MEMORANDUM CONTROL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES BILL 2020 (HB. 836) “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 INT

INTRODUCTION

The Center for Peace building and Socio – Economic Resources Development (CePSERD), wishes to appreciate Rt. Hon. Femi GBAJABIAMILA and the entire House of Representatives for convening this

Public Hearing, which was part of our request in our correspondence of May 02, 2020 titled

EXPRESSION OF RESERVATIONS AND CAUTIONARY NOTE ON YOU’RE SPONSORED

CONTROL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES BILL 2020. Thus, in submitting this Memorandum for the Public Hearing, we shall reaffirm the positions expressed in the said 15-page document, pleading it as substantive component of our submission. We herein provided it as our Appendix 1.

In that submission, we drew attention to some concerns which may portend unintended consequences should the Federal House of Representatives proceed with this Bill as is and in this haste. Then, we emphatically stressed that the concerns include, but are not limited to issues pertaining:

a. National Interests and Security;

b. Continued Abuse and Breach of Legal and Policy Frameworks (bordering on seeming impunity and disregard for statutes);

c. Abrogation of Governance Services Systems and Administrative Procedures;

d. Undermining of Principles of Fundamental Human Rights, Participatory Democracy and

Multiple Stakeholders Engagement;

e. Counterproductive Legislation that may further jeopardize national cohesion, productivity, negate our quest towards Integrated National Development and Growth, particularly as encapsulated in the National Economic Recovery Growth Plan of the current Federal

Government of Nigeria, along with the expectations of the Sustainable Developmental Goals; and

f. Deliberate Erosion of some Fundamental Human Rights of Citizens of the Nigerian-State.

Therefore, in this Memorandum, we shall seek to better articulate our considerations to make it explicit for posterity that we cautioned the Nigerian-state concerning this “obnoxious Bill” should some of the early warning indicators of dangers we foresaw start occurring.

OVERVIEW OF CONCERNS AND OBSERVATIONS

Our motivations for making the concerted efforts to restrain the National Assembly (NASS) from passing this legislation emanates from our core principles and values of existence. CePSERD as an organization exist to facilitate the development of state – non-state actor partnership and understanding of the “peace – conflict – development nexus”. Our emphasis is on human security by contributing to the quest for peaceful, stable, strong and virile polity through our Governance, Democratic Sustenance and Public Policy (GDSPP) programming thrust. We draw attention of stakeholders and demand their proactive responses to mitigate and transform conflict issues often discovered to have their causative and/or exacerbating links with challenges of governance services delivery. CePSERD’s commitment is to Preventive Peace building through the provision of early warning for proactive early responses. From our analyses of issues now in public domain concerning the Bill and juxtaposing them with current sociopolitical realities we now have in place the required trigger for strained intra governance systems services delivery frameworks. The Bill indeed, is a cesspool of issues that will trigger recourse to self-help, public disorder and protest marches that can easily turn violent. This because the trend of citizenry anguish or pains due prevailing poverty, insecurity and poor governance services delivery and/or failure of over the years, we are convinced that, the enforcement of some portions of this Bill shall and not may trigger and exacerbate sociopolitical tensions; causing protest marches and agitations that may further weaken the already fragile Nigerian-state.

In concrete terms, the overview of our early warning concerns and observations are: a. Supra Constitutional Legislation Undermining the 1999 Constitution: the Bill is in complete violation of the supremacy of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended. It is in contravention of Section1 (1) and (3) of the Constitution stating:

This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria... (3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

The observed contravention of this Bill is further in violation of landmark judicial pronouncements on similar issues as in the case of Governor, Ekiti State vs. Olubunmo (2017)

b. Usurpation of Constitutional Authority Declaring Some Irrelevant: Once passed into law, the D-G, NCDC shall assume the rights, duties and privileges of “Sole Administrator” of Nigeria; s/he shall have powers over the President, NASS and Judiciary. For example, the D-G, NCDC can summarily direct for the violation through forceful entry into or even declare the

National Assembly Complex unfit for human use and proclaim closure of legislative businesses, thus, suspending or abolishing the functioning of the entire legislature. That is, based on the provisions of and/or in exercising the powers pursuant to the Bill, but not limited to Sections: S.2(1) (2), S.3(8), S.4(1) (2), S.5, S.6(3), S.8(1)(a) (4), S.10(1) (3) (4), S.12(1), S.13(1) (5), 16(1) (4) (5), S.17(1) (2) (4) (5) (6) (8), S.18(4), S.19, S.20(1)(3), S.24, S.27, S.38, S.47  S.57(1)(2)(4)(6), S.63(1)(b), S. 71, S.74. Thus, NASS shall become a victim of its own creation!

c. Undermining the Principles of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers: This particularly against the Nigerian Judiciary, manifesting in many “Ouster Clauses against the Courts”. The Bill created a D-G, NCDC that can even act in extrajudicial capacities against any Nigerian including any other serving public officers without exception. Whereas, Sections 15 and 20 (5) of the Bill confers obnoxious power on the D-G, NCDC presumably with some form of moderating roles given to the Minister of Health. Section, that is, by stating: “Any person who is aggrieved by any order of the Director-General under subsection (1) may, within 7 days from the date of the order, appeal to the Minister whose decision shall be final. What happened to the jurisdiction of law courts in Nigeria as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution? Section 8(4) exhibits the Bill’s defiance of rule of law; empowering the D-G to obtain information provocatively and in usurpation of the powers of the Judiciary beyond what even the security and intelligence agencies currently enjoy. Such a power cannot and should not be allowed under a democratic dispensation as provided in section 6 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) and upheld by the Court in Edet v. Mathias (2009) ALL Citizens, corporate and individuals shall besiege the courts with plethora of litigations as in: Okereke v. Yar’adua (2008) ALL FWLR (Pt. 430) pg. 625. In addition, Section 24 of the Bill is a license for indiscriminate and extrajudicial destruction of properties owned by citizens in the execution of “the Order to destroy any building in which a case of infectious disease has occurred” without recourse to court orders. To the best of our knowledge there are known procedures for decontamination, disinfection and reuse of facilities including hospitals! Why is the legislation feigning ignorance of such renowned international standards and procedures by endorsing “illegal” destruction of properties?

d. Enhancement of Unitary Control in a Federal System: Contrary to the 1999 Constitution and in violation of the National Health Act (2014) and National Health Policy (2016), the Bill seeks to promulgate by default “Unitary System for Nigeria”. The Bill cleverly abolishes all the 1999 Constitutional Rights and Privileges of States of the Federation and as enshrined in other Laws of the Federation of Nigeria. For example, the National Health Act makes provision in its Section

