Sponsored by Speaker Femi Gbajabiamila and two others, the Control of Infectious Diseases Bill was presented to the House of Representatives for passage on April 28, 2020 when the House resumed plenary.
It aims at empowering the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control (NCDC) and making it more proactive during outbreak of diseases.
It will also empower the president, the minister of health, the director-general of the NCDC and the various institutions to regulate on quarantining, vaccination and prevention of infectious diseases in the country.
It scaled the second reading before it was stood down.
Many Nigerians have, however, criticised the move, and the controversy about what the bill entails has generated a heavy outcry against it.
While some members supported the bill, others called for the amendment of most of its sections, which they argued, appeared draconian and may create more problems than it is intended to solve.
One of the most contentious issues raised is the alleged unlimited powers given to the director-general of the NCDC, the police and other organs.
Another issue is the compulsory subjection of Nigerians to vaccination by the NCDC, and failure to provide evidence of vaccination could result in suspension of foreign travels.
According to the opponents, the bill grossly undermines human rights and personal liberty of Nigerians as guaranteed in the constitution.
Others expressed surprise at the speed at which the bill was put forward for an accelerated passage without proper knowledge of its content as many members of the House of Representatives did not get a copy of the bill during the sitting.
More criticisms
Outside the parliament, various groups and individuals have seriously criticised the bill. They argued that while it looks impressive in its title looking at the current situation when the COVID-19 pandamic is raging, a closer scrutiny of the bill reveals a drive towards a catastrophic policy, which, if allowed, would create a crisis that can better be imagined.
According to the critics, the “Infectious Diseases Prevention Bill 2020” is supposed to provide a streamlined approach for Nigeria through an improved legal framework to address matters regarding infectious disease outbreaks like the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, but rather tries to complicate issues.
The first knock received by the bill outside was the allegation that it is almost a wholesale lifting of the “Infectious Diseases Act” enacted by Singapore in 1977.”
The main crux of the alleged flaws contained in the bill is the powers given to the NCDC director-general.
It is believed that the bill, if passed, would make the NCDC director-general and the minister of health powerful “dictators” with unlimited powers that would infringe on people’s rights.
Controversial sections
Most of the critics pointed out that sections 7 and 12 give powers to the NCDC director-general to conduct autopsy on corpses of people who died of suspicious symptoms and must be properly disposed of in a way as not to endanger public safety.
According to critics, the provision gives an avenue for a clash, looking at the diversity of cultures in the country, as some people are averse to autopsy, especially with regard to mostly religious, rather than cultural beliefs.
Citing the present situation in Kano State, it is believed that corpses of people who died of symptoms similar to COVID-19 are being hurriedly buried without autopsy due to the religious injunction of burying the dead almost immediately.
They said the bill may, therefore, clash with the provisions of the Shari’ah law regarding interment and disposal of dead bodies through Islamic rituals.
Section 15 of the bill is also believed to be problematic as it empowers the Minister of Health to infringe on the rights of Nigerians in the midst of a pandemic like the COVID-19 or an epidemic in the country.
The section states: “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.”
The declaration, according to observers, did not take into cognizance the various rights to movement, association and other rights of Nigerians guaranteed in the nation’s constitution.
It further states: “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 authorised in writing on that behalf by the director-general.”
The bill, therefore, empowers law enforcement agents to arrest and detain without any proof of guilt, which negates the rights of Nigerians to fair hearing and their assumed innocence until proven guilty.
More controversial is the provision in the same section that: “A health officer or police officer may take any action that is necessary to give effect to an order under subsection (3).”
Section 20 is also believed to infringe on the rights of Nigerians to free association through a clause that empowers the NCDC director-general to, at his discretion, “prevent any kind of meeting that will “increase the spread of an infectious disease.”
Section 24 also empowers police officers to “apprehend and take” in any public location, “anyone” who is “suffering from an infectious disease.”
The section implies that anyone stands to be arrested on suspicion of “having an infectious disease by police officers, who are not trained medical personnel to make the judgement on who has an “infectious disease”.
A clause in Section 55 subsection (e) requires that the director-general has the power to request “any person to provide any book, document, correspondence or information requested,” which alleges that the bill will provide a legal basis to silent journalists and whistle-blowers against going public with information.
Section 58 also empowers “any police officer to arrest anyone without a warrant, as long as “he has reason to believe,” while Section 71 exempts the director-general, the police and paramilitary forces from being held accountable for their use of powers to enforce the provisions of the bill.
