Health
Why Russia’s Vaccine Diplomacy Failed Africa
By Kester Kenn Klomegah
In these difficult and crucial times, the strategic partnership with Africa has become a priority of Russia’s foreign policy, declared Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Affairs Minister.
The difficult times understandably refer to both the COVID-19 pandemic and the current period when Russia’s own “special military operation” in Ukraine has shattered the global economy.
But why is Russia very quiet over its vaccine diplomacy in Africa? What have Russia-African Union relations brought to the health sector in Africa? Why Russia’s vaccine diplomacy could arguably be described as a failure for vulnerable groups and vaccinable people among the 1.3 billion population.
The Africa Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC) estimated approximately 28 per cent of the entire African population was vaccinated over the past two years. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and a few African leaders have vehemently accused European and Western countries with advanced pharmaceutical technologies of hoarding COVID-19 vaccines.
Russia was the first advanced country that came out with Sputnik V in August 2020, in fact, less than a year when coronavirus was declared an epidemic by the World Health Organization (WHO). But Sputnik V has never been approved by the WHO primarily because of a lack of transparency of Russian laboratories in addition to the fact that it was approved before going into compulsory phase III clinical trials, breached relevant international protocols and ruined its reputation from the outset, and further in Russia as demonstrated by a high degree of vaccine hesitancy.
The Sputnik V was developed by the Gamaleya Scientific Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology. It was later registered under the emergency use authorization procedure, according to the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) website.
The RDIF is Russia’s sovereign wealth fund established in 2011 to make equity co-investments, primarily in Russia, alongside reputable international financial and strategic investors. The Kremlin offered this agency the full-fledged task of managing and directing all aspects of COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution.
The RDIF has made a substantial contribution to developing and marketing Sputnik V, the first registered COVID-19 vaccine, in the world. Sputnik V was heavily promoted via a professional international marketing campaign and Russia obtained commercial contracts for close to 800 million doses of Sputnik V. Russia has only delivered 108 million doses, i.e. less than 15%.
In the first place, Sputnik V has little impact in Africa. Second, there is no African country manufacturing Sputnik V so far. In fact, Russia signed manufacturing agreements with no less than 23 countries to produce Sputnik V. However, only a few countries actually started production due to delays in the supply of raw materials. As one of very few countries, Russia stayed completely outside the COVAX Facility and it played no significant role in vaccine donations.
Holding the heck of the bumpy road during the pandemic period, Russia made progressive steps, resembling a substantial breakthrough to save human extinction. It swiftly registered the vaccine in many countries and often promised to establish manufacturing points in a number of countries, including Africa. But in critical assessment, we cannot skip the messy description, from various points of view, that Russia’s vaccine diplomacy has failed Africa. Certainly, that was the case with Russia’s diplomacy in Africa.
President Vladimir Putin has oftentimes praised the entire healthcare system, and particularly the hard-working team of scientists and specialists from different institutions for their efforts at research and creating a series of vaccines for use against the coronavirus both at home and abroad.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry reports indicated that the Sputnik V vaccine was registered in the following African countries: Algeria, Angola, Cameroon, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Namibia, Seychelles, South Africa, Tunisia, the Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zimbabwe.
However, the majority of African countries where Sputnik V was registered could not get supplies to purchase as promised. Admittedly, Russia faces vaccine production challenges to meet the increasing market demand and to make prompt delivery on its pledges to external countries.
Russia’s drive to share the Sputnik V vaccine offers a chance to raise its image and strengthen alliances in Africa. It has made some vaccine deliveries by sprinkling a few thousands, but only to its preferred countries including North Africa (Algeria Morocco and Egypt), East Africa (Ethiopia), Southern Africa (Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe) and West Africa (Guinea). Media reports say, South Africa, a member of the BRICS group, categorically rejected the Sputnik V donation from Russia.