5 for the existence of National Health Council demanding the membership of States in formulating health policies in Nigeria. This Bill has unwittingly declared the Health Council irrelevant and usurped all its powers. Furthermore, the Bill as a purveyor for regulating “public health emergency” failed to assign roles to Nigeria’s subnational levels by not recalling the existence and provisions of the National Emergency Management Act or exiting regulations based on it. This is contrary to what should operate in any participatory democracy where the idea is “Whole of Governments” and “Whole of Society”. In addition, the Bill has further empowered a public officer of Nigeria’s central government to deploy and utilize the police without respecting the 1999 Constitutional provisions in Section 153 (1) (L) and 216. This is seeking to abrogate Section 216 of the Constitution, which expects the Nigeria Police Council to determine the “conditions as it may think fit, delegate any of the powers conferred upon it by this Constitution to any of its members or to the Inspector-General of Police or any other member of the Nigeria Police Force”. If the Bill survives, as it presently is, then D-G, NCDC can utilize the police without a properly convened meeting of the Nigeria Police Council that a Nigerian

President can and must only execute in concert with all state governors or those of the affected sates as the case may be. e. Deceitful Amendment of 1999 Constitution: With the multiple empowering of the D-G,

NCDC in the Bill to abrogate the rights of citizens, it has declared irrelevant in Nigeria the ratified 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. Therefore, the Bill has indirectly concluded an amendment of the 1999 Constitution providing specifically for the complete deletion of the entire Chapter IV of the Constitution, taking away virtually all fundamental rights granted to citizens.

f. Contradicts and Violates National Health Act (2014), Other Existing Legal, and Policy

Frameworks: The Bill is a classical representation of how not to make laws in the same sector, to wit, the Health Sector. It usurps authorities already established by NASS for the Health Sector in the Health Act (2014) and the established operational principles and guidelines of the National

Health Policy (2016). The provisions of the Bill equally run contrary to and in violation of other existing legal and policy frameworks. The other legal and policy frameworks of concerns include but are not limited to:

Administration of Criminal Justice Act (2015)

Environmental Health Officers (Registration Etc.) Act 2002

Freedom of Information Act (2011)

Medical and Dental Practitioners Act Cap 221 (now Cap M8) Laws of Federation of

Nigeria, 1990

Medical Laboratory Science Council of Nigeria (MLSCN) Act 11 of 2003

National Building Code (NBC, 2006)

National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control [Decree No. 15 of 1993 as amended by Decree No. 19 of 1999 and now the Act Cap N1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004]

National Center for Disease Control (NCDC) Establishment Act No. 18 of 2018

National Counterterrorism Strategy (NACTEST) (2016)

National Cyber security Policy and Strategy (2014)

National Defense Policy (2017)

National Emergency Management Agency Act (No. 12 as amended by Act 50 of 1999);

National Health Act 2014;

National Health Policy (2016)

National Primary Health Care Development Agency (NPHCDA) Act (1992);

National Program on immunization Act, Cap. N.71, LFN 2004, Vol.9

National Security Agencies Act (1986 No. 19)

National Security Strategy (2019)

Nigeria Biosafety Act (2015);

Nigeria Institute of Medical Research (NIMR) [as established through the National

Science and Technology Act of 1977]

Nigeria Police Act (1967)

Nigeria Police Regulations 1968 (No. 53) (Chapter 359)

Nigeria’s Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 (amended Terrorism Prevention Amendment

Act 2013)

Official Secrets Act (1962)

g. Abrogation of Citizens’ Rights and Forced Vaccination: We are conscious of the probable applicability of Section 45 of the Constitution in legislating and for any incumbent government to seek to declare emergency, and in this case, public health emergency. However, we must submit and caution the Bill it is not in consonance with the expectations of Section 45 (2) and (3), requiring limited application of such an emergency proclamation or law expected to be for specific period determinate because it must be “during period of emergency” and not a law absolute and use beyond emergency or ordinary times. We submit that the House of Representatives has been ill advised concerning this Bill that abrogates citizens’ rights and proceeds further to legislate for forced vaccination in humans. Even God Almighty in creating man and providing mankind with laws still provided for freedom – free will and choice in deciding to accept or reject, to obey or disobey, and to conform or not. To all “divine laws God only provides informed enlightenment to govern man’s capacity for decisions making.

The clauses on forced vaccination is therefore anti-humanity!

h. Harbinger for Professional Turf Protection amongst Health Workers: The Bill is a brewing pot for professional conflicts and jurisdictional rivalry amongst stakeholders in the healthcare services delivery chain. The powers given to the D-G, NCDC is in breach of the professional oaths and ethical codes of conducts for medical practitioners, laboratory scientists amongst other health workers. The compliance with or enforcement to comply on the professionals in the face of Patients’ Right to Privacy and Confidentiality shall lead to multiple representation against practitioners before the (i) Nigerian Medical and Dental Council, and (ii) Medical Laboratory

Science Council of Nigeria, amongst others. The avoidance of such professional misconduct shall disinhibit medical workers willingness to provide professional services, which may lead to dysfunctional health services and higher morbidity in Nigeria.

SYNOPTIC APPRAISAL OF CLAUSES IN THE BILL

In this segment of our Memorandum, we further demonstrate how the House of Representatives unwittingly has now concentrated powers (that are subject to abuse) in the hands of the D-G, NCDC.

The powers entrusted to an individual are too onerous, dangerous and shall prove counterproductive for an individual. They appropriately belong to the National Health Council, terse, the Federal and State

Ministries of Health, State Governors and Local Government Chairmen for us to have a functional and viable Federal Republic of Nigeria. In clusters, we shall reflect on some sections and clauses of the Bill as follows:

1. Bill Title: The current title does not correlate with the arguments of the Rt. Hon. Speaker’s

Lead Presentation and the contents of the Bill under consideration. We suggest that it be rephrased to read:

A BILL FOR AN ACT TO REPEAL THE QUARANTINE ACT AND ENACT THE

DECLARATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY AND CONTROL OF

INFECTIOUS DISEASES ACT, 2020, TO MAKE PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE

PROCEDURES FOR DECLARATION OF PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY, QUARANTINE

OF INFECTED PERSONS AND MAKE REGULATIONS FOR PREVENTING THE

INTRODUCTION INTO AND SPREAD OF DANGEROUS INFECTIOUS DISEASES, IN

NIGERIA, AND FOR OTHER RELATED MATTERS

2. Administration and Concentration of Powers: The Bill, as earlier noted, has created a Supra-

Constitutional Director-General, NCDC that can only act without supervision that is, notwithstanding that, some clauses asked the Hon. Minister of Health to play some pedestrian roles that D-G, NCDC may respected. The phrasing of the Bill with open-ended omnibus expressions, which are probably authoritarian, empowers the D-G to act: (i) “where it appears to the Director General that...” (ii) Where in the opinion of the Director General...” (Iii) As the Director General may think fit...” and (IV) “where the Director General suspects that...”

