The Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF), Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), Catholic Women Organisation (CWO) and some other groups yesterday faulted the contentious Infectious Diseases Bill at a public hearing called by the House of Representatives
The bill is jointly sponsored by the speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Femi Gbajabiamilla, chairman, house committee on health institutions, Mr. Pascal Obi, and chairman of the committee on health services, Mr. Tanko Sununu, has been dogged by controversies and alleged to bear similarity with existing law in Singapore.
The proposed legislation it titled ‘A Bill for an Act to Repeal the Quarantine Act, Cap. Q2, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, and Enact the Control of Infectious Diseases Bill, Make Provisions Relating to Quarantine and Make Regulations for Preventing the Introduction into and Spread in Nigeria of Dangerous Infectious Diseases.’
The bill seeks to repeal the Quarantine Act of 1926 and when passed, will also repeal the Nigeria National Health Act, 2004, National Programme on Immunisation Act, Cap N71, LFN 2004; and the Environmental Health Officers (Registration, etc) 2002.
The proposed law empowers the minister of health to declare any premises to be an isolation centre for the purpose of preventing the spread or possible outbreak of infectious diseases.
It also confers on the police, the power to arrest and quarantine violators without warrant.
Section 13 of the bill also seeks to give the director general of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) the power to order the isolation of people having or suspected to have an infectious disease for a period of time subject to the discretion of the director general.
Making its submissions at the public hearing, the NGF said it supports the Bill but made some reservations among which border on both old and the new proposed Act, which it noted leave them with no powers to act in the event of an outbreak of any contagious disease.
Chairman of the NGF and governor of Ekiti State, Mr. Kayode Fayemi who represented his colleagues at the session said the Act gives the governors very scant operational space to manoeuvre.
“And regrettably, the proposed bill took away even that. This bill takes away the only authority the governors have to take specific steps and measures in their domains during an outbreak of an infectious disease.”
He said as far as the NGF was concerned, the bill is undemocratic, as it conflicts with some aspects of the Constitution and negates the provision of human rights.
Although he admitted that the House might have presented the bill in the interest of the people, due to the exigency of the times, he doubted the proposal could be held up against the light of standard legislative analysis.
“It is evident that too much power has been given to the director general of the NCDC and taken away from states and local governments.
“The NGF is concerned that governors were not consulted in putting the bill together, neither was any role created for them, in utter disregard for their constitutional functions. Section 6 of the Quarantine Act states that the president and within each state, the governor thereof, may provide such sanitary stations, buildings and equipment, and appoint such sanitary anchorages as he may think necessary for the purposes of this Act.
“Similarly, Section 8 of the Act gives state governors the power to exercise the responsibilities vested in the president under the Quarantine Act, where these responsibilities were not exercised by the president. Taking away this power of the state government in the proposed new bill would cause untold hardship and suffering in states and negate the principles of federalism.”
“The NGF posits that for any disease with significant threat to public health that would require authorising measures that may potentially infringe on otherwise reserved human liberties, the proposed measures must take into account some key ethical considerations, which include: public health necessity – the measures must be exercised on the basis of a confirmed or suspected threat to public health of the country; reasonable and effective means – the means by which these measures would be implemented must be effective to prevent or reduce spread.
“Least restrictive intervention – the measures proposed must be the least restrictive interventions required among the number of measures considered to reduce or prevent spread; distributive justice – the risks, benefits and burdens of any restrictive measures must be shared fairly between all classes of peoples.
“Trust and transparency – the public should have an opportunity to participate in the formulation of policies and laws and implementation should be open and clear to promote public trust which is crucial for preventing infection spread; procedural rights – rights of individuals to contest an order or proceeding should be protected as much as possible.
“Fair compensation – in cases of considerable economic losses as a result of the imposition of such measures, international recommendations proffer that fair compensation is provided to those individuals,” said Fayemi
He suggested that states be given powers to create their own centres for disease control and appoint medical personnel to oversee them though in collaboration with the NCDC.
The NLC, represented by its president, Mr. Ayuba Wabba, highlighted 17 grey areas in the bill.
“The first issue I want to posit is that rights are important and inseparable. Some are so fundamental that they have to attain the status of being the hallmark of constitutional democracy. So, in making laws we must also safeguard laws and rights that are already fundamental.
“Therefore, our presentation will be premised on some of those provisions that we think fundamentally they are going to infringe on existing rights which the governors’ forum has tried to highlight,” he said.
He called for stepping down the legislation till further notice, probably when enough consultation and public enlightenment would have been made.
For its part, the Alliance on Surviving COVID-19 and Beyond (ASCAB), led by Mr. Femi Falana faulted most of the proposals in the bill, saying they conflict with the constitution.
It condemned the bill’s definition of infectious diseases as including Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, cholera, leprosy, malaria, measles, polio, typhoid, tuberculosis, yellow fever, gonorrhoea and syphilis, while in another part it listed plague, yellow fever (again) and coronavirus disease as “dangerous infectious diseases.”
“ASCAB rejects the wholesale categorisation of common ailment such as malaria as an infectious disease, for which any person may be arrested, detained and isolated. We question the propriety of the listing of all the named diseases as infectious diseases.
“We acknowledge that all rights are important and inseparable, but some are so fundamental that they have attained the stature of being the hallmark of constitutional democracy. State actors and fellow citizens ought not to put fundamental rights in jeopardy but must duly observe, uphold and respect them. Concerning fundamental rights, all actors must maintain utmost self restraint.
“We observe that the powers conferred on the DG of the NCDC are so pervasive as to touch on every aspect of the life of a citizen, and that no objective standards have been created for preventing arbitrariness in the claimed exercise of these powers; further that there is generally no room allowed for judicial scrutiny which makes the bill in our view a recipe for tyranny,” said the group.
In its presentation, the NMA disagreed with many aspects of the bill, especially compulsory medical examination.
The secretary general of the NMA, Dr Phillips Ekpe expressed worry about the bill, the urgency to pass it into law.
“The following questions ought to be asked: ‘Why the bill? Why the urgency to pass it into law? Why the public outcry? What are the remedies to assuage the outcry?
“Such laws ought to recognise the federal structure of the nation, and should not lead to a conflict between the national and sub-national governments in executing their statutory functions,” he said.
Some other stakeholders criticised the powers of arrest given to the police, stating that it should be amended to check the excesses of the police especially as it borders on abuse of the fundamental human rights of the citizens.
In his remarks Gbajabiamila had said before declaring the session open that many comments on the bill were “ill-informed and outright malicious.”
“There are those in our society who benefit from promoting the falsehood that every government action is cynical, and every policy proposal must be the product of malignant influence,” he stated.
He also said the bill was driven by external Influence.
“I assure you of three things; the first is that no part of this Bill is the product of any external influence.”
“The second is that we will not ignore your contributions and recommendations as the House of Representatives is wholly committed to refining this Bill until we have a document that solves our present problems without creating new ones or exacerbating unforeseen challenges.
“And finally, I assure you that now, and always, our first commitment is to the Nigerian people, our fellow citizens, on whose behalf we hold office and in whose name we act.”
He stressed that the lawmakers were committed to refining the Bill from contributions and recommendations of stakeholders until a perfect legislation that will solve present health challenges and not create or increase new, nor fuel unforeseen ones.
Other stakeholders at the event included the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Centre for Social Justice, Jama’atul Nasirul Islam (JNI), Equity International Initiative, Nigeria Veterinary Medical Association (NVMA) and Action Group of Civic Space.
Also present were the Nigerian Agricultural Quarantine Service, Society of Environmental and Public Health of Nigeria and National Council of Women Societies of Nigeria (NCWS), among others.