Furthermore, an official media release in mid-February 2021 said that the Africa Vaccine Acquisition Task Team – set up by the African Union (AU) to acquire additional vaccine doses so that Africa could attain a target immunization of 60% – received an offer of 300 million Sputnik V vaccines from the Russian Federation. It was described as a “special offer” from Russia. In the end, Russia never delivered the 300 million vaccines as contracted.
In the Situation Analytical Report on Russia-Africa, compiled by 25 Russian policy experts, headed by Sergei A. Karaganov, Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and was released in November 2021, pointed to Russia’s consistent failure in honoring its several pledges over the years. That report vividly highlighted contracts to supply Russian-made vaccines to Africa that were not fulfilled through the African Union. “Having concluded contracts for the supply of Sputnik V to a number of African states, Russian suppliers failed to meet its contractual obligations,” says the report.
Another report also compared Russia’s vaccine diplomacy with Europe, China and other external countries: (https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/vaccinating-world-between-promises-and-realities_en). The report says one and a half years after the start of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the European Union (EU) can be proud of what it has achieved to help vaccinate the world, and in particular low- and middle-income countries. The EU’s record stands in contrast to what China and Russia did beyond the bluster of their noisy “vaccine diplomacy” during these years.
In 2021, the subject was not only dominating the headlines but also at the centre of international relations, with major powers, in particular China and Russia, conducting active vaccine diplomacy to extend their global influence by promising to provide vaccines to the world. From the outset, the EU had chosen to act in a multilateral framework, by supporting the COVAX facility launched by the WHO to jointly purchase and supply vaccines to low and middle-income countries.
The report says, based on data collected by the multilateral institutions, the EU has actually been by far the largest exporter of vaccines in the world. With 2.2 billion doses supplied to 167 countries, we exported almost twice as many vaccines as China, three times as much as the United States and 20 times as much as Russia.
Of these 2.2 billion exported doses, 475 million were donated to 104 countries, of which 405 million via COVAX and 70 million bilaterally, particularly in the Western Balkans and the Eastern Partnership. In terms of donations, the United States did slightly more than the EU, with 542 million doses donated to 117 countries. But the EU has actually donated far more vaccines than China – with just 130 million to 95 countries – and Russia – with only 1.5 million doses to 19 countries.
The EU has not only exported and donated vaccines but also helped to develop vaccine production in Africa: last year, the EU with its member states and financial institutions committed over one billion euros to finance this development.
By 2040, the African Union wants that 60% of the vaccines used on the continent are manufactured in Africa and the EU fully supports that goal. This year already, two factories will be installed in Rwanda and Senegal and commercial production is set to begin in 2023. Close cooperation is also ongoing with South Africa’s Biovac Institute and partners in Ghana.
In these difficult and crucial times, Russian vaccine diplomacy has been a total failure and this was already the case before its “special military operation” in the former Soviet republic of Ukraine. In short, the vaccine diplomacy of these two countries, Russia and China, can be summarized as “great expectations – broken promises.”
The EU has a lot to be proud of, not only did it manage to vaccinate its own population against Covid-19 in a short period of time, but it has also been the world’s largest exporter of vaccines and the second largest donor to low- and middle-income countries. The EU has accomplished much more in this area than China and Russia together. Building on this solid track record, the EU will continue to support access to vaccines worldwide, particularly by helping with vaccine manufacturing in Africa.
By Adedapo Adesanya
Nigerian author, Ms Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, via her solicitors, has written to Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, Lagos, over the death of her 21-month-old son, Nkanu Nnamdi, seeking documentation of treatment before his untimely demise.
In a legal notice dated January 10, 2026, solicitors acting for the renowned author and her partner, Dr Ivara Esege, alleged that the hospital, its anaesthesiologist, and attending medical personnel breached the duty of care owed to their son, who died in the early hours of Wednesday, January 7, 2026.
The notice was issued on behalf of the parents by Pinheiro LP and signed by the founding partner, Prof Kemi Pinheiro (SAN).
According to the notice, the child was referred to the hospital on January 6, 2026, from Atlantis Pediatric Hospital for a series of diagnostic and preparatory procedures. These included an echocardiogram, a brain MRI, the insertion of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC line), and a lumbar puncture.