These statutory wide ranging epidemiological investigation powers of the Bill are in direct conflict with the responsibilities of the Federal Ministry of Health, the Minister of Health and

National Council on Health provided for in S. 2(1)(a),(d),(f),(j),(m),(4), S. 5(1)(a) & (h) of the

National Health Act, 2014. For example, S. 5(1) of the Bill provides:

“The Director-General may from time to time, institute public health surveillance programmes or undertake epidemiological investigation or surveys of people, animals or vectors in order to determine the existence prevalence or incidence or to determine the likelihood of a possible outbreak of:

(a) any infectious disease or

(b  any other disease which the Minister, by notification in the Gazette, declares to be a disease to which this section applies”

By so providing, this provision directly contradicts S. 5(1) of the National Health Act, 2014 stating:

“The National Council, which shall be the highest policy making body in Nigeria on matters relating to health, shall:

(a)   have responsibility for the protection, promotion, improvement and maintenance of the health of the citizens of Nigeria, and the formulation of policies and prescription of measures necessary for achieving the responsibilities under this paragraph;

(b)   advise the government of the Federation on technical matters relating to the organization, delivery and distribution of health services;

(c)    issue and promote adherence to, norms and standards, and provide guidelines on health matters and any other matter that affects the health status of people”

Since the powers the Bill is seeking to confer on the D-G essentially are not restricted to emergency periods, then they must revert to the Minister of Health to give notice of an infectious disease pursuant the roles as Chairman of the National Council on Health. This shall conform to the following provisions of the National Health Act:- Section 2(1) The Federal Ministry of Health shall: “(a) ensure the development of national health policy and issue guidelines for its implementation;...

(f) Co-ordinate health and medical services delivery during national disasters;...

(j) ensure and promote the provision of Quarantine and Port Health Services”

Section 5(1) The National Council shall:

(h  facilitate and promote the provision of health services for the management, prevention and control of communicable and non-communicable diseases”

Concisely, therefore, permit us to suggest that, Section 1 of the Bill should read:

Administration of this Bill:

1. The Honorable Minister in-charge of Health acting in his/her capacity and consultative role as Chairman of National Health Council shall be responsible for the administration of this Bill. S/he shall receive technical expertise and support from the

Nigerian Centre for Disease Control led by the Chairman, Governing Board with the

Center’s technocratic team under the supervision of the Director-General. S/he shall provide appropriate and timely need-to-know information sharing, in an ongoing manner, with the leadership of appropriate Committees of the National Assembly as part of interface with and for legislative over sighting.

3. Violation of Constitutional Provisions: Examples of where the Bill violates the 1999

Constitution includes Sections 8(4), 17(7), 19(1), 20(5), 70 and 71. The only remedy is to withdraw the Bill because of inconsistencies with the 1999 Constitution.

4. Violation of Rights to Privacy, Confidentiality of Information and Breaching of Officials

Secrets Act: The Bill in Section 8 (4) is a complete violation of citizens’ rights to privacy and confidentiality of information pertaining to patients’ health and status that the current administration had pleaded severally to the advantage of President M. Buhari until date.

Painfully, and notwithstanding, the existence of Freedom of Information Act, which to some reasonable extent moderates the provision of Official Secrets Act (1962), the Bill has again demonstrated its totalitarian tiptoeing. That is by providing that:

 “Any healthcare professional shall comply with a requirement under subsection (1) (a) to transmit information to the Director-General notwithstanding any restriction on the disclosure of information imposed by any written law, rule of law, rule of professional conduct or contract; and he shall not by so doing be treated as being in breach of any such restriction notwithstanding anything to the contrary in that law, rule or contract”.

We conclude that the only remedy is to withdraw the Bill because of inconsistencies with the 1999 Constitution, Freedom of Information Act and the Official Secrets Act (1962).

5. Contradiction to Other Laws of the Federation of Nigeria and Subordination of the

Nigerian Police Force under the Control of D-G, NCDC: S. 57 of the Bill makes the Nigerian

Police Force subservient to the D-G, NCDC. This because it provides: “A police officer, or any

Health Officer authorized in writing in that behalf by the Director-General may arrest without warrant any person committing or who he has reason to believe has committed any offence under

S. 11(1), 20(2), 22(4) or 55(8)”. This is at cross-purposes with the existential objectives and principles of the Nigerian Police of receiving complaints or petitions alleging the commission of crimes and to effect arrests based on investigation. This subsection is allowing the D-G, NCDC to order the arrest of any person he suspects of committing an offence instead of reporting to the Police. That is usurping the responsibilities of the Inspector-General of Police and Police Cadre under S. 215 of the Constitution and SS. 309 and 325 of the Police Act 1968. The Police Force cannot have two Inspectors-General, one from within and another from without. That would be anarchy. Furthermore, we are constrained to urge NASS to refrain from committing class suicide with the Bill’s S. 62 providing for a squad of the Nigerian Police under the control and command of the Director-General. The section provides “The Inspector-General of Police shall provide Police assistance as maybe necessary to carry out any of the provisions of this Act”. This section mandates the Inspector-General with the word “shall” to “assist” the Director-General with a

Police detachment. This is dangerous. We agree that based on some of the assigned roles of the D-G, NCDC s/he shall require protection when executing his/her duties but s/he does not need any number of Policemen under his control as required in SS. 57 and 62 to carry out his assignment under the Act. These sections are liable to serious abuse! Kindly delete, please

6. Arbitrary Use of Power and Immunity of D-G, NCDC from Criminal Liability: In a tyrannical manner and in violation of Section 36 (1) of the 1999 Constitution the Bill in its Section 70 protects the Director-General and his subordinates from personal liability for trampling the people’s rights. The obnoxious section of the Bill provides “No liability shall lie personally against the Director-General, any Health Officer, any Police Officer or any authorized 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”.

