Feature/OPED
The Trouble With Nigeria’s Healthcare System
By Michael Owhoko, Ph.D
The quality of a country’s healthcare system is a mirror image of its leaders’ commitment to citizens’ health. Countries like Singapore, Japan, South Korea and Switzerland are among the world’s top countries with best healthcare for citizens, driven majorly by robust funding and well-structured policy programme. Leaders in these countries do not go to foreign countries for medical tourism, as they have absolute confidence in the delivery capacity of the healthcare system.
But in Nigeria, the healthcare system is fraught with dysfunctionality, forcing elasticity of reliability southward. Poor health facilities, unprofessionalism, unethical standards, weak regulatory agencies, bad personnel attitude, questionable health insurance schemes, unreliable health management organisations (HMOs), mismanagement, corruption, fake drugs and obsolete equipment are incidental to lack of commitment by Nigerian leaders to efficient and quality healthcare system.
Though, this is a symptom of greater disorders in Nigeria, poor funding and non-utilisation of health facilities by the ruling elites undermine efficiency, quality and delivery capacity of the healthcare system. Why will leaders not trust and utilize the healthcare system they have built, equipped and made available to the people through funding? When food is served to public by a provider who has no intention of eating, there is high probability that quality and hygiene may be compromised.
In the 2025 federal government budget, only N2.56 trillion was budgeted for the health sector, representing 5.15 percent of the country’s total budget of N49.7 trillion, which is far below the 15 percent recommended by the Abuja Declaration, to which Nigeria is a signatory. Though, the N2.56 trillion is an increase of about 58.53 percent of the 2024 budget of N1.62 trillion, however, when viewed in dollar terms, the amount decreased by 15.45 percent, dropping to $1.7 billion from $2.02 billion.
Since the famous coup speech of late General Sanni Abacha on December 31, 1983 that the country’s health services were in shambles, and hospitals had been reduced to mere consulting clinics without drugs, water and equipment, the health sector has not shown promises of improvement. Even 34 years after, the wife of late President Muhammadu Buhari, Aisha, confirmed this in 2017 when she resorted to use of a private hospital wholly owned and run by foreigners due to dysfunctional x-ray machine and lack of syringes in the Villa Clinic.
Unfortunately, 42 years after these observations were made by the powers that were, the healthcare sector is still defined by lack of government’s commitment. This is particularly worrisome when viewed against the background of Nigeria’s growing population, currently characterized by low life expectancy, high maternal and child mortality rates. This means that dependable and quality healthcare provision is not a priority for government, and therefore, a mirage for Nigeria to achieve high quality healthcare in line with World Health Organisation (WHO)’s standard.
Globally, Nigeria is ranked 157th out of 191 countries by WHO in the areas of quality health delivery performance. As the largest oil producer in Africa and 16th largest in the world, it is untenable for Nigeria not to provide robust funding for the health sector, given the country’s huge earnings from crude oil sales.
Even among African countries, Nigeria is rated poorly in healthcare provision. In a report released by The Legatum Institute, a London-based global healthcare assessment organization, Nigeria was ranked 11th out of 12 African countries with poor healthcare system. The countries include Central African Republic, South Sudan, Chad, Lesotho, Somalia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland (Eswatini), Liberia, Guinea, Angola, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea.
Despite this poor performance ranking, no concerted effort is being made by government to improve quality service delivery, as budget allocation to the health sector has been on the downward swing. Since Nigerian leaders who determine the condition of the sector, do not utilize the facilities due to poor services, it means the Nigerian healthcare system is designed to service the health needs of the poor and common Nigerians, and not Nigerian leaders.
Put differently, the healthcare system in Nigeria is determined and conditioned by the thought process and preferences of those who do not use the services. For example, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and his cabinet members, including the Minister of Health, together with the Senate President and members of the Legislature, who approve the nation’s tertiary healthcare budget, do not patronize services of Nigerian hospitals.
State governors and their cabinet members, as well as members of the state houses of assembly responsible for approval of budget for secondary healthcare in the country, also, do not patronize health facilities at this level. Same applies to the various local government chairmen and council members whose jurisdiction cover primary healthcare. They all seek better healthcare outside their domains.
