As Nigeria continues to grapple with insecurity, social unrest, declining public trust in institutions, and growing moral debates, the Global Prolife Alliance (GPA), a coalition of religious, pro-life, and civil society advocates has identified five major laws and legislative proposals which they believe have contributed to what they describe as the nation’s “spiritual and constitutional crisis.“
The critics argue that these laws contain provisions capable of undermining human dignity, family values, religious freedom, national sovereignty, and public accountability. They are calling on lawmakers to urgently review, amend, or repeal the contested provisions.
- National Health Act 2014: Healthcare Reform or Gateway to Ethical Abuse?
At the center of the controversy is the National Health Act (NHAct) 2014. Critics contend that several provisions extend beyond healthcare regulation and introduce legal ambiguities concerning organ transplantation, tissue donation, foreign participation in healthcare management, and patient consent.
Particular attention has been drawn to Sections 48, 51, and 53.
According to critics, Section 51 permits transplantation procedures under circumstances that do not explicitly require written informed consent from donors. Section 48(1)(b) has also come under scrutiny because it permits waiver of consent in emergency situations, while critics argue that the term “emergency” is insufficiently defined and susceptible to broad interpretation.
Section 53 allows reimbursement of “reasonable costs” associated with tissue and blood donation. Opponents maintain that the phrase is vague and could create opportunities for the commercialization of human organs despite the Act’s prohibition on organ sales.
Further concerns involve Section 20 (emergency medical treatment), Section 58 (post-mortem examinations), Section 13 (Certificate of Standards requirements for health facilities), and Sections 43 and 45 (health workforce recruitment and dispute management).
Critics conclude that Sections 13, 20, 43, 45, 48, 51, 53, and 58 require urgent review to strengthen consent protections, prevent possible commercialization of human organs, and safeguard national interests.
- Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill: Equality Measure or Threat to Religious Traditions?
Another major flashpoint is the proposed Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill.
Opponents argue that the Bill effectively domesticates provisions of international instruments such as CEDAW and the Maputo Protocol without full constitutional domestication by the National Assembly.
Critics specifically point to Sections 2(a-c), 5, 7(b), 8, 15, 16, and 28, which they believe contain broad definitions of discrimination and equality that may affect religious institutions, customary offices, and traditional leadership structures.
Particular concern surrounds Section 15(b), which grants individuals the right to choose a spouse. Critics argue that the section does not expressly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman and therefore could invite alternative interpretations.
Sections 8(g), 10, and 15(e), dealing with reproductive health, reproductive choices, and child spacing, are also contested. Opponents argue that these provisions could be interpreted as recognizing abortion, contraception, assisted reproduction, and related practices.
Meanwhile, Sections 16, 18, and 28 have drawn criticism for their expansive definitions of discrimination, abuse, and violence. Critics fear these provisions could potentially affect religious preaching, parental authority, and traditional moral instruction.
The critics maintain that the Bill may alter long-standing religious and cultural institutions and should therefore be substantially revised before further legislative consideration.
- VAPP Law: Protection Against Violence or Expansion of Legal Ambiguity?
The Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) (VAPP) Law has likewise become a focal point of controversy.
Critics argue that the legislation contains broad definitions of “domestic relationship,” “marriage,” and “spouse,” which they believe are not sufficiently anchored to existing Nigerian legal definitions.
According to opponents, these provisions could create uncertainty regarding the legal status of civil unions and other non-traditional relationships.
Further objections target provisions dealing with “harmful traditional practices” and inheritance rights, which critics claim may affect traditional kingship institutions, emirates, sultanates, and certain religious succession systems.
The law’s definitions of “harassment,” “intimidation,” “sexual abuse,” “sexual violence,” and “sexual harassment” have also generated debate. Critics argue that these definitions are broad enough to potentially impact religious preaching, parental discipline, and moral instruction.
Additional concern surrounds the definition of “perpetrator,” which critics say may conflict with the constitutional presumption of innocence, as well as the law’s definition of “person,” which some opponents believe could weaken protections for unborn children.
Those calling for reform insist that the VAPP Law requires substantial amendment to eliminate legal ambiguities and protect constitutional freedoms.
- Surrogacy Bill: Medical Innovation or Exploitation Risk?
The proposed Surrogacy Bill has ignited intense debate among medical professionals, ethicists, religious leaders, and family advocates.
Critics argue that the Bill effectively legitimizes egg donation and ovarian egg harvesting while failing to provide adequate safeguards against medical complications associated with hormonal stimulation and egg retrieval.
They further contend that the Bill’s ban on commercial surrogacy is weakened by provisions allowing compensation for pregnancy-related expenses. According to opponents, insufficiently defined compensation mechanisms could permit commercial arrangements to masquerade as reimbursements.
Critics also fault the legislation for lacking mandatory psychological assessments, independent oversight mechanisms, and strong enforcement provisions.
Religious groups have voiced additional concerns. Christian critics argue that surrogacy separates procreation from the marital bond, while Islamic scholars have raised concerns regarding lineage (nasab), inheritance, and the sanctity of motherhood.
Opponents therefore urge lawmakers to reject the Bill or introduce major safeguards before its passage.
- NBMA Act 2015: Biotechnology Progress or Threat to National Sovereignty?
The National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA) Act 2015 has also become a subject of sustained criticism.
Opponents argue that the Act facilitates the approval, commercialization, importation, exportation, and distribution of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) without sufficiently robust independent oversight.
Critics highlight Section 2, particularly the definitions of “biotechnology,” “living organisms,” and “genetically modified organisms,” arguing that these provisions raise ethical concerns about biotechnology research and biological materials.
Sections 17, 18, 19, and 20, which address importation, commercialization, transit, and exportation of GMOs, are also contested. Critics argue that these sections permit activities that may expose Nigeria to inadequate risk assessment.
The strongest objections focus on Sections 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30. Critics contend that these provisions do not require sufficiently rigorous independent scientific testing prior to approval and may permit excessive reliance on data supplied by applicants.
Section 22 has also attracted criticism because it allows confidentiality of certain information, which opponents argue may reduce public access to important health and environmental data.
Some critics further warn that increasing dependence on patented GMO seeds could affect Nigeria’s food security, agricultural independence, and economic sovereignty.
The critics therefore call for stronger scientific oversight, greater transparency, and harmonization with existing food safety and environmental laws.
Global Prolife Alliance Issues Urgent Warning to Lawmakers
In a strongly worded statement, the Global Prolife Alliance warned that Nigeria stands at a critical crossroads. The organization argued that unless the National Assembly urgently reviews the contested provisions of the National Health Act 2014, the Gender and Equal Opportunities Bill, the VAPP Law, the proposed Surrogacy Bill, and the NBMA Act 2015, the nation risks deepening what it describes as a growing moral, constitutional, cultural, and security crisis. The Alliance called on the National Assembly to immediately commence public hearings and comprehensive legislative reviews of the disputed sections—including NHAct Sections 13, 20, 43, 45, 48, 51, 53 and 58; GEO Bill Sections 2(a-c), 5, 7(b), 8, 15, 16, 18 and 28; and NBMA Act Sections 2, 17-20, 22, 24-27 and 30—warning that failure to act swiftly could have far-reaching consequences for national unity, family stability, religious freedom, public trust, and Nigeria’s long-term sovereignty.
Signed electronically:
Academician Dr Philip C. Njemanze MD (Hons).
Chairman, Global Prolife Alliance (GPA).