7. Control of Infectious Diseases Not Bases for Generating Revenue: By virtue of Sections 10

(4), 11 (4), 12 (3), 17 (6), 18 (4) and 74 the D-G, NCDC shall collect fees. The control of infectious diseases is primarily not about revenue generation. It is a national service for the common good. It is a social service and technical as part of the social contracts of governments to the people of Nigeria. House of Representatives should avoid converting NCDC into a revenue generating institution.

8. Denial of Fairness in Hearing and Service of Documents: As an anti-citizens legislation, the

Bill in providing for the D-G, NCDC, in Sections 17 (8) and 18 (6), to go ahead with his/her action against the defaulter even when the Defaulter has appealed to the Minister, amounts to denial of right of fair hearing. That is, with the potentiality of D-G, NCDC destroying the Res for which an appeal is seeking remedy thus foreclosing a person’s fundamental right of seeking redress in the court of law. This is an abuse of the Principle of Separation of Powers in the sense that the Executive carries out an act and also decides on the legality of such an act; being a Judge in one’s cause (Nemo judex in causa sua). Furthermore, in Section 63 (b), the mode of delivery of service of documents from D-G, NCDC has not met the threshold for substituted services the law courts would allow for.

9. Age of Minor and Forced Vaccination: This Bill failed to recognize the 1999 Constitution and

Electoral Act in the definition of minor as a person below the age of 18 years or those of

Criminal and Penal Codes along with the Wills Act that prescribes for age of 17 years old. Thus, citizens particularly parents shall inundate the law courts on issues of consent by minors concerning forced vaccination.

CONCLUSION AND PRAYERS

Our considered opinion and conclusion is that this attempted legislation is a cesspool of trouble waiting to engulf the Nigerian-state. It should not proceed any further. Kindly withdraw the Bill now, please. We are again reiterating our plea as in our letter of May 02, 2020, PLEASE! We do this, based on Nigeria’s national interest and well-being, please. We must prevent constitutional logjams through incessant litigations and legal proceedings or creation of self- help initiatives, terse, breakdown in law and order that may further threaten Nigeria’s existence,national interest and security, because of probable agitations that may arise should the Bill pass and implementation commences, please. We cannot afford political crises in the midst of health security, economic security and food security challenges. The Nigerian-state cannot cope; the country is currently too fragile for such, PLEASE!

In reinforcing our Cautionary Note, should NASS proceed and pass this Bill at it is, then we serve you notice that citizens shall inundate the Courts with litigations that will eventually (hopefully) set the law aside or cause it to be inoperable. However, if the ongoing perceived authoritative totalitarianism in Nigeria has fully emasculated the judiciary, let it be known that citizens, like is currently trending globally shall resolve and pursue self-help initiatives starting with protest marches, etc. We therefore implore NASS to avoid wasted efforts, save Nigeria the sociopolitical tensions of these litigations and overburdening of the law courts for citizens to seek redress. We cannot afford the unimaginable recourse to self-help by citizens should the situation arise that the courts fail to entertain jurisdiction in deference for the law as couched.

Notwithstanding, our conclusion for the withdrawal of the Bill, we submit that the right way to proceed is for NASS provide leadership for stakeholders to develop Harmonized Regulations for the effective Proclamation and Declaration of Public Health Emergency in Nigeria based on the provisions of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and other extant laws of the federation.

To this end, the Declaration of Public Health Emergency and Public Health Emergency Zones shall only occur when:

(1)The President, based on submissions from the National Health Council and in correlation with actionable Security and Intelligence Reports or Valid

Alerts from National Early Warning Mechanisms, shall: a. Convene an Enlarged Meeting of the National Security Council; involving the participation of the appropriate Chairmen of Senate and House of Representatives Committees on Health and Health Institutions to receive

Advisory on the propriety of declaring Public Health Emergency

b. Consult with serving key members of the Council of State, as Standing

Committee of that Council of State, to wit, as provided for in Third

Schedule, Part I Section 5 (a), (b), (e), (f), representative of (g) as to the affected subnational level or the whole country and (h)

c. Convene a Meeting of the Nigeria Police Council to deliberate upon the probability and procedures for promulgation of “Policing and Law

Enforcement Deployment Provisions of Public Health Emergency

Declaration Order” which shall be issued pursuant to this Act

(2)It is after satisfactorily, without prejudice, complying with (1) that the

President can issue an Executive Order; proclaiming an outbreak or imminent outbreak of an infectious disease that poses a substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities or incidents of serious disability in Nigeria, for which s/he now orders and declare a public health emergency.

(3)The President may, pursuant to (2), once it appears necessary or expedient for the securing of public health or safety during a public health emergency, by order declare the whole of or such area in Nigeria to be a restricted zone and may in such order prohibit or restrict, subject to such conditions as s/he may think fit

(4)The National Health Council or Chairman-in-Council, pursuant to Section 5 of the National Health Act (2014) shall act based on consultative consideration of Early Warning Reports and Policy Briefs submitted from NCDC. The proactive responses shall include, subject to such conditions or restrictions, the authorization and designation of agencies as “Implementing Agency(ies) and/or appoint any public officer, officer of any statutory body or employee of a prescribed institution, to be a “Health Officer” for the purposes of this Bill or any particular provision of this Bill.

(5)(2) The National Health Council, the Chairman-in-Council, pursuant to

Section 5 of the National Health Act (2014) may, subject to such conditions or restrictions, delegate to any Health Officer, all or any of the powers conferred on him by this Bill

Elder Ayokunle FAGBEMI

Executive Director, CePSERD

APPENDIX 1

Center for Peacebuilding and Socio-Economic Resources Development

Reg. No.: CAC/IT/17457

OGADIMMA HOUSE,

Plot 79 Near Emmanuel Anglican Church,

Zone 6, Dutse-Alhaji, Abuja FCT, NIGERIA

Tel.: +234 (0) 805 083 0888

P. O. Box 3679, Abuja FCT 900001, NIGERIA.

E-mail: cepserd@gmail.com

Websites: www.cepserd.org, www.cepserd.7p.com

May 02, 2020

Rt. Hon. Femi Gbajabiamila

Honorable Speaker

Federal House of Representatives,

National Assembly,

Three Arms Zone,

Abuja Federal Capital Territory

EXPRESSION OF RESERVATIONS AND CAUTIONARY NOTE ON YOUR SPONSORED CONTROL OF

INFECTIOUS DISEASES BILL 2020

1. We acknowledge and commend your patriotic zeal and parliamentary excitement to provide legislative support to further reinforce and support the on-going momentum in the fight against novel COVID-19 in Nigeria through your sponsorship of the Infectious Diseases Bill 2020 presented on Tuesday, April 28, 2020. We observe the novelty in designing the Bill as “an Act to Repeal the Quarantine Act and Enact the Control of Infectious Diseases Act, make Provisions Relating to Quarantine, make Regulations for Preventing the Introduction into, and Spread in Nigeria of Dangerous Infectious

Diseases, and for Other Related Matters.”

