacy practice in both public and private sectors, they noted.
Minjibir recalled a 2018 suit by the Medical and Dental Consultants Association of Nigeria (MDCAN) seeking to have the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) regulate other allied professions. The case was dismissed for lack of evidence, he said, implying that similar attempts to override established councils could fail in court.
A major concern for JOHESU is a proposed change to the PCN’s governing board structure, which they describe as introducing vague “community interest” representatives. They argue this would erode professional autonomy and threaten Good Pharmacy Practice standards that are globally recognised.
They emphasised that drug regulation falls under the Exclusive Legislative List in the 1999 Constitution and requires specialised expertise due to its sensitivity. Any undue interference could lead to substandard practices and compromise patient safety.
On the doctors versus medical laboratory scientists dispute, JOHESU cited a 2016 National Industrial Court ruling that affirmed the professional equality and the MLSCN’s exclusive jurisdiction over its own scope. The court reportedly stated that medical laboratory science deserved to be the master of its trade, like other medical professions. Any move to place laboratory science under medical control, they warned, would contravene established legal precedents and constitute discrimination.
JOHESU also criticised parts of a proposed Medical and Dental Practitioners Act 2026 that they say would narrowly define prescription rights and fail to clearly articulate what constitutes a prescription. They claim these provisions could undermine the Community Health Practitioners framework and reverse trends where pharmacists and other trained healthcare workers are authorized to prescribe certain medicines to improve efficiency and reduce waiting times.
According to JOHESU, these changes conflict with international best practices and could weaken primary healthcare delivery, according to General Secretary Comrade Martin Egbanubi.
The union cautioned against legislating on matters currently under judicial review, arguing that legislation on issues before courts of competent jurisdiction would be improper and contrary to parliamentary rules. Minjibir urged the National Assembly not to chase bills that resolve professional rivalries at the expense of patient safety and sector stability.
JOHESU urged lawmakers to resist centralising regulatory authority under one profession, describing such a move as dangerous for the health system. Minjibir drew a strong parallel, saying, “We will resist any attempt to foist an apartheid regime in the Nigerian health sector, just as apartheid was resisted in South Africa.” He framed the issue as one of patient safety, institutional stability, and Nigeria’s adherence to international norms, not professional pride.
The union called for a focus on collaboration, clear statutory guidelines, and respect for existing legal frameworks in the national interest. They urged the National Assembly to engage constructively, ensuring reforms enhance care quality rather than concentrate power in a single profession.
Should the debate hinge on centralized oversight or a robust, multi-professional regulatory landscape? What’s your take on balancing streamlined governance with safeguarding professional autonomy in healthcare? And do you think these reforms align with global best practices or risk undermining them? Share your views in the comments.