The procedures were reportedly part of preparations for an imminent medical evacuation to the United States, where a specialist medical team was said to be on standby to receive him.
The solicitors stated that intravenous sedation was administered using propofol.
However, it was alleged that during transportation to the cardiac catheterisation laboratory following the MRI procedure, the child allegedly developed sudden and severe complications.
Despite being under sedation, he was said to have been transferred between clinical areas under conditions that raised “serious and substantive concerns” about compliance with patient-safety protocols.
He was later pronounced dead in the early hours of January 7, 2026.
The legal notice outlines multiple alleged lapses in paediatric anaesthetic and procedural care.
These include concerns about the appropriateness and cumulative dosing of propofol in a critically ill child, inadequate airway protection during deep sedation, and an alleged failure to ensure continuous physiological monitoring.
The parents further alleged that their son was transferred without supplemental oxygen, without adequate monitoring, and without sufficient accompanying medical personnel.
They also raised concerns over the availability of basic resuscitation equipment, delayed recognition and management of respiratory or cardiovascular compromise, and an overall failure to comply with established paediatric anaesthesia, patient-transfer, and safety protocols.
Another major grievance cited was the alleged failure of the hospital to adequately disclose the risks and potential side effects of propofol and other anaesthetic agents, thereby undermining the legal requirement for informed consent.
According to the solicitors, these alleged lapses amount to prima facie breaches of the duty of care and render the hospital and all medical personnel involved liable for medical negligence resulting in the child’s death.
As part of their next legal steps, the parents demanded certified copies of all medical records relating to their son’s treatment within seven days of receipt of the notice.
The requested documents include admission notes, consent forms, pre-anaesthetic assessments, anaesthetic charts, drug administration records, monitoring logs, procedural notes, nursing observations, ICU records, incident reports, and the identities of all medical staff involved.
The demand also covers internal reviews, safety logs from the MRI suite, and any other documentation connected to the child’s care.
The hospital was also formally placed on notice to preserve all relevant evidence, whether physical or electronic.
This includes CCTV footage from procedure rooms and corridors, electronic monitoring data, pharmacy and drug inventory records, crash-cart and emergency equipment logs, as well as internal communications and any morbidity and mortality reviews.
The solicitors warned that “any destruction, alteration, or loss of such evidence after receipt of this letter shall be regarded as suppression or concealment of evidence and obstruction of the course of justice, and will be relied upon accordingly, with attendant legal consequences.”
The letter concluded with a warning that failure or refusal by the hospital to comply with the demands within the stipulated timeframe would leave the parents with no option but to pursue all available legal, regulatory, and judicial remedies against the hospital and all medical personnel involved.
Euracare Hospital had noted in a Saturday statement that it had commenced “a detailed investigation” into the incident in line with its clinical governance standards and best practices, while pledging to engage transparently and responsibly with all relevant clinical and regulatory processes.
Also, the Lagos State Government on Saturday said it began an investigation into the incident, vowing to ensure the full weight of the law is applied.
Speaking yesterday, the Special Adviser to the Lagos State Governor on Health, Dr Kemi Ogunyemi, said the doctor involved in the child’s procedure had been suspended by the hospital’s management, noting that the hospital was cooperating with the government in the investigation.
“The hospital itself is also doing its own internal investigation, and as far as we know, the anaesthesiologist involved has been suspended by the hospital,” she revealed.
By Adedapo Adesanya
Renowned Nigerian author, Ms Chinamanda Ngozi Adichie, has alleged that medical negligence was responsible for the death of her 21-month-old child.
The child, Nkanu, reportedly passed away on Wednesday, January 7, 2026, after a brief illness.
More details have emerged detailing the circumstances surrounding his death.
According to a leaked internal message sent privately to family members and close friends, Ms Adichie blamed a staff of Euracare Multi-Specialist Hospital, located in Victoria Island, Lagos, for causing the demise of the lad.
“My son would be alive today if not for an incident at Euracare Hospital on January 6th.
