The Nigerian National Assembly may be capitalising on the outburst of coronavirus to undertake a legislation that would tremendously subvert the rights and freedoms of citizens in the country in managing health crisis at personal and community levels. Accordingly, the Ninth National Assembly which has become renown for increasingly unpopular since inauguration, in legislating on “A BILL FOR AN ACT TO REPEAL THE QUARANTINE ACT AND ENACT THE CONTROL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES ACT, MAKE PROVISIONS RELATING TO QUARANTINE AND MAKE REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING THE INTRODUCTION INTO AND SPREAD IN NIGERIA OF DANGEROUS INFECTIOUS DISEASES, AND FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS,” may be creating a super human in the NCDC Director General who will trample on the fundamental rights of Nigerians under the pretense of enforcing infectious disease control. This bill, in its framework, is contradictory to the empirical behavioural of the Nigerian government. The federal government does not seem to be primarily concerned about the welfare Nigerian citizens. Thus, such a bill at best appears to be suppressive of democratic values of fundamental human rights, rule of law, social justice, and equity that democracy provides.
Inherent controversies
The provision of the Act concentrates power on the Director-General of Nigerian Centre for Disease Control to superintend the administration of the Act.
Section 1(1) empowers the Director General delegate powers an appointed public officer, officer of any statutory body; or employee of a prescribed institution, as Health Officer for the enforcement of the Act.
However, transparency of exercise of such is in question vis-à-vis ensuring fairness to affected stakeholders.
Part II section 11 empowers an authorised person or a police officer under subsection (8) to arrest any person considered not to comply with an order of restriction or dispersal of gathering without arrest warrant. Such power could give room to arbitrariness or abuse of powers, essentially, when the police has a history of extra judicial killings and public torture, humiliation or intimidation of citizens. Prudent exercise of powers under such law can hardly be guaranteed since the Act, itself, does not make provisions for remedies or redress.
Part II section 3, Public health surveillance programmes, etc. prescribes in subsection (6) “For the purpose of any public health surveillance programme, epidemiological investigation or survey under subsection (1), the Director General may require any person —
(a.) to furnish the Director General, within or at the times and in the form or manner the Director General specifies, with any of the following:
(i) any information (known to the person at those times);
(ii) any sample of any substance or matter in the possession or control of that person at those times, whether obtained under this Act or otherwise; and
(b.) to submit to a medical examination at the times the Director General specifies.
(1) If a person who is required by the Director General under subsection (2) to furnish any information or sample, or to submit to any medical examination, fails, without reasonable excuse, to do so, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) The Director General may send any sample obtained under subsection (2)(a)(ii) for such test, examination or analysis as he may consider necessary or expedient.” Such prescription undermines the privacy rights of citizens in all its ramifications.
Subsection 15 Closure and disinfection of premises prescribes that
(1) If the Director General has reason to believe that there exist on any premises conditions that are likely to lead to the outbreak or spread of any infectious disease, he may, by written notice —
(a.) order the closure of the premises for a period not exceeding 14 days; or
(b.) prohibit the sale or distribution of food or water in the premises for such period as may be specified in the notice, and may require the owner or occupier of the premises to —
(i) cleanse or disinfect the premises in the manner and within the time specified in the notice; or
(ii) carry out such additional measures as the Director may require in the manner and within the time specified in the notice.
(2) A notice under subsection (1)(a) directing the owner or the occupier of the premises to close the premises may be renewed by the Director General from time to time for such period, not exceeding 14 days, as the Director General may, by written notice, specify.
(3) Subject to subsection (7), any person who fails to comply with a notice given to him by the Director General under subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) When any premises have been ordered to be closed under subsection (1)(a), any person who enters those premises without the permission of the Director General shall be guilty of an offence.
(5) Without prejudice to any proceedings under subsection (3), where a notice issued by the Director General under subsection (1) has not been complied with, a Health Officer or a police officer may, without warrant and with such force as may be necessary, enter the premises to which the notice relates and close the premises or take or cause to be taken such measures as have been specified in the notice.
This part of the legislation infringes on property rights, negates fair hearing or the rule of law in judicial adjudication.
The Minister of Health under the Act is merely a reference point and plays passive roles. The federal lawmakers who pretend to be representatives of the people eliminated the people as stakeholders in the control process. Apparently, citizens have no say in the process but absorb whatever the NCDC DG decides.
The President in the earlier part of the Act is empowered to usurp the powers of the governors of the 36 states of the federation.