Withdraw the new Infections Diseases bill, its anti-people, anti-nation, leading NGO CePSERD tells Speaker

A leading Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO), the Center for Peacebuilding and Socio-Economic Resources Development (CePSERD) has raised alarm of the “unintended consequences” that would be triggered should the Federal House of Representatives proceed with and enactment of the Infectious Diseases Bill 2020 presented on Tuesday, April 28, 2020.

Noting the haste and novelty in designing the Bill as “an Act to Repeal the Quarantine Act and Enact the Control of Infectious Diseases Act, make Provisions Relating to Quarantine, make Regulations for Preventing the Introduction into, and Spread in Nigeria of Dangerous Infectious Diseases, and for Other Related Matters, the body said that the bill, if enacted into law, would breach national interests and security, continue the abuse and breach of legal and policy frameworks (bordering on seeming impunity and disregard for statutes) and abrogate governance services systems and administrative procedures in the health sector.

In addition, CePSERD said in the letter dated 2 May 2020 and sent to Speaker of House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila, who is also the sponsor of the bill, that the enactment would grossly undermine principles of fundamental human rights, participatory democracy and multiple stakeholders’ engagement; counterproductive legislation that may further jeopardise national cohesion, productivity, negate our quest towards Integrated National Development and Growth.

The letter, signed by CePSERD Executive Director, Dr Ayokunle Fagbemi, lamented that the bill would deliberately erode some fundamental human rights of citizens of the Nigerian-State.

If signed into law, the Minister of Health will have the right to convert any building into an isolation area while the police will be able to arrest anybody suffering from an infectious disease, without a warrant.

It also gives the NCDC Director General the power to close down premises deemed to be overcrowded while officials authorized by him will be able to detain individuals without any warrant.

In the proposed bill, officials with a court order will be able to destroy any building where infectious disease like cholera, typhoid and dengue fever occurred.

Under the new bill, the “omnibus NCDC Director-General” has exclusive rights to cause any person to provide any book, document, correspondence or information requested and it also gives the unrestricted power to enter and search any premises without the need for small matters like court orders.

Director General of NCDC, Dr Chikwe Ihekweazu, who confirmed that he hadn’t been involved in the drafting of the bill, however said that it required further consultation.

Dr Fagbemi said in his letter to Honourable Gbajabiamila titled ‘EXPRESSION OF RESERVATIONS AND CAUTIONARY NOTE ON YOUR SPONSORED CONTROL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES BILL 2020,’regretted that in sponsoring the bill, the Speaker has been “misled and wrongly advised,’ as the bill “is neither citizen nor Nigerian friendly.”

Asking the Speaker to “kindly withdraw the Bill,” and concentrate the nation’s energy in “optimal utilization of the existing legal and policy frameworks with the view of ensuring that the concerned MDAs concentrate on concerted services delivery while we avoid the unfortunate occurrences of human rights abuses by security and law enforcement agents.

“The legal and judicial challenges that may emanate from this bill may adversely affect cordial relations between the three arms of government apart from generating security breaches and recourse to self-help and anarchy. We are pleading with you for the prevention of breakdown in law and order that may further threaten Nigeria’s existence, National Interest and Security because of probable agitations that may arise should the Bill pass, please.”

According to Dr Fagbemi, “we most humbly request that the Bill be withdrawn forthwith, Sir. This is owing to the fact that the entire sections of the Bill are offensive and contradicts the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which includes particularly sections 1 (3), 6, 17, 22 and the entire Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and other extant laws mentioned in this document.

“We humbly request that the National Assembly allow for the optimal utilization, compliance with and enforcement of the existing extant legislations on disease control in Nigeria. These include the Quarantine Act and the NCDC Act in conjunction with other legal and policy frameworks, which must fully drive the interventions and management of prevailing COVID-19 challenges. We implore you to setup a Study Team for taking notes and drawing lessons learned during the management of the crises before considering amendments and probable consolidated into a single document.