2. In commending you and your colleagues, Representatives Pascal Obi and Tanko Sununu, et. al., for this novelty, painfully, Please allow us to outline some concerns which may portend unintended consequences should the Federal

House of Representatives proceed with this Bill as is and in this haste. The concerns include, but not limited to issues pertaining: o National Interests and Security; o Continued Abuse and Breach of Legal and Policy Frameworks (bordering on seeming impunity and disregard for statutes); o Abrogation of Governance Services Systems and Administrative Procedures; o Undermining of Principles of Fundamental Human Rights, Participatory Democracy and Multiple

Stakeholders Engagement; o Counterproductive Legislation that may further jeopardize national cohesion, productivity, negate our quest towards Integrated National Development and Growth, particularly as encapsulated in the National

Economic Recovery Growth Plan of the current Federal Government of Nigeria, along with the expectations of the Sustainable Developmental Goals; and o Deliberate Erosion of some Fundamental Human Rights of Citizens of the Nigerian-State.

3. Respectfully, Rt. Honourable Speaker, we are convinced that, as the Sponsor of the Bill, you may have been misled and wrongly advised that this Bill is the right course of action to take. We make this assertion knowing your antecedents as a legal practitioner, an avowed democrat, and a diligent representative of common good in favor of Nigerians. This Bill is neither citizen nor Nigerian friendly, thus, it does not reflect your identity and persona.

4. So, you can be rest assured, we are making our submissions against the foregoing background to reinforce your renowned leadership and commitment to excellence based on holistic approach to issues that come under your consideration. We ask that you further reconsider further hasty processing of this Bill and shift emphasis to brining

 and efficiency in our Healthcare and allied Medicare services based on existing legal and policy frameworks that are grossly underutilized, currently being misapplied and/or deliberately in exclusion of or pitching stakeholders against the other.

5. WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS UPON REFLECTING ON EXISTING KEY LEGAL AND POLICY

FRAMEWORKS: From media reportage (electronic, print and new media) of your Lead Debate presentation on the floor of the House of

Representatives on Tuesday, April 28, 2020 and our gleaning through the proposed Bill, we can deduce the following as our preliminary observations. We have opted to present our observations reflecting on existing key legal and policy frameworks to help capture our thoughts as highlighted below. For ease of comprehension, under each systematized thought, we have provided some suggestions(s) for your consideration.

6. Legal Status of National Center for Disease Control (NCDC) to Function: You were reported by the media to have marshalled the point that “NCDC had very little powers to carry out its mandate even though it is a body with great professionals” requiring that it should therefore be empowered “to make it more proactive and not just reactive and function when there is an outbreak”. Sir, a cursory look at the provisions of the NCDC Establishment Act No. 18 of 2018 suggests otherwise, please. This seventeen-month-old enabling law, which is obviously less than two years old, in our opinion covers the field extensively! In fact, the operators are yet to activate in full the provisions of the NCDC

Establishment Act.

7. A great example being the composition of the Governing Board for the NCDC as provided for in Part III, Section 5 of the Act. The specified functions of the Governing Board as per Section 9 are very explicit that should the “appointing authority” as provided for in the law had done the needful the NCDC as presently constituted should have achieved more.

8. We assert that the NCDC should have achieved more under the superintending control of the Governing Board as expected, because of the existence of these documents as obtained Thursday, April 30, 2020 on the official website

http://www.ncdc.gov.ng:

a.) IDEA TO REALITY: Strategy and Implementation Plan 2017 – 202.

b.) NCDC 2017 - 2021 Strategic Plan (May, 2018 Discussion Document) Revised Strategy.

c.) National Action Plan for Health Security, Federal Republic of Nigeria, 2018 – 2022.

9. The NCDC has not fully executed the laudable innovations and activities contained in these documents. They are behind self-identified schedules on many; requiring NASS Oversight Performance Audit!

10. Rt. Honorable Speaker, should you proceed with this Bill to become an Act, kindly note that you will have unwittingly relinquished the Oversight Responsibilities of the National Assembly (NASS) to ensure that Ministries,

Departments and Agencies (MDAs) function as per provisions of laws enacted by National Assembly. We make this submission against the backdrop of the fact that the NCDC enabling law came into effect in less than two years under the same All Progressive Congress led Federal Government of Nigeria. The NCDC does not have a constituted NCDC Governing

Board for which the National Assembly provided. Ideally, the National Assembly must now express reservations to the

Executive, terse, the Presidency, instead of again providing another law, which the Presidency may end up not obeying or act in conflicting manner as with the former law on the same subject matter.

11. Way Forward: We most kindly request vide a Resolution of the House of Representatives that the “appointing authority” of the Governing Board, the incumbent President, Federal Republic of Nigeria should immediately perform his statutory obligations, please. Request or Direct the appropriate House Committee(s) to conduct Oversight Review and Performance Audit of NCDC against the Establishing Act and the mentioned documents.

SUBTLE ABROGATION OF NCDC GOVERNING BOARD:

a. In addition, based on the Bill’s copious references to the persona of the “Director-General of the NCDC”, as opposed to the “Center” as an institution, is an alarming misnomer! The term “Director General” appears 134 times in the document! We can observe that it is apparent that there is a subtle agenda to abrogate the existence of the

Governing Board as provided for in the NCDC Establishment Act No. 18 of 2018. Ordinarily, we may have overlooked this in the light of the expediency and urgency of the moment; we cannot because existing documents of the Center have sought to do away with the statutorily provided for NCDC Governing Board.

b. You may wish to observe the NCDC

Organizational Structure presented on the official website

http://www.ncdc.gov.ng and particularly again on page 30 of the earlier referred document

“IDEA TO REALITY: Strategy and

Implementation Plan 2017 –

2021”. The current organizational structure emanating from NCDC clearly omits the statutory Governing

Board, indirectly suggesting its nonexistence, irrelevance or disdain against!

c. The proposed Bill, the copious references to, and embedding of statutory rights in a lone office other than the institution as originally provided for in the NCDC enabling law, in our considered opinion, constitute reinforcing and endorsing the subtle elimination of the institutional existence and functioning of the NCDC Governing Board and a tacit support for illegality. This is contrary to the expectations of “Goal 16 on Peace and Justice Strong Institutions” the universally adopted Sustainable Development Goals seeking to emphasize strong institutions and not individuals.

d. Most respectfully Sir, this subtle elimination of the NCDC Governing Board is contrary to the principles of sound corporate governance schemes and ethos” that informed National Assembly in enacting the law in 2018. Formalizing the elimination of the Board shall require its total removal in the amendment of the NCDC Establishment Act. I want to believe that this is not your intention as sponsor of the current Bill under consideration.