“We were in Lagos for Christmas. Nkanu had what we first thought was just a cold, but soon turned into a very serious infection and he was admitted to Atlantis hospital.
“He was to travel to the US the next day, January 7th, accompanied by Travelling Doctors. A team at Johns Hopkins was waiting to receive him in Baltimore. The Hopkins team had asked for a lumbar puncture test and an MRI. The Nigerian team had also decided to put in a ‘central line’ (used to administer iv medications) in preparation for Nkanu’s flight. Atlantis hospital referred us to Euracare Hospital, which was said to be the best place to have the procedures done.
“The morning of the 6th, we left Atlantis hospital for Euracare, Nkanu carried in his father’s arms. We were told he would need to be sedated to prevent him from moving during the MRI and the ‘central line’ procedure.
“I was waiting just outside the theater. I saw people, including Dr M, rushing into the theater and immediately knew something had happened.
“A short time later, Dr M came out and told me Nkanu had been given too much propofol by the anesthesiologist, had become unresponsive and was quickly resuscitated. But suddenly Nkanu was on a ventilator, he was intubated and placed in the ICU. The next thing I heard was that he had seizures. Cardiac arrest. All these had never happened before. Some hours later, Nkanu was gone
“It turns out that Nkanu was NEVER monitored after being given too much propofol. The anesthesiologist had just casually carried Nkanu on his shoulder to the theater, so nobody knows when exactly Nkanu became unresponsive.
“How can you sedate a sick child and neglect to monitor him? Later, after the ‘central line’ procedure, the anesthesiologist casually switched off Nkanu’s oxygen and again decided to carry him on his shoulder to the ICU!
“The anesthesiologist was CRIMINALLY negligent. He was fatally casual and careless with the precious life of a child. No proper protocol was followed.
“We brought in a child who was unwell but stable and scheduled to travel the next day. We came to conduct basic procedures. And suddenly, our beautiful little boy was gone forever. It is like living your worst nightmare. I will never survive the loss of my child.
“We have now heard about two previous cases of this same anesthesiologist overdosing children. Why did Euracare allow him to keep working? This must never happen to another child,” she wrote.
As of press time, it is not clear what the next line of action will be with the revelation.
By Modupe Gbadeyanka
The decision of the management of SUNU Health Nigeria Limited to adopt the strategy of placing the enrollee and customer at the heart of its operations has started to pay off.
The company was recently announced as Most Customer-Focused Health Insurance Company of the Year at the Customer Service Standard Magazine Awards 2025.
The recognition underscored the company’s success in translating its dedication into tangible enrollee satisfaction and superior market service at the Nigerian Health Maintenance Organisation (HMO) landscape.
It also highlights the organisation’s dedicated efforts in streamlining claims processing, enhancing access to quality healthcare providers, and maintaining transparent, responsive communication channels with its diverse client base across Nigeria.
The accolade further serves as a powerful testament to the successful integration of digital solutions and human-centric service models at SUNU Health.
It positions the firm as a leader not only in providing robust health plans but also in delivering the supportive, personalized care that enrollees truly value.
“Clinching the Most Customer-Focused Health Insurance Company of the Year award is not just an honour; it is a validation of the core philosophy that drives every member of the SUNU Health team.
“We believe that healthcare is fundamentally a service industry, and our success is measured by the well-being and satisfaction of our enrollees,” the chief executive of SUNU Health, Mr Patrick Korie, commented.
“This award reinforces our resolve to continuously innovate and set new benchmarks for customer experience in the Nigerian health insurance sector.
“Our commitment to providing accessible, high-quality, and seamless healthcare solutions remains our top priority as we move into the new year (2026),” he added.
-
Feature/OPED6 years agoDavos was Different this year
-
Travel/Tourism9 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 agoFirst Bank Announces Planned Downtime
-
Banking3 years agoSort Codes of UBA Branches in Nigeria
-
Sports3 years agoHighest Paid Nigerian Footballer – How Much Do Nigerian Footballers Earn