“We respectfully request that the National Assembly should prevail on The Presidency to activate and constitute the Governing Board of NCDC. Thus allowing the NCDC to carry out the statutory duties and obligations enshrined in the enabling law. In the circumstance, should you decide against withdrawing the Bill as we have thus pleaded, we humbly request that you slow down the legislative process to allow for wider consultations and the holding of the mandatory legislative public hearing, for the purposes of resolving all contending issues, to reflect the aspirations of citizens. This is so because the Bill itself has attracted a nation-wide disapproval.”

The full letter reads:

May 02, 2020

Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila

Honorable Speaker

Federal House of Representatives,

National Assembly,

Three Arms Zone,

Abuja Federal Capital Territory

EXPRESSION OF RESERVATIONS AND CAUTIONARY NOTE ON YOUR SPONSORED CONTROL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES BILL 2020

1. We acknowledge and commend your patriotic zeal and parliamentary excitement to provide legislative support to further reinforce and support the on-going momentum in the fight against novel COVID-19 in Nigeria through your sponsorship of the Infectious Diseases Bill 2020 presented on Tuesday, April 28, 2020. We observe the novelty in designing the Bill as “an Act to Repeal the Quarantine Act and Enact the Control of Infectious Diseases Act, make Provisions Relating to Quarantine, make Regulations for Preventing the Introduction into, and Spread in Nigeria of Dangerous Infectious Diseases, and for Other Related Matters.”

• In commending you and your colleagues, Representatives Pascal Obi and Tanko Sununu, et. al., for this novelty, painfully, Please allow us to outline some concerns which may portend unintended consequences should the Federal House of Representatives proceed with this Bill as is and in this haste. The concerns include, but not limited to issues pertaining:
  • National Interests and Security;

• Continued Abuse and Breach of Legal and Policy Frameworks (bordering on seeming impunity and disregard for statutes);

• Abrogation of Governance Services Systems and Administrative Procedures;

• Undermining of Principles of Fundamental Human Rights, Participatory Democracy and Multiple Stakeholders Engagement;

• Counterproductive Legislation that may further jeopardise national cohesion, productivity, negate our quest towards Integrated National Development and Growth, particularly as encapsulated in the National Economic Recovery Growth Plan of the current Federal Government of Nigeria, along with the expectations of the Sustainable Developmental Goals; and

• Deliberate Erosion of some Fundamental Human Rights of Citizens of the Nigerian-State.

• Respectfully, Rt. Honourable Speaker, we are convinced that, as the Sponsor of the Bill, you may have been misled and wrongly advised that this Bill is the right course of action to take. We make this assertion knowing your antecedents as a legal practitioner, an avowed democrat, and a diligent representative of common good in favour of Nigerians. This Bill is neither citizen nor Nigerian friendly, thus, it does not reflect your identity and persona.

• So, you can be rest assured, we are making our submissions against the foregoing background to reinforce your renowned leadership and commitment to excellence based on holistic approach to issues that come under your consideration. We ask that you further reconsider further hasty processing of this Bill and shift emphasis to brining effectiveness and efficiency in our Healthcare and allied Medicare services based on existing legal and policy frameworks that are grossly underutilised, currently being misapplied and/or deliberately in exclusion of or pitching stakeholders against the other.

• WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS UPON REFLECTING ON EXISTING KEY LEGAL AND POLICY FRAMEWORKS:

From media reportage (electronic, print and new media) of your Lead Debate presentation on the floor of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, April 28, 2020 and our gleaning through the proposed Bill, we can deduce the following as our preliminary observations. We have opted to present our observations reflecting on existing key legal and policy frameworks to help capture our thoughts as highlighted below.  For ease of comprehension, under each systematized thought, we have provided some suggestions(s) for your consideration.

• Legal Status of National Center for Disease Control (NCDC) to Function:

You were reported by the media to have marshalled the point that “NCDC had very little powers to carry out its mandate even though it is a body with great professionals” requiring that it should therefore be empowered “to make it more proactive and not just reactive and function when there is an outbreak”. Sir, a cursory look at the provisions of the NCDC Establishment Act No. 18 of 2018 suggests otherwise, please. This seventeen-month-old enabling law, which is obviously less than two years old, in our opinion covers the field extensively! In fact, the operators are yet to activate in full the provisions of the NCDC Establishment Act.