12. Way Forward: We most respectfully reiterate the call for the prompt Resolution of the House of Representatives authorizing the “appointing authority” of the Governing Board, the incumbent President of Nigeria to perform his statutory obligations in this regard, please.

In addition, House of Representatives should pass a Resolution encouraging the NCDC as an institution, particularly, the incumbent Director-General to all intents and purposes seek to operate strictly within the ambits of the prevailing NCDC Establishment Act.

Direct the relevant House Committee(s) to conduct performance audits assisted by consultants.

13. Weakness of Subsisting Quarantine Act

a. With the greatest of respect sir, we have taken the pains to study your lead debate comment that the proposed

Bill is seeking “to make provisions relating to quarantine and make regulations for preventing the introduction and spreading of infectious diseases in Nigeria... (since it) had existed for many years, (and) was now ‘primitive and weak’ to meet the current demands”.

b. Sir, we humbly wish to draw your attention to the fact that the contents analyses of the subsisting Quarantine Act versus the proposed Bill suggest the painful poor comprehension of the connectivity existing between our laws as couched and others including policies and Judicial Practices Guidelines.

c. Sir, you were reported to have opined “that the Quarantine Act provided a penalty of N500 for defaulters, but the

Control of Infectious Diseases bill was proposing a penalty of between two hundred thousand naira (N200, 000) and five million naira (N5, 000,000).” On the face value, this would have been regarded as a welcome development were this enabling law the only law for us to consider in dealing with the spreading of infectious diseases knowingly, as a mere health hazard.

d. Painfully, once appropriate authorities declare a disease “contagious”, issues pertaining to it translate into the realm of Health Security, assuming the status of a weapon!

e. In such an instance, any subject that participates in the spreading is acting in breach of Health Security for which the provisions of the National Security Strategy (2019) and the National Defense Policy (2017) become applicable. Within

the far-reaching realms of National Security and Defense Management Architecture, the subject may come under the radar through other legal frameworks including, but not restricted to, Nigeria’s Terrorism (Prevention) Act of 2013.

f. Furthermore, the penalty under the Quarantine Act has deterrent capacities because the option of a meagre amount of less than a thousand naira against six months imprisonment is far more restraining in deterrence value than an amount that erring citizen can source easily. Yes, for the big corporate players, it is clear that such will have their day in the courts with far reaching consequences including denials from occupying public offices of trust as “ex-convicts”.

g. We recall that Professor Dora Akunyuli (1954 – 2014) of blessed memory, as the Director General of National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) of Nigeria (2001 - 2008) utilized the regulatory clauses of the enabling laws of NAFDAC optimally and exhaustively to achieve so much. That is, Decree No. 15 of 1993, as amended by Decree No. 19 of 1999 into the NAFDAC Act Cap N1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004. We see no reason why appropriate authorities vested with the enshrined provisions of the Quarantine Act cannot rise up to the occasion under the supervision of their Corporate Governance superintendents.

h. Rt. Honorable Speaker, focusing on your argument that you seek “to empower the President and the Minister of

Health to exercise certain necessary powers at first instance, during any outbreak...(and) that at second and third instances, the President would have to seek the approval of the National Assembly”. The subsisting Act successfully covered the field and the concerns you raised well comprehended by the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, terse, the National Security

Strategy and National Defense Policy.

I. Sir, emphatically, we wish to submit that the provisions of Section 4 of the extant Quarantine Act are currently adequate for the President and his Minister in-charge of Health. The Presidential Proclamation currently in force derived legality from it. Unfortunately, as stated in the Bill the now “omnibus NCDC Director-General” can even act in an extrajudicial capacity against a Nigerian President, Senate President or State Governors! This is apart from the seemingly

“Ouster Clause against the Courts” in Section 15, which states in part:

“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...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 authorized in writing in that behalf by the Director General.”

j. Furthermore, the Bill is in breach of Principles of Separation of Powers and that of Rule of Law, which confers obnoxious power on presumably, Minister of Health. Section 20 (5) of the Bill states, “Any person who is aggrieved by any order of the Director General under subsection (1) may, within 7 days from the date of the order, appeal to the Minister whose decision shall be final.” Provocatively, this is usurpation of the powers of the Judiciary and constitute an ouster clause for a bill processed under a democratic dispensation as provided in section 6 of the Constitution of the Federal

Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and upheld by the Court in Edet v. Mathias (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt. 454) 1564.

Citizens, corporate and individuals shall besiege the courts with plethora of litigations as in: Okereke v. Yar’adua (2008)

ALL FWLR (Pt. 430) 625.

k. It should interest you to note that, we consider adequate for now, Section 8 in terms of jurisdictional rights of the

States of the Federation within the confines of the multi-tiered “Whole of Governments” and “Whole of Society” principles of National Security and Defense Management. That is, when considered along with National Emergency Management Act and the 1999 Constitution once the matter assumes its correct Health Security and Economic Security statuses. The membership of State Governors in the Nigeria Police Council and the National Economic Council further reinforces the jurisdictional rights of states in our federal system, unlike what the proposed bill seeks to achieve, please.

14. Way Forward: Kindly withdraw the Bill, please.

This is for bringing about effectiveness and efficiency in the optimal utilization of the existing legal and policy frameworks with the view of ensuring that the concerned MDAs concentrate on concerted services delivery while we avoid the unfortunate occurrences of human rights abuses by security and law enforcement agents. The legal and judicial challenges that may emanate from this bill may adversely affect cordial relations between the three arms of government apart from generating security breaches and recourse to self-help and anarchy.

 We are pleading with you for the prevention of breakdown in law and order that may further threaten Nigeria’s existence, National Interest and Security because of probable agitations that may arise should the Bill pass, please.