It reads: “No liability shall lie personally against the director-general, any health officer, any port health officer, any police officer or any authorised person who, acting in good faith and with reasonable care, does or omits to do anything in the execution or purported execution of this Act.”
The Senate’s own bill
Amid the controversy trailing the bill, the Senate also introduced “Protection against Infectious Diseases Bill 2020.”
The bill, sponsored by Senator Chukwuka Utazi, the chairman, Senate Committee on Primary Health and Communicable Diseases, was co-sponsored by 101 others.
It seeks to repeal the Quarantine Act and enact the Protection Against Infectious Diseases Bill, make provisions relating to quarantine and make regulations for preventing the introduction into and spread in Nigeria of dangerous infectious diseases.
The proposed legislation passed first reading on the floor of the Senate, one week after the introduction of House of Representatives bill.
The Senate’s version has six parts and 79 clauses and also contains many controversial sections similar to that of the House.
It also seeks, among others, to convert any property to an isolation centre, as well as compulsory vaccination of children against infectious diseases.
Section 15 (1) of the bill reads: “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.’’
Subsection 2 reads, “A notification under subsection (1) shall be effective until the expiration of such period as may be specified in the notification, which shall not exceed a period of 21 days unless renewed, or until it is revoked by the minister, whichever occurs first.”
Abatement of overcrowding and closure of premises
Section 16 seeks to abate overcrowding. It reads, “If, in the opinion of the director-general, a building is so overcrowded as to expose the occupants thereof to the risk of infection by an infectious disease, he may, by written notice, direct the owner or occupier of the building to abate the overcrowding within the time specified in the notice.”
Section 17(1) empowers the director-general to order closure of premises with conditions likely to cause outbreak of infectious diseases.
Compulsory vaccination
The bill also stipulates mandatory vaccination of children after birth.
Section 45 (1) states, “The parent or guardian of every child in Nigeria shall ensure that the child is vaccinated against the diseases set out in the Fourth Schedule.
Section 22 provides that, “A designated health officer may cause to be placed any mark on or about a premises in which any case of infectious disease has occurred for the purpose of denoting the occurrence of such disease, and may keep such mark affixed for a period of 14 days, and any person removing or obliterating any such mark without the authority of a health officer commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine of N100,000 or community service as may be the determined by the magistrate.
Section 60 (2) imposes a fine not exceeding N500,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both on any person who willfully neglects or refuses to carry out or obstructs the execution of any emergency measure for the control of an infectious disease.
Lawmakers react
When the Senate’s “National Health Emergency Bill, 2020” was read for the first time during plenary on Tuesday, Senator Ike Ekweremadu (Enugu West), requested for its draft copy, while recalling the controversy that trailed the House bill and cautioning against treading same route.
Senate President Ahmad Lawan directed that copies of the bill be distributed to all senators, and ruled that the second reading be taken on next legislative day.
Reacting to the section of the bill that empowers the health minister to declare any property as an isolation centre, Senator Adamu Aliero (APC, Kebbi) said, “Conversion of a private property compulsorily by government for any purpose is not acceptable in a democratic set up. The consent of the owner has to be obtained.”
The sponsor of the bill, Senator Utazi, said the proposed legislation was to address the issue of global health crisis.
He said, “In Nigeria, we are making efforts to ensure that we have a law that will guide how we handle the issue.
“There are so many things that are not covered under the Quarantine Act. These are the things that are troubling the country today.
“The bill is to amend the Quarantine Act and to take care of all the issues that have to do with the management of the pandemic.
“In doing that, we want to ensure that instead of having a fire brigade approach of solving a problem of this nature, we have a law that can handle all that. We want to put everything under a law to address health issues.”
At the resumed sitting on April 5, Speaker Gbajabiamila faulted most of the criticisms that followed his bill.
He noted that since the last plenary on April 28, there had been a barrage of criticisms and accusations, including allegations that the proposed bill is a product of inducement by foreign interests.
Gbajabiamila insisted that none of the allegations was true.
“This House of Representatives will never take any action that purposes to bring harm to any Nigerian here at home or abroad. As we have thus far shown by our conduct, the resolutions and actions we take in this 9th House of Representatives will always be in the best interests of the Nigerian people who elected us, and no one else,” he said.
Speaker bows to pressure
After stepping down of the bill for the second time, the Speaker agreed to take the controversial bill through a public hearing, where stakeholders’ contributions would be sought to make improvements to the bill before it is reviewed and debated by the committee of the whole.
“It is from the accumulation of these myriad views, suggestions and good faith critiques from within and outside the House that we will arrive at final legislation that meets the present and future needs of our country, and which we all can support in good conscience,” he said.
He, however, noted that the public hearings may be conducted in line with the current COVID-19 guidelines being followed in the country as required by the situation on ground.
‘A military decree, in whose interest?’
A member of the House who preferred not to be named, urged the Speaker to withdraw his bill.
He advised the Speaker to consult more widely with critical stakeholders, including the Nigerian Governors Forum and health sector professionals and come up with a draft that will better serve public interest when this pandemic has been dealt with.
“If he doesn’t do that and continues his desperation to foist on Nigerians a bill that appears more like a military decree, questions will continue to be asked regarding whose interest he seeks to promote or protect.
“Other areas to look at include the need for robust and well-funded research for herbal solutions into a number of these diseases, and a total revamp of the health infrastructure,’’ the lawmaker said.
Lawyers react
Many legal practitioners have also reacted to the proposed bills.
Prof. Yemi Akinseye-George, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), said the provisions of the bill, which may give rise to inter-agency conflicts and abuse of power and undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights and the rule of law and Nigeria’s international human rights obligations, must be pruned out.
“The National Assembly should refrain from vesting powers beyond the constitutional limit of institutions. We must avoid the temptation of vesting absolute powers in public officials as this could be abused and misused to undermine constitutionally guaranteed rights. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he said.
Akinseye-George, the president of the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, added, “Laws are made for the people and not the other way round. Therefore, any law that fails to protect the human rights of the people as guaranteed in the constitution and international human rights instruments must not stand now or later. Such will be struck down by the courts at the earliest opportunity.”
He said it was noteworthy that the House of Reps had succumbed to the public demand for a public hearing of the bill, adding that his Centre would offer free technical assistance to the National Assembly to review the bill and ensure compliance with human rights and global best practices.
A lecturer in Baze University, Abuja, Dr. Sam Amadi, said a public hearing on the bill after much criticism would still not address the defects.
“This is not a good time for a useful public hearing. The attention and rigor of public analysis required cannot be gotten at this time,’’ he said
“The National Assembly is fond of enacting laws without proper legislative research. It does not have the capacity to do such research, and oftentimes in Nigeria, public hearing is just routine and perfunctory. The report gets written by people who have no real expertise.
“We need to shelve this for now until we can subject it to real social science and public policy analysis, starting with a rigorous review by the NCDC and other professional groups in health and law,” he said.
Amadi, a senior lawyer and former executive chairman and chief executive of the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC), said this is not the right time for “such far-reaching law.”
“Usually, you wait until after the pandemic so the lessons we learn will be some of the inputs for reshaping the legal regime of disease control. Such laws are made before or after, not during a pandemic.
“More important, it was very wrong to draft and present such bill without the prior review of the NCDC, which is the agency with the statutory responsibility for disease control,” he added.
Also speaking, the deputy director of the Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP), Kolawole Oluwadare, a lawyer, said the bill has no place in a democracy.
CAN, CSOs react
The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) and several Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) have reacted to the proposed House bill.
General secretary of the CAN, Joseph Bade Daramola, a lawyer, said the bill should not be allowed to become law as it was initiated to destroy the civil and human rights of Nigerians and prevent them from having a say in their own affairs through the hasty and speedy way by which the House is trying to make it a law.
He advised the leadership and members of the House not to pass the “controversial and obnoxious bill” into law in the overall interest of Nigerians.
Also, a coalition of 39 prominent CSOs, on Monday said the bill was draconian and capable of worsening the effects of the COVID-19 in the country.
On Thursday, the CSOs rose to 69 after 30 new others joined the initial 39 to comment on the update of the bill.
In their new statement, they commended the decision of the Reps to subject the bill to a public hearing.
According to them, the decision, as announced by the Speaker and sponsor of the bill, Femi Gbajabiamila, is an acknowledgment of the sincere concerns generated by the bill.
“It is pertinent to implore that the review of legislative process formats must adhere to the principles of transparency, accessibility, inclusivity and clarity to ensure the robust public participation of citizens,” they said.
They also demanded that the Reps communicate a practical schedule for public engagement on the bill, host a virtual and physical public hearing, engage in multi-layered stakeholder consultations and intensify publicity on the bill, among others.
They added, “Considering the sensitivity of the Control of Infectious Diseases Bill, we cannot afford a rushed or haphazard process. It is important that the National Assembly prioritises and invests in building public trust and confidence to limit the spread of disinformation or misinformation on the bill.”
Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.