The poor premium placed on the health sector by Nigerian leaders have obviously prevented them from knowing that there is a correlation between robust funding of healthcare system and a healthy workforce, and by extension, robust economy. A vibrant economy is contingent upon a healthy population and a healthy workforce, as health is a critical contributory factor to economic development. This is the reason advanced economies invest so much in healthcare services, a contrast to Nigeria’s healthcare sector that is troubled by incapacity, unable to address mounting health challenges in the country.
The healthcare delivery system in Nigeria is executed through public and private facilities. Unfortunately, the private healthcare providers are also enmeshed in unprofessional conduct driven by pecuniary motive. Most of them take advantage of the country’s weak systemic policies to deliver poor health services.Regulatory authorities like the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), National Health Insurance Authority (NHIA), and The Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) are not doing enough to enforce professionalism and standards in the country’s healthcare system.
I recently lost a friend to prostrate operation in one of the private hospitals in Lagos. Prior to the operation, he walked into the hospital by himself, looking normal. But what he took to be a proactive step to avoid future complications, ended his life. He was admitted under a health insurance cover managed by an HMO on executive plan with full options. But rapid deterioration of his health in the hospital triggered skepticism on whether quality of treatment was commensurate with subscribed insurance plan.
There are numerous public complaints about HMOs conniving with private hospitals to render inadequate and poor services for financial gains.Most of these hospitals deliberately delay diagnosis and treatment until approval is obtained from HMOs, notwithstanding conditions of patients and category of insurance plans. The NHIA which carries out accreditation of HMOs before approval must look beyond this process to ensure they are continually monitored during operations.
My late friend’s case reminded me of a professional colleague, Mr. Yusuph Olaniyonu, who narrated how God spared his life and given another chance to live again at 58. His story brought to fore, the ineptitude, inefficiencies, unprofessionalism and lack of commitment and management of patients in Nigerian hospitals.His experience also proved that without connection at the top, patients can die out of share negligence and abandonment without consequence.
After undergoing six major operations and three minor procedures for prostrate, his survival was still on a cliff edge, necessitating the intervention of the Minister of Health through the help of ThisDay Publisher, Nduka Obaigbena and former Senate President, Bukola Saraki. This intervention notwithstanding, hopes dimmed, leading Saraki to fly him to Egypt where he underwent successful corrective surgical operations.
Olaniyony’s case casts aspersion on the entire medical system in Nigeria, and exposed the agony voiceless Nigerians go through in Nigerian health facilities. Trust deficit induced by poor services in Nigerian hospitals, has given rise to patronage of unlicensed and quack herbal health practitioners whose activities are damaging vital organs of innocent Nigerians, with concomitant reduction in life expectancy.
It is depressing to know that out of about 34,000 general hospitals, 21,000 primary health centers and 60 teaching hospital and federal medical centers located across the country,only about 41,000 hospitals are functional.
Government must therefore reorder its priorities to make health facilities efficient, affordable and reliable to enable both leaders and poor Nigerians alike to receive treatment in-country, as against resort to medical tourism which cost Nigeria approximately $1.6 billion annually.
Dr Mike Owhoko, Lagos-based public policy analyst, author, and journalist, can be reached at www.mikeowhoko.com, and followed on X {formerly Twitter} @michaelowhoko.