15. DISCONNECT OF COVID-19 MANAGEMENT AS HEALTH SECURITY CHALLENGE

a. Sir, your lead presentation and the contents of the Bill further underscores that we are currently not addressing

COVID-19 as a Health Security challenge, terse, within the ambits of Nigeria’s National Interest and Security as encapsulated in our National Defense Policy (2017) and National Security Strategy (2019).

b. Notwithstanding that, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared it global pandemic; we are treating it as if a “terrorist network” did not deliberately design or introduce it against Nigeria as part of an attempt to throw the entire country into chaos of unimaginable consequences, that is, as envisaged in our national security and defense management architecture! Our national interest must count and supersede all other global modulations or considerations!

c. Painfully, we can observe that principal officers of the Nigerian-state are making it appear as if we do not have national legal and policy frameworks subsisting. Public officeholders overlook and undermine daily these instruments notwithstanding that in them we have opportunities to help us in defining the problem(s) and charting the course(s) of actions to take, particularly in mitigating and transforming COVID-19 challenges.

d. We are appalled that we must now seek fresh legislation that are alien to our climes, customs and traditions. The

Bill is laden with conflict potentials of different shades and dimensions. At the political and governance level, it is contradictory to the 1999 Constitution in diverse ways, which ordinarily implies that it should give way to the extent of being at variance with the provisions of the Constitution, particularly Sections 34 and 35, in fact, the entire Chapter

4! The most disturbing being that the implementation of the Bill shall further accentuate the dysfunctional relations amongst MDAs; increasing turf protection syndrome and thereby bring about schisms. In another breadth, it has provided clauses to undermine and remove the jurisdiction of judicial checks and balances, terse, the law courts by placing in the NCDC Director-General magisterial powers.

16. Way Forward:

 Kindly withdraw the Bill, please. We are again reiterating our plea, PLEASE!

We do this, based on your renowned love for Nigeria’s national interest and well-being, please. We must prevent constitutional logjams through incessant litigations and legal proceedings or creation of self-help initiatives, terse, breakdown in law and order that may further threaten Nigeria’s existence, national interest and security, because of probable agitations that may arise should the Bill pass and implementation commences, please. We cannot afford political crises in the midst of health security, economic security and food security challenges. The Nigerian-state cannot cope; the country is currently too fragile for such, PLEASE!

17. NASS Oversight Interrogation of COVID-19 Problem Identification

a. We wish to again infer that we can observe from the lead debate that you somewhat relied on the poorly conceptualized “COVID-19 Problem Identification” being relied upon by the executive branch of government. That is, as contained in the document National COVID19 Multi-Sect oral Pandemic Response Plan published and being used by the

Presidential Task Force on COVID-19 Response, March 2020. Permit us to draw your attention specifically to the introduction; highlighting some portions from which we shall help clarify that the problem identification showed some gaps in our governance services delivery for which legislative intervention may be required:

On the 31st of December 2019, World Health Organization was alerted to several cases of pneumonia in Wuhan City, Hubei Province of China. Following the rapid escalation of the outbreak and spread to countries outside China, on 30 January 2020, WHO declared the outbreak a ‘Public Health Emergency of International Concern’ (PHEIC); and on the 11th of March the COVID-19 outbreak was characterized as a pandemic. The Federal Ministry of Health confirmed a first coronavirus disease (COVID-19) case in Lagos State on the 27th of February 2020. As at 22nd of March 2020, cumulatively, Nigeria has recorded 27 confirmed cases of COVID-19.

b. From the timelines indicated against the realities of what transpired in China that is in public domain indicate functionality gaps for which appropriate agencies of the Nigerian-state that ought to have activated feedback to the Federal

Government of Nigeria for proactive responses planning and deployment may be liable. Nigeria has an early warning mechanism that should have played a role other than relying on World Health Organization only, as indicated in this statement. As determined by our Constitution, Nigeria’s diplomatic practice of foreign relations we have a fully functional

Embassy in China from which at least two (2) numbers. Reports from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) and National

Intelligence Agency (NIA) should have come back to Nigeria December 1 – 20, 2019 when COVID-19 became a major concern in China. In addition, there are MDAs within the country with feedback information responsibilities on issues of concerns; drawing data from openly sourced materials to initiate proactive response planning and deployments. They include, National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), National Orientation Agency (NOA), etc. NASS must interrogate why nothing happened before December 2019 and clarify for lessons learned why the Response Plan appear devoid of the inputs from these sources.

18. Way Forward:

Appropriate House Committees, particularly those on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, Information and

Humanitarian Responses should activate their oversight responsibilities to interrogate the issues and further strengthen our national early warning mechanisms!

19. Accelerated Passing of First and Second Readings

a. We observe that the Bill has enjoyed accelerated considerations thus far. Under the circumstances, we expect this kind of patriotism. We cannot fault it in terms of exigencies as occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we note with concern that it lacks the benefit of wider consultations based on the criticisms and public debate generated. Therefore, permit us to suggest that, should you decide against withdrawing the Bill as we have thus pleaded, you kindly slow down the process to allow for wider consultations and the holding of the mandatory legislative public hearing, please.

20. Way Forward: Sir, should you decide against withdrawing the Bill as we have thus pleaded, you kindly slow down the process to allow for wider consultations and the holding of the mandatory legislative public hearing, please!

21. Bill Specific Issues and Consideration of Some Clauses a. Rt. Honourable Speaker, by now it is clear that our persuasion and thrust is simple: Implore you to kindly withdraw the Bill for thorough reconsideration and wider consultations in order to mitigate the inherent challenges of dangers posed to the Nigerian-state. The issues fall within the realms of statecraft considerations that spot elements of “deep state” coloration, which for now may become counterproductive. Notwithstanding, we have taken the pains to go through to make some informed comments herein while we await formal presentations, should the House of Representatives proceed further by calling for Memorandum for a Public Hearing on the Bill.

b. Sir, from our simple observation the focus of the Bill appear predominantly around the NCDC Director-General alone with little or NO CONCERNS for the national interests and security of the Nigerian-State, cohesive governance functionality and particularly DEVELOPMENT as conceptualized under the SDGs and Nigeria’s Economic Recovery Growth

Plan! As presently couched, it projects global interests’ more than national interests and security, for example, on Vaccines it does not highlight how to safeguard Nigerians from national security risks of imported products, confidence building quality assurance systems, nor provide for ensuring capacity building for local production and attendant multiplier effects for our national economy. With a population of about 200 million, we cannot afford to rely solely on importation Vaccines!

c. Interestingly, this Bill appear only State actors’ interest driven; appearing not Nigerians friendly, safe being tagged“anti-people”. d. From some perspectives, in the light of the on-going citizenry perception indicators of incumbent governments in

Nigeria, commentaries in public domain indicate that many perceive the bill as deliberately designed to emasculate the rights of the individuals; creating a “police state”. We are now at the threshold of history now. To some commentators, “there is need to act before full-scale Totalitarianism is enthroned”. This Bill is creating setting that is further fuelling and reinforcing the “fake news, false flags or conspiracy theses spins” around the subject matter in public domain. The cliché now include “Are the Conspiracy Theories Now Translating to Conspiracy Realities?” – This is definitely not a welcome development for your persona – even though we know controversies makes a political actor bubble (sic) and enjoy media attention!

e. Clarification/Definition of Concepts and Terms in the Bill appear ambiguous and subject to controversial interpretations or misapplication e.g. “Health Officer”, “Public Health Emergency”, “Overcrowding”, etc. Another issue being how to determine the bases of "what the President thinks", which may give too much room for subjective or sentimental decisions rather than objective decisions based on scientific facts i.e. as per Sections 3. Permit us to observe that this may lead to political abuse, particularly in lieu of Section 19 on the prohibition or restriction of meetings, gatherings and entertainment, inappropriately used against Opposition Parties, Civil Society Programs etc.

f. Legality and Constitutionality of Bill: The Bill offends the provisions of Section 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the

Federal Republic of Nigeria, which as part of your Oath of accession as member House of Representatives and therefrom

Speaker you swore to uphold and defend.

g. As a legal practitioner, you are very aware of the landmark decisions of Courts in Attorney-General of Federation vs. Abubakar (2007) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 1 and in the case of R.T. N.A.C.H.P.N. v. M. & H.W.U.N (2008) 575. This is in addition to Trousseau Investment Limited vs. Eyo (2011) 6 NWLR (OT. 1242) 195 and the celebrated case of Attorney-

General of Abia State v. Attorney-General of Federation (2006) 16 NWLR (PT. 1005) 265. We can only plead that you reconsider the sponsorship and continued processing of this Bill, please. Furthermore, on citizens’ rights, Section 23 of this Bill on “Apprehension of persons on the streets” negates a settled legal/judicial issue of indiscriminate arrests that further infringes on the rights of citizens. Section 24, as couched, may lead to indiscriminate and extrajudicial destruction of properties owned by citizens in the execution of “the Order to destroy any building in which a case of infectious disease has occurred” – It smells “Court Ouster”!

h. Clarity on the Classification of Diseases: We are concerned with the classification of diseases such as Malaria,

Typhoid with other diseases such as STIs, SARS in the same category. We recommend that this should be professionally articulated and made to be part of Practice Rules and Guidelines. I Anti-Media Provisions with Concerns for Security Operatives: Section 55(e) is clearly anti-media, providing for media censorship, gagging and probably an assault on journalists and whistleblowers. This section is contrary to the

Nigerian Security Agencies Act that is respective of Rule of Law and goes contrary to sections 17 and 22 of the 1999

Constitution! Unlike the laws establishing the DSS/SSS the now “omnibus NCDC Director-General” has exclusive rights to cause any person to provide any book, document, correspondence or information requested and it also gives the unrestricted power to enter and search any premises without the need for small matters like court orders. j. By stretch of realistic scenario building imaginations, the security risks concerns of Sections 55 through 58 of this

Bill on Nigeria’s national security interests remain grave. The fact that an “omnibus NCDC Director-General”, operating without a Governing Board is that s/he will now justifiably have the right to even search the offices and residences of our national security assets like an incumbent D-G (SSS) or any of his operatives without warrant and cannot be queried.

22. Way Forward:

The foregoing are just comments that indicate we are concerned about you, your political well-being as a renowned democrat and political leader as well as the Welfare of Nigerians. Kindly, reconsider, please.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS

Most respectfully, Rt. Honorable Speaker, Our Beloved Brother, we appreciate a great deal your priceless efforts to protect the lives of citizens of this great country, for the purposes of safeguarding their lives, and that of foreigners. We respectfully, however, observe that the entire structure of the Bill grossly offends particularly section 1 (3), 6, 17, 22 and

Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and other extant laws mentioned above. Flowing from the aforementioned distilled issues, we humbly make the following prayers honestly and in good conscience:

1. We most humbly request that the Bill be withdrawn forthwith, Sir. This is owing to the fact that the entire sections of the Bill are offensive and contradicts the provisions of the 1999 Constitution, which includes particularly sections 1

(3), 6, 17, 22 and the entire Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and other extant laws mentioned in this document.

2. We humbly request that the National Assembly allow for the optimal utilization, compliance with and enforcement of the existing extant legislations on disease control in Nigeria. These include the Quarantine Act and the NCDC Act in conjunction with other legal and policy frameworks, which must fully drive the interventions and management of prevailing COVID-19 challenges. We implore you to setup a Study Team for taking notes and drawing lessons learned during the management of the crises before considering amendments and probable consolidated into a single document.

3. We respectfully request that the National Assembly should prevail on The Presidency to activate and constitute the Governing Board of NCDC. Thus allowing the NCDC to carry out the statutory duties and obligations enshrined in the enabling law.

4. We most humbly request that the appropriate House Committee(s) conduct Oversight Review and Performance

Audit of NCDC.

5. In the circumstance, should you decide against withdrawing the Bill as we have thus pleaded, we humbly request that you slow down the legislative process to allow for wider consultations and the holding of the mandatory legislative public hearing, for the purposes of resolving all contending issues, to reflect the aspirations of citizens. This is so because the Bill itself has attracted a nation-wide disapproval.

6. We kindly request that the Appropriate House Committees, particularly those on Foreign Affairs, Intelligence,

Information and Humanitarian Responses should activate their oversight responsibilities to interrogate the issues and further strengthen our national early warning mechanisms, which includes taking timeous reasonable actions in the circumstances.

Rt. Honorable Speaker, in addition to the foregoing recommendations, in our view a much more endearing citizenry-friendly and a quick win, is for you to take advantage of withdrawing of the Bill to mobilize your colleagues for introducing:

LEGISLATORS’ HOSPITAL ADOPTION INITIATIVE - whereby each member of the House of Representatives gets to adopt a public hospital in his/her constituency to provide a simple borehole, build and equip laboratory, amongst others.

CONCERTED PUBLIC ENLIGHTENMENT AND AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS ON INFECTIