Nigerians renew rejection of controversial Infectious Disease Control Bill as Reps hold public hearing

Nigerans have renewed rejection and opposition to the control Infectious Diseases Control Bill ahead of the public hearing being convened by the House of Representatives. Curiously, the contentious issues spotted by various stakeholders rejecting or opposing the bill are the same. However, the federal lawmakers have remained adamant in seeing the bill passed after momentary halt following vehement opposition from civil society.

Several contentious issues were identified in several sections of the proposed law which include breaches in the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens, conceding excessive powers to the Director General of the Nigerian Centre for Diseases Control (NCDC), subversion of the federal system and usurpation of the powers of governors, arbitrary use of powers; and pressures to use the inherent powers of the proposed law for political victimization, coercive vaccination and arbitrary extraction of information which breaches right to privacy, among others.

Stakeholders pointed out that the controversial bill has its origin as well as 97 per cent content derived from the Singaporean Infectious Disease Act, 1977. They further contested the circumstance or ecology of the bill in Singapore which was introduced and enforce by the dictatorial leader, Lee Kuan Yew, under a tyrannical one-party socialist State. The stakeholders contended that enacting such law in a democratic regime in Nigeria is an absurdity and draconian.

The controversial Bill was detected to contain notable constitutional and statutory contradictions, as certain sections of the Bill were identified to conflict with existing laws and the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.

The bill subverts the federal structure in Nigeria, usurping the powers of state governments while health is in the concurrent legislative list in the 1999 Constitution.

“State Governors have no role and are merely at the mercy of the DG, NCDC and the Minister of Health. This is abnormal and would be counterproductive,” a stakeholder had declared.

Some other stakeholders protested that the controversial infectious disease control bill destroys the rights of Nigerian citizens as prescribed in Chapter 4 of the Constitution providing for Fundamental Human Rights; including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Right (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004: The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights, 1948 and International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, 1976. Nigeria had ratified these international treaties and domesticated them as national laws.

It has been argued that the provisions of Section 6 of the Bill can be abused by ambitious leadership. “Section 6   provides for compulsory testing based on mere suspicion by the DG, NCDC. Failure to test, attracts legal sanctions, including conviction.” More so, citizens under this provision have been exposed to coercive test even when they are immune to the infection. The practice breaches the right to freedom of conscience inherent in Section 38 of the 1999 Constitution.

Furthermore, it has been contested that Section 7 of the Bill empowers the DG of NCDC to order a post-mortem test, based on suspicion. such discretionary powers are considered dangerous to victims which are denied the right to make decisions on the deceased.

Some stakeholders also argued that “Section 8 of the Bill removes the fiduciary relationship (the duty of confidentiality) between patients and their personal Physicians on mere suspicion.” They observed that “the Nigerian Health Act still protects this relationship and is, therefore, in conflict with this Bill.” They further argued: “a citizen can be subjected to inhumane treatment and denied his right to privacy by publishing his/her medical history without his/her consent and refusal is a crime.”

It was also contested that Section 12 of the Bill empowers the DG on mere suspicion to stop a wake keep and prohibit the burial of a deceased by his/her family. Section 12 had been identified to violate Sections 34 and 38 of the Constitution on the Citizens’ Right to Human Dignity and Right to Thought, Conscience and Religion.

Generally, burial rites conform with cultural or religious beliefs.

Another detected arbitrary power is Section 13 which empowers the NCDC DG to on mere suspicion detain a citizen as long as he wishes without an order of a competent Court of law; the bill further exonerate the DG from legal liability, he cannot be sued even when errors are detected in his decision.

Other contents of arbitrary powers include: Section 14 which gives power to the DG to place a citizen under surveillance on mere suspicion. This has been identified to contravene S.37 of the Constitution (Right to private and family life).

Also, Section 15 of the Bill empowers the DG to issue a notice to take over a citizen’s property and declare it an isolation center without the consent and permission of the owner. The provision contradicts Section 44 of the Constitution (Right against compulsory acquisition of property).

Some stakeholders argued that the section conflicts with the right of Governors under the Land Use Act in controlling lands in their states.

Other contentious sections include Sections 46 and 47 of the Bill which provide for compulsory vaccination of children and adults with some specified vaccines.

The Pfizer experience in Kano where vaccines became counter-productive, killing children was cited as reason to strongly oppose compulsory vaccination.

In addition to other contentions, there are indications that if the federal lawmakers impose the infectious disease control bill on Nigerians, the emergent law may encounter legitimacy crisis, as well as judicial screening validity. The vehement opposition to the controversial bill has continued even ahead of the public hearing in Abuja.