By Nafisat Damisa
Introduction
The proliferation of generative AI has transformed Nigeria’s cybercrime landscape, enabling deepfake fraud, automated social engineering, and AI-enhanced phishing at scale. In early 2024, scammers using AI-generated deepfake videos impersonating a company’s CFO defrauded a Hong Kong finance worker of $25.6 million. As similar threats emerge in Nigeria’s fintech sector, this article examines whether the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015 (as amended 2024) is legally adequate, or whether Nigeria’s evidentiary and accountability frameworks are too weak to support effective prosecution of AI-driven cybercrime
Current Legal Landscape
Nigeria’s primary legal framework on preventing cybercrime is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act 2015, amended in 2024 to address cryptocurrency transactions, cyberbullying and various forms of digital misconduct. Complementary frameworks include the National Information Technology Development Agency Act 2007, the Nigerian Data Protection Act 2023, and sectoral regulations such as the CBN’s Risk-Based Cybersecurity Framework. However, the majority of these frameworks were issued far before now, and emerging risks like AI-driven threats are not really being addressed. The Act nowhere mentions “artificial intelligence,” “algorithm,” or “autonomous system.” Notably, the National Artificial Intelligence Commission (Establishment) Bill, 2025, is currently pending before the Senate. If passed, it would establish a dedicated commission to coordinate AI strategy, research, and ethical deployment. However, the Bill in its present form focuses primarily on development and innovation promotion, with limited provisions on criminal liability, evidence handling, or enforcement against AI-facilitated cybercrime, leaving the core accountability and evidentiary gaps largely unaddressed.
AI as a Double-Edged Sword
AI paradoxically enables both defence and attack. Nigerian financial institutions deploy AI for real-time fraud detection and pattern recognition. Conversely, cybercriminals exploit generative AI for deepfake creation, automated credential stuffing, and convincing phishing tailored to Nigerian English and Pidgin. The same technology that powers fraud detection systems can be weaponised to evade them. Take justice delivery as an example, the Evidence Act 2011 (as amended 2023) admits computer-generated evidence under Section 84, but remains silent on AI’s capacity to seamlessly generate or alter electronic records, creating “doctored AI-generated evidence”. These and many more issues await Nigeria’s digital space in the coming years.
The Legal Gaps
There are multiple critical gaps that undermine AI governance. For this article, three are considered. First, no framework attributes criminal liability when an autonomous AI commits an offence. The question of whether the developer, user, or owner should bear criminal responsibility for the acts of an autonomous system remains entirely unanswered under Nigerian law, leaving prosecutors without a clear legal theory of culpability.
Second, Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 governs computer-generated evidence but does not address AI-generated outputs. The Act’s definition of “computer” excludes AI’s cognitive processing capabilities, creating a statutory blind spot where evidence produced by generative or autonomous systems falls outside the existing admissibility framework.
Third, Nigeria lacks any framework for mandatory AI-generated content labelling, impeding deepfake traceability. Computer-generated evidence under Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 remains admissible if unchallenged at trial, a dangerous precedent for AI evidence, as opposing parties may lack the technical capacity to mount any challenge at all.
Comparative Jurisdictions: Rich Laws, Tangible Results
Jurisdictions with advanced AI laws demonstrate clear outcomes. The EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689) mandates transparency obligations, requiring synthetic content labelling and informing individuals when interacting with AI systems; non-compliance triggers significant penalties. The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2023 is a proposed Act that will require impact assessments for high-risk AI systems in housing, credit, and employment, with FTC enforcement and a public repository. China implemented mandatory measures for the Identification of AI-generated (Synthetic) content. These rules, mandated by the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) and others, require explicit (visible labels) and implicit (watermarks/metadata) identification for all AI-generated text, images, audio, video, and virtual scenes to ensure transparency, traceability, and combat disinformation. These laws contribute to measurable results: forensic traceability, expedited prosecution of deepfake fraud, and clear liability chains. Nigeria has none of these.
Hope or Illusion?
Without legislative intervention, AI’s promise against cybercrime remains an illusion. Nigeria requires the following to boost its hope:
- Amendment of the Cybercrimes Act to include AI-specific offences and mandatory content provenance standards;
- Revision of Section 84 of the Evidence Act 2011 to address AI-generated evidence credibility, not merely admissibility;
- Investment in digital forensic capabilities is currently hampered by inadequate enforcement, weak forensic capabilities, and a lack of specialised personnel; and
- A risk-based framework drawing from EU and US models.
- Review of both secondary and tertiary education curricula to address the knowledge gap in AI and prepare the next generation for the AI-driven future.
