The African Democratic Congress (ADC) is urgently calling for clarification on the recently signed health cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Nigeria and the United States. This demand stems from starkly conflicting public descriptions of the agreement by both governments, raising significant concerns about transparency and potential constitutional implications. The ADC highlighted that while the Nigerian government has presented the MoU as a technical framework to strengthen health security and expand primary healthcare, statements from the United States introduce identity-based framing that may contravene Nigeria’s constitutional provisions on non-discrimination. This divergence in explanations necessitates a clear public disclosure of the actual terms agreed upon.
This situation is more than just a simple communication breakdown. The African Democratic Congress, in a statement released by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, emphasized the need for the federal government to immediately clarify the contents and implications of the health cooperation MoU. The party pointed out that official statements from the United States Embassy describe the agreement in materially different terms compared to Abuja’s public representation. This discrepancy is a primary driver behind the ADC’s call for transparency.
Featured snippet paragraph: The answer to whether the US-Nigeria health MoU is transparent lies in the conflicting reports. While Nigeria frames it as a technical health security framework, the US mentions identity-based targeting, raising concerns about constitutional compliance and national sovereignty, prompting the ADC to demand full disclosure.
The core of the ADC’s concern revolves around the potential for the agreement to breach Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to inclusion and national unity. The party finds it particularly troubling that certain conditionalities, such as the United States’ unilateral powers of termination, were not prominently featured in the federal government’s public account of the agreement. This omission suggests a possible attempt to circumvent public scrutiny.
According to Abdullahi, the divergence in how the MoU is presented is not merely a matter of communication but appears calculated to avoid thorough public examination. This raises fundamental questions about the transparency of the process, adherence to constitutional mandates, and the preservation of Nigeria’s national sovereignty. Nigerians have a right to know which version of the agreement accurately reflects the signed document and the reasons behind such significant differences in reporting.
The ADC has affirmed its support for foreign assistance and bilateral cooperation aimed at bolstering Nigeria’s healthcare system. However, the party strongly insists that such partnerships must unequivocally respect Nigeria’s diverse population and strictly adhere to constitutional provisions that prohibit discrimination based on religion or ethnicity.
Abdullahi specifically referenced Section 42(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which states that no citizen shall be discriminated against on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, or political opinion. Furthermore, Sections 15 and 17 impose a duty on the state to foster national integration, eradicate discrimination, and ensure equal rights and opportunities for all citizens. Therefore, any international agreement that introduces identity-based distinctions into the delivery of public services is a cause for serious constitutional and national cohesion concern.
The party expressed bewilderment as to why the Nigerian government would enter into an agreement where Nigeria reportedly commits more financial resources. The MoU indicates that the United States is expected to provide approximately two billion dollars in grant support over five years, while Nigeria has committed close to three billion dollars in domestic health financing during the same period.
It is difficult to rationalize an arrangement where Nigeria bears a greater financial burden, yet key decisions regarding target beneficiaries and the discretion to pause or terminate cooperation seem to lie outside the country’s control. Healthcare is a fundamental public good that should remain neutral, inclusive, and universally accessible to all.
The injection of identity considerations into health financing or performance assessments linked to security risks the politicization of care delivery. This could erode public trust and expose already vulnerable institutions and healthcare workers to unnecessary tension and potential danger.
Therefore, the ADC implores the federal government to adopt a policy of full disclosure by publishing the complete text of the signed MoU, including any annexes or associated instruments. Additionally, a clear explanation is required regarding whether the identity-based and security-linked elements mentioned by the United States are indeed part of the agreement Nigeria officially signed, or if they represent merely foreign policy interpretations.
Nigerians also deserve a comprehensive explanation detailing how this agreement aligns with the Constitution and effectively safeguards Nigeria’s sovereign authority over its public policy decisions. The transparency surrounding this MoU is crucial for maintaining public confidence and ensuring national interests are paramount.