• A great example being the composition of the Governing Board for the NCDC as provided for in Part III, Section 5 of the Act. The specified functions of the Governing Board as per Section 9 are very explicit that should the “appointing authority” as provided for in the law had done the needful the NCDC as presently constituted should have achieved more.

• We assert that the NCDC should have achieved more under the superintending control of the Governing Board as expected, because of the existence of these documents as obtained Thursday, April 30, 2020 on the official website http://www.ncdc.gov.ng:
• IDEA TO REALITY: Strategy and Implementation Plan 2017 – 202.
• NCDC 2017 – 2021 Strategic Plan (May, 2018 Discussion Document) Revised Strategy.
• National Action Plan for Health Security, Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2018 – 2022.

• The NCDC has not fully executed the laudable innovations and activities contained in these documents. They are behind self-identified schedules on many; requiring NASS Oversight Performance Audit!

1. Rt. Honorable Speaker, should you proceed with this Bill to become an Act, kindly note that you will have unwittingly relinquished the Oversight Responsibilities of the National Assembly (NASS) to ensure that Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) function as per provisions of laws enacted by National Assembly. We make this submission against the backdrop of the fact that the NCDC enabling law came into effect in less than two years under the same All Progressive Congress led Federal Government of Nigeria. The NCDC does not have a constituted NCDC Governing Board for which the National Assembly provided. Ideally, the National Assembly must now express reservations to the Executive, terse, the Presidency, instead of again providing another law, which the Presidency may end up not obeying or act in conflicting manner as with the former law on the same subject matter.

1.  Way Forward:
2. We most kindly request vide a Resolution of the House of Representatives that the “appointing authority” of the Governing Board, the incumbent President, Federal Republic of Nigeria should immediately perform his statutory obligations, please.
3. Request or Direct the appropriate House Committee(s) to conduct Oversight Review and Performance Audit of NCDC against the Establishing Act and the mentioned documents.

SUBTLE ABROGATION OF NCDC GOVERNING BOARD:

a.         In addition, based on the Bill’s copious references to the persona of the “Director-General of the NCDC”, as opposed to the “Center” as an institution, is an alarming misnomer! The term “Director General” appears 134 times in the document! We can observe that it is apparent that there is a subtle agenda to abrogate the existence of the Governing Board as provided for in the NCDC Establishment Act No. 18 of 2018. Ordinarily, we may have overlooked this in the light of the expediency and urgency of the moment; we cannot because existing documents of the Center have sought to do away with the statutorily provided for NCDC Governing Board.

b.        You may wish to observe the NCDC Organizational Structure presented on the official website http://www.ncdc.gov.ng and particularly again on page 30 of the earlier referred document “IDEA TO REALITY: Strategy and Implementation Plan 2017 – 2021”. The current organizational structure emanating from NCDC clearly omits the statutory Governing Board, indirectly suggesting its nonexistence, irrelevance or disdain against!

c.         The proposed Bill, the copious references to, and embedding of statutory rights in a lone office other than the institution as originally provided for in the NCDC enabling law, in our considered opinion, constitute reinforcing and endorsing the subtle elimination of the institutional existence and functioning of the NCDC Governing Board and a tacit support for illegality. This is contrary to the expectations of “Goal 16 on Peace and Justice Strong Institutions” the universally adopted Sustainable Development Goals seeking to emphasise strong institutions and not individuals.

d.        Most respectfully Sir, this subtle elimination of the NCDC Governing Board is contrary to the principles of sound “corporate governance schemes and ethos” that informed National Assembly in enacting the law in 2018. Formalising the elimination of the Board shall require its total removal in the amendment of the NCDC Establishment Act. I want to believe that this is not your intention as sponsor of the current Bill under consideration.

1.  Way Forward:
2. We most respectfully reiterate the call for the prompt Resolution of the House of Representatives authorizing the “appointing authority” of the Governing Board, the incumbent President of Nigeria to perform his statutory obligations in this regard, please.
3. In addition, House of Representatives should pass a Resolution encouraging the NCDC as an institution, particularly, the incumbent Director-General to all intents and purposes seek to operate strictly within the ambits of the prevailing NCDC Establishment Act.
4. Direct the relevant House Committee(s) to conduct performance audits assisted by consultants.

1. Weakness of Subsisting Quarantine Act

a.         With the greatest of respect sir, we have taken the pains to study your lead debate comment that the proposed Bill is seeking “to make provisions relating to quarantine and make regulations for preventing the introduction and spreading of infectious diseases in Nigeria… (since it) had existed for many years, (and) was now ‘primitive and weak’ to meet the current demands”.

b.        Sir, we humbly wish to draw your attention to the fact that the contents analyses of the subsisting Quarantine Act versus the proposed Bill suggest the painful poor comprehension of the connectivity existing between our laws as couched and others including policies and Judicial Practices Guidelines.

c.         Sir, you were reported to have opined “that the Quarantine Act provided a penalty of N500 for defaulters, but the Control of Infectious Diseases bill was proposing a penalty of between two hundred thousand naira (N200, 000) and five million naira (N5, 000,000).” On the face value, this would have been regarded as a welcome development were this enabling law the only law for us to consider in dealing with the spreading of infectious diseases knowingly, as a mere health hazard.

d.        Painfully, once appropriate authorities declare a disease “contagious”, issues pertaining to it translate into the realm of Health Security, assuming the status of a weapon!

e.         In such an instance, any subject that participates in the spreading is acting in breach of Health Security for which the provisions of the National Security Strategy (2019) and the National Defence Policy (2017) become applicable. Within the far-reaching realms of National Security and Defence Management Architecture, the subject may come under the radar through other legal frameworks including, but not restricted to, Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2013.

f.         Furthermore, the penalty under the Quarantine Act has deterrent capacities because the option of a meagre amount of less than a thousand naira against six months imprisonment is far more restraining in deterrence value than an amount that erring citizen can source easily. Yes, for the big corporate players, it is clear that such will have their day in the courts with far reaching consequences including denials from occupying public offices of trust as “ex-convicts”.

g.         We recall that Professor Dora Akunyuli (1954 – 2014) of blessed memory, as the Director General of National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) of Nigeria (2001 – 2008) utilised the regulatory clauses of the enabling laws of NAFDAC optimally and exhaustively to achieve so much. That is, Decree No. 15 of 1993, as amended by Decree No. 19 of 1999 into the NAFDAC Act Cap N1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004. We see no reason why appropriate authorities vested with the enshrined provisions of the Quarantine Act cannot rise up to the occasion under the supervision of their Corporate Governance superintendents.

h.        Rt. Honorable Speaker, focusing on your argument that you seek “to empower the President and the Minister of Health to exercise certain necessary powers at first instance, during any outbreak…(and) that at second and third instances, the President would  have to seek the approval of the National Assembly”. The subsisting Act successfully covered the field and the concerns you raised well comprehended by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, terse, the National Security Strategy and National Defence Policy.

1. Sir, emphatically, we wish to submit that the provisions of Section 4 of the extant Quarantine Act are currently adequate for the President and his Minister in-charge of Health. The Presidential Proclamation currently in force derived legality from it. Unfortunately, as stated in the Bill the now “omnibus NCDC Director-General” can even act in an extrajudicial capacity against a Nigerian President, Senate President or State Governors! This is apart from the seemingly “Ouster Clause against the Courts” in Section 15, which states in part:

“The Minister may, for the purpose of preventing the spread or possible outbreak of an infectious disease, by notification in the Gazette declare any premises to be an isolation area…A person who leaves or attempts to leave or is suspected of having left an isolation area in contravention of an order under subsection (3) may be arrested without warrant by any police officer, or by any Health Officer authorized in writing in that behalf by the Director General.”

j.          Furthermore, the Bill is in breach of Principles of Separation of Powers and that of Rule of Law, which confers obnoxious power on presumably, Minister of Health. Section 20 (5) of the Bill states, “Any person who is aggrieved by any order of the Director General under subsection (1) may, within 7 days from the date of the order, appeal to the Minister whose decision shall be final.” Provocatively, this is usurpation of the powers of the Judiciary and constitute an ouster clause for a bill processed under a democratic dispensation as provided in section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and upheld by the Court in  Edet v. Mathias (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 454) 1564. Citizens, corporate and individuals shall besiege the courts with plethora of litigations as in:  Okereke v. Yar’adua (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 430) 625.

k.         It should interest you to note that, we consider adequate for now, Section 8 in terms of jurisdictional rights of the States of the Federation within the confines of the multi-tiered “Whole of Governments” and “Whole of Society” principles of National Security and Defence Management. That is, when considered along with National Emergency Management Act and the 1999 Constitution once the matter assumes its correct Health Security and Economic Security statuses. The membership of State Governors in the Nigeria Police Council and the National Economic Council further reinforces the jurisdictional rights of states in our federal system, unlike what the proposed bill seeks to achieve, please.

1. Way Forward:
2. Kindly withdraw the Bill, please.
3. This is for bringing about effectiveness and efficiency in the optimal utilization of the existing legal and policy frameworks with the view of ensuring that the concerned MDAs concentrate on concerted services delivery while we avoid the unfortunate occurrences of human rights abuses by security and law enforcement agents. The legal and judicial challenges that may emanate from this bill may adversely affect cordial relations between the three arms of government apart from generating security breaches and recourse to self-help and anarchy.
4. We are pleading with you for the prevention of breakdown in law and order that may further threaten Nigeria’s existence, National Interest and Security because of probable agitations that may arise should the Bill pass, please.

1. DISCONNECT OF COVID-19 MANAGEMENT AS HEALTH SECURITY CHALLENGE

a.   Sir, your lead presentation and the contents of the Bill further underscores that we are currently not addressing COVID-19 as a Health Security challenge, terse, within the ambits of Nigeria’s National Interest and Security as encapsulated in our National Defence Policy (2017) and National Security Strategy (2019).

b.  Notwithstanding that, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared it global pandemic; we are treating it as if a “terrorist network” did not deliberately design or introduce it against Nigeria as part of an attempt to throw the entire country into chaos of unimaginable consequences, that is, as envisaged in our national security and defence management architecture! Our national interest must count and supersede all other global modulations or considerations!

c.   Painfully, we can observe that principal officers of the Nigerian-state are making it appear as if we do not have national legal and policy frameworks subsisting. Public officeholders overlook and undermine daily these instruments notwithstanding that in them we have opportunities to help us in defining the problem(s) and charting the course(s) of actions to take, particularly in mitigating and transforming COVID-19 challenges.

d.  We are appalled that we must now seek fresh legislation that are alien to our climes, customs and traditions. The Bill is laden with conflict potentials of different shades and dimensions. At the political and governance level, it is contradictory to the 1999 Constitution in diverse ways, which ordinarily implies that it should give way to the extent of being at variance with the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Sections 34 and 35, in fact, the entire Chapter 4! The most disturbing being that the implementation of the Bill shall further accentuate the dysfunctional relations amongst MDAs; increasing turf protection syndrome and thereby bring about schisms. In another breadth, it has provided clauses to undermine and remove the jurisdiction of judicial checks and balances, terse, the law courts by placing in the NCDC Director-General magisterial powers.

1. Way Forward:
2. Kindly withdraw the Bill, please. We are again reiterating our plea, PLEASE!
3. We do this, based on your renowned love for Nigeria’s national interest and well-being, please. We must prevent constitutional logjams through incessant litigations and legal proceedings or creation of self-help initiatives, terse, breakdown in law and order that may further threaten Nigeria’s existence, national interest and security, because of probable agitations that may arise should the Bill pass and implementation commences, please. We cannot afford political crises in the midst of health security, economic security and food security challenges. The Nigerian-state cannot cope; the country is currently too fragile for such, PLEASE!

1. NASS Oversight Interrogation of COVID-19 Problem Identification
2. We wish to again infer that we can observe from the lead debate that you somewhat relied on the poorly conceptualized “COVID-19 Problem Identification” being relied upon by the executive branch of government. That is, as contained in the document National COVID19 Multi-Sectoral Pandemic Response Plan published and being used by the Presidential Task Force on COVID-19 Response, March 2020. Permit us to draw your attention specifically to the introduction; highlighting some portions from which we shall help clarify that the problem identification showed some gaps in our governance services delivery for which legislative intervention may be required:

On the 31st of December 2019, World Health Organization was alerted to several cases of pneumonia in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. Following the rapid escalation of the outbreak and spread to countries outside China, on 30 January 2020, WHO declared the outbreak a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ (PHEIC); and on the 11th of March the COVID-19 outbreak was characterized as a pandemic. The Federal Ministry of Health confirmed a first coronavirus disease (COVID-19) case in Lagos State on the 27th of February 2020. As at 22nd of March 2020, cumulatively, Nigeria has recorded 27 confirmed cases of COVID-19.

b.        From the timelines indicated against the realities of what transpired in China that is in public domain indicate functionality gaps for which appropriate agencies of the Nigerian-state that ought to have activated feedback to the Federal Government of Nigeria for proactive responses planning and deployment may be liable. Nigeria has an early warning mechanism that should have played a role other than relying on World Health Organisation only, as indicated in this statement. As determined by our Constitution, Nigeria’s diplomatic practice of foreign relations we have a fully functional Embassy in China from which at least two (2) numbers. Reports from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and National Intelligence Agency (NIA) should have come back to Nigeria December 1 – 20, 2019 when COVID-19 became a major concern in China. In addition, there are MDAs within the country with feedback information responsibilities on issues of concerns; drawing data from openly sourced materials to initiate proactive response planning and deployments. They include, National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), National Orientation Agency (NOA), etc. NASS must interrogate why nothing happened before December 2019 and clarify for lessons learned why the Response Plan appear devoid of the inputs from these sources.

1. Way Forward:
2. Appropriate House Committees, particularly those on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Information and Humanitarian Responses should activate their oversight responsibilities to interrogate the issues and further strengthen our national early warning mechanisms!

1. Accelerated Passing of First and Second Readings

a.         We observe that the Bill has enjoyed accelerated considerations thus far. Under the circumstances, we expect this kind of patriotism. We cannot fault it in terms of exigencies as occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we note with concern that it lacks the benefit of wider consultations based on the criticisms and public debate generated. Therefore, permit us to suggest that, should you decide against withdrawing the Bill as we have thus pleaded, you kindly slow down the process to allow for wider consultations and the holding of the mandatory legislative public hearing, please.

• Way Forward:
• Sir, should you decide against withdrawing the Bill as we have thus pleaded, you kindly slow down the process to allow for wider consultations and the holding of the mandatory legislative public hearing, please!

• Bill Specific Issues and Consideration of Some Clauses

a.         Rt. Honourable Speaker, by now it is clear that our persuasion and thrust is simple: Implore you to kindly withdraw the Bill for thorough reconsideration and wider consultations in order to mitigate the inherent challenges of dangers posed to the Nigerian-state. The issues fall within the realms of statecraft considerations that spot elements of “deep state” coloration, which for now may become counterproductive. Notwithstanding, we have taken the pains to go through to make some informed comments herein while we await formal presentations, should the House of Representatives proceed further by calling for Memorandum for a Public Hearing on the Bill.

b.        Sir, from our simple observation the focus of the Bill appear predominantly around the NCDC Director-General alone with little or NO CONCERNS for the national interests and security of the Nigerian-State, cohesive governance functionality and particularly DEVELOPMENT as conceptualized under the SDGs and Nigeria’s Economic Recovery Growth Plan! As presently couched, it projects global interests’ more than national interests and security, for example, on Vaccines it does not highlight how to safeguard Nigerians from national security risks of imported products, confidence building quality assurance systems, nor provide for ensuring capacity building for local production and attendant multiplier effects for our national economy. With a population of about 200 million, we cannot afford to rely solely on importation Vaccines!

c.         Interestingly, this Bill appear only State actors’ interest driven; appearing not Nigerians friendly, safe being tagged “anti-people”.

d.        From some perspectives, in the light of the on-going citizenry perception indicators of incumbent governments in Nigeria, commentaries in public domain indicate that many perceive the bill as deliberately designed to emasculate the rights of the individuals; creating a “police state”. We are now at the threshold of history now. To some commentators, “there is need to act before full-scale Totalitarianism is enthroned”. This Bill is creating setting that is further fuelling and reinforcing the “fake news, false flags or conspiracy theses spins” around the subject matter in public domain. The cliché now include “Are the Conspiracy Theories Now Translating to Conspiracy Realities?” – This is definitely not a welcome development for your persona – even though we know controversies makes a political actor bubble (sic) and enjoy media attention!

e.        Clarification/Definition of Concepts and Terms in the Bill appear ambiguous and subject to controversial interpretations or misapplication e.g. “Health Officer”, “Public Health Emergency”, “Overcrowding”, etc. Another issue being how to determine the bases of “what the President thinks”, which may give too much room for subjective or sentimental decisions rather than objective decisions based on scientific facts i.e. as per Sections 3. Permit us to observe that this may lead to political abuse, particularly in lieu of Section 19 on the prohibition or restriction of meetings, gatherings and entertainment, inappropriately used against Opposition Parties, Civil Society Programs etc.

f.         Legality and Constitutionality of Bill: The Bill offends the provisions of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which as part of your Oath of accession as member House of Representatives and therefrom Speaker you swore to uphold and defend.

g.         As a legal practitioner, you are very aware of the landmark decisions of Courts in Attorney-General of Federation vs. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt 1041) 1 and in the case of R.T. N.A.C.H.P.N. v. M. & H.W.U.N (2008) 575. This is in addition to Trousseau Investment Limited vs. Eyo (2011) 6 NWLR (OT. 1242) 195 and the celebrated case of Attorney-General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (PT. 1005) 265. We can only plead that you reconsider the sponsorship and continued processing of this Bill, please. Furthermore, on citizens’ rights, Section 23 of this Bill on “Apprehension of persons on the streets” negates a settled legal/judicial issue of indiscriminate arrests that further infringes on the rights of citizens. Section 24, as couched, may lead to indiscriminate and extrajudicial destruction of properties owned by citizens in the execution of “the Order to destroy any building in which a case of infectious disease has occurred” – It smells “Court Ouster”!

h.        Clarity on the Classification of Diseases: We are concerned with the classification of diseases such as Malaria, Typhoid with other diseases such as STIs, SARS in the same category. We recommend that this should be professionally articulated and made to be part of Practice Rules and Guidelines.

i.          Anti-Media Provisions with Concerns for Security Operatives: Section 55(e) is clearly anti-media, providing for media censorship, gagging and probably an assault on journalists and whistleblowers. This section is contrary to the Nigerian Security Agencies Act that is respective of Rule of Law and goes contrary to sections 17 and 22 of the 1999 Constitution! Unlike the laws establishing the DSS/SSS the now “omnibus NCDC Director-General” has exclusive rights to cause any person to provide any book, document, correspondence or information requested and it also gives the unrestricted power to enter and search any premises without the need for small matters like court orders.

j.          By stretch of realistic scenario building imaginations, the security risks concerns of Sections 55 through 58 of this Bill on Nigeria’s national security interests remain grave. The fact that an “omnibus NCDC Director-General”, operating without a Governing Board is that s/he will now justifiably have the right to even search the offices and residences of our national security assets like an incumbent D-G (SSS) or any of his operatives without warrant and cannot be queried.

• Way Forward:
• The foregoing are just comments that indicate we are concerned about you, your political well-being as a renowned democrat and political leader as well as the Welfare of Nigerians. Kindly, reconsider, please.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS

Most respectfully, Rt. Honorable Speaker, Our Beloved Brother, we appreciate a great deal your priceless efforts to protect the lives of citizens of this great country, for the purposes of safeguarding their lives, and that of foreigners. We respectfully, however, observe that the entire structure of the Bill grossly offends particularly section 1 (3), 6, 17, 22 and Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and other extant laws mentioned above. Flowing from the aforementioned distilled issues, we humbly make the following prayers honestly and in good conscience:

1. We most humbly request that the Bill be withdrawn forthwith, Sir. This is owing to the fact that the entire sections of the Bill are offensive and contradicts the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which includes particularly sections 1 (3), 6, 17, 22 and the entire Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999  (as amended), and other extant laws mentioned in this document.

• We humbly request that the National Assembly allow for the optimal utilization, compliance with and enforcement of the existing extant legislations on disease control in Nigeria. These include the Quarantine Act and the NCDC Act in conjunction with other legal and policy frameworks, which must fully drive the interventions and management of prevailing COVID-19 challenges. We implore you to setup a Study Team for taking notes and drawing lessons learned during the management of the crises before considering amendments and probable consolidated into a single document.

• We respectfully request that the National Assembly should prevail on The Presidency to activate and constitute the Governing Board of NCDC. Thus allowing the NCDC to carry out the statutory duties and obligations enshrined in the enabling law.

• We most humbly request that the appropriate House Committee(s) conduct Oversight Review and Performance Audit of NCDC.

• In the circumstance, should you decide against withdrawing the Bill as we have thus pleaded, we humbly request that you slow down the legislative process to allow for wider consultations and the holding of the mandatory legislative public hearing, for the purposes of resolving all contending issues, to reflect the aspirations of citizens. This is so because the Bill itself has attracted a nation-wide disapproval.

• We kindly request that the Appropriate House Committees, particularly those on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Information and Humanitarian Responses should activate their oversight responsibilities to interrogate the issues and further strengthen our national early warning mechanisms, which includes taking timeous reasonable actions in the circumstances.

Rt. Honorable Speaker, in addition to the foregoing recommendations, in our view a much more endearing citizenry-friendly and a quick win, is for you to take advantage of withdrawing of the Bill to mobilize your colleagues for introducing:

• LEGISLATORS’ HOSPITAL ADOPTION INITIATIVE – whereby each member of the House of Representatives gets to adopt a public hospital in his/her constituency to provide a simple borehole, build and equip laboratory, amongst others.
• CONCERTED PUBLIC ENLIGHTENMENT AND AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS ON INFECTIOUS DISEASES – through which each member of the House of Representatives enlightens and create awareness in his/her constituency.

Once more, accept the assurances of our esteemed consideration and best regards.

Long Live a respected and citizens-friendly National Assembly.

Long Live a rule of law respecting Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Elder Ayokunle FAGBEMI

Executive Director, CePSERD

About CePSERD:

For the avoidance of doubts, CePSERD is a Nigerian non-governmental organization. We exist to facilitate the development of state – non-state actor partnership and understanding of the “peace – conflict – development nexus”. Our emphasis is on human security by contributing to the quest for peaceful, stable, strong and virile polity through our Governance, Democratic Sustenance and Public Policy (GDSPP) programming thrust. We draw attention of stakeholders and demand their proactive responses to mitigate and transform conflict issues often discovered to have their causative and/or exacerbating links with challenges of governance services delivery. That is, through acts of omission and commission linked to legal or policy initiatives and the conduct of government or political elites that are in breach of democratic structures or noncompliance with democratic processes and principles of rule of law. CePSERD supports and encourages cooperative responses, experience and information sharing; produces resource materials and develop mechanisms and frameworks for the emergence or sustenance of viable partnerships amongst stakeholders using preventive peace-building principles.

Elder Ayokunle FAGBEMI

Executive Director, CePSERD