Conclusion
AI can help curb cybercrime in Nigeria, but only if legal capacity catches up with technical capability. The Cybercrimes Act 2024 amendments were a step forward, but they did not address AI accountability, algorithmic transparency, or evidentiary credibility. The pending National Artificial Intelligence Commission Bill, 2025, signals legislative awareness, but without substantive provisions on liability, evidence, and enforcement, it cannot fill the existing gaps. The effectiveness of existing frameworks remains a question. An optimistic but cautious path exists, but until Nigeria enacts AI-specific legislation, whether through amending the Cybercrimes Act, revising the Evidence Act, or strengthening the pending Bill, weak laws will remain unable to support strong technology.
Nafisat Damisa is a Legal Research Associate in Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Nafisat via: [email protected] or [email protected]
By Isah Kamisu Madachi
As of April 30, 2026, the crude price is said to have reached $125 in the global market. The all-time high price per barrel was recorded in 2008, when it surged to $147. It is obvious that the price is heading in that direction or even towards what experts have predicted — crude reaching a new all-time high of $150 in the near future if crude passages remain closed in the Middle East, which would ultimately come with several disproportionate challenges for businesses and households.
In Nigeria, what began as a mild adjustment in the price of gasoline and other refined crude products has not stopped anywhere until it reached N1,400 per litre of petrol at filling stations. When the price was surging, experts in energy, economics, marketing, business and other relevant fields tried to come up with explanations for how Nigeria, despite housing the largest petrochemicals refinery in Africa and being one of the largest oil-exporting countries on the continent, would continue to absorb this shock.
Despite our advantages, Nigeria recorded the world’s second-highest surge in petrol prices following the escalating geopolitical tension in the Middle East. In Africa, Nigeria has the highest spike, with many sources citing it at 39.5% and above. Even non-oil-producing countries in Africa, and countries that do not refine a drop of oil, did not experience this surge. Also, African countries like South Africa at 1%, Morocco at 2.1%, and Tanzania at 2.7% experienced far smaller increases that are nowhere near Nigeria’s.
To put it in context, South Korea, Japan, and China are among the foremost dependents on the Strait of Hormuz, whose closure escalated the crude price, but none of these countries has recorded even a 20% increase in their petrol prices. Nigeria does not import its crude through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet, as an oil-exporting nation, we have suffered some of the sharpest petrol price increases in Africa.
What went wrong in Nigeria to warrant this surge is not the primary focus of this piece. What lies ahead is. As a result of the increase in petrol prices, Nigerians have been disproportionately affected. Life has become unbearably difficult, with sharp increases in transportation costs, rising food prices, and higher costs of goods and services. Even charging points that used to collect N150 for charging a phone or battery now charge N300 or more.
As it stands, the gap between the current crude price and the predicted new all-time high is about $25. This means that if the passages continue to remain closed, we are not far from another historic price peak. It is even said that reopening the passages may not immediately stabilise prices, as crude tankers would still take time to reach their destinations.
What this means for Nigeria is another sharp increase in refined petroleum product prices, which could trigger another wave of stagflation. Already struggling, Nigerians do not deserve this. They are only just adapting to the post-subsidy era, yet are being hit again by another round of global geopolitical tensions. Many are already in deep energy poverty, with businesses struggling due to unstable electricity supply.
Therefore, as crude oil prices hover above $125 per barrel and threaten to reach the predicted $150 if disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz persist, Nigeria must act decisively to shield its citizens. The Dangote Refinery exists. Nigeria refines oil. What the federal government owes Nigerians at this point is a deliberate policy decision to make that the refinery serve domestic needs first, with pricing that does not mirror whatever is happening in the global market. That is not complicated; other oil-producing countries do exactly this.
The NMDPRA has the authority to act on this. The question is whether there is a political will to act before another price wave hits and Nigerians are once again left to absorb what their counterparts elsewhere never have to.
Sub-national governments also have something to do. Commercial motorcyclists and small business owners are the people who feel every petrol price increase the hardest and the fastest. Pushing CNG and LPG adoption among this group beyond the FCT and Lagos, with genuine support, would cushion a significant part of the next shock. Expanding solar access in underserved communities would do the same. A shop owner running on solar is not at the mercy of the next diesel price spike.
These solutions are quite feasible. Nigeria has attempted versions of them before. Where we often seem to get it wrong is in execution, and Nigeria has to treat this with the same urgency and seriousness as given to elections, for the well-being of its citizens. The only thing that has never matched the problem is the seriousness of the response.
Isah Kamisu Madachi is a policy analyst and development practitioner. He writes via [email protected]
By Gbolahan Oluyemi
In 2025, the National Pension Commission (PenCom) directed all Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) to demand a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) from service providers before engaging their services. This new policy typically affects various types of entities, including small and medium-scale enterprises, most of which are not usually compliance-driven. Following this directive, the PCC has become an essential compliance document for both large, medium and small-scale firms. This article provides a guide on what a PCC is, why it matters, and how it can be obtained.
What is a Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC)?
A Pension Clearance Certificate (PCC) is an official document issued by PenCom confirming that an organisation has complied with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. It is an annual document that must be renewed every year at no cost. The yearly renewal is intended to ensure that organisations treat compliance as a continuous activity rather than a one-off act.
Why is a PCC Important?
The PCC is important because it demonstrates that an organisation is compliant with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, especially as it relates to employee pension contributions under Section 4 (1) of the Pension Reform Act and subscription to group life insurance under Section 4 (5) of the Pension Reform Act. It is also required for certain transactions, such as government contracts and engagements with compliance-sensitive partners. In essence, a PCC assures investors, partners, and clients that your business is properly structured and compliant with regulatory requirements.
Who Needs a Pension Clearance Certificate?
Under Nigerian law, companies with three or more employees are required to participate in the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPS). If your organisation employs at least three staff members and provides or intends to provide services to Licensed Pension Fund Operators (LPFOs) or other regulated entities, you are expected to obtain a PCC annually.
How Do I Obtain a PCC?
PenCom issues the PCC electronically and at no cost through its web portal: https://pcc.pencom.gov.ng/. Please note that Applicants who are just beginning compliance and remitting employees’ pensions are required to first obtain an employer code from a Pension Fund Administrator (PFA). This code is necessary to initiate the PCC application on the PenCom portal.
Upon logging into the portal, you will be required to complete your company profile by providing your date of incorporation, contact details, and website (if applicable), as well as uploading your CAC documents.
Next, you will upload an Excel schedule (using the template provided on the website) containing your employee list. After this, you will be required to upload Excel sheets detailing pension contributions. You will also need to upload your organisation’s group life insurance documentation and payment instrument.
Finally, you will review your application and submit it for further processing by PenCom. Before commencing an application, ensure you have the following:
- Certificate of Incorporation (CAC documents)
- Group Life Insurance Policy for employees
- Evidence of Pension Fund Administrator (PFA) registration for employees
- Three years’ proof of monthly pension remittances, including penalties for any defaults (where applicable). For companies less than three years old, provide proof of remittances from the date of incorporation
- A valid Tax Identification Number (TIN)
- An employee schedule showing staff details and contributions (usually in Excel format) Templates are available on the PenCom portal
Also note that for the portal to accept employee details and remittance records, employees must have completed their data capture with their respective Pension Fund Administrator and updated their records to reflect their current employer.
Conclusion
Obtaining a Pension Clearance Certificate in Nigeria may seem technical at first, but once proper processes are established, it becomes routine. The key is consistency in remittance, maintenance of accurate records and prioritisation of compliance in overall operations.
For many Nigerian businesses, the PCC is more than a regulatory requirement; it is a mark of credibility. In a competitive environment, that credibility can make all the difference.
Gbolahan Oluyemi is a Legal Practitioner and currently leads Olives and Candles – Legal Practitioners. For further information, enquiries, or clarification, please contact Gbolahan via: [email protected] or [email protected]
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism10 years ago
Lagos Seals Western Lodge Hotel In Ikorodu
-
Showbiz3 years agoEstranged Lover Releases Videos of Empress Njamah Bathing
-
Banking8 years agoSort Codes of GTBank Branches in Nigeria
-
Economy3 years agoSubsidy Removal: CNG at N130 Per Litre Cheaper Than Petrol—IPMAN
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Banking3 years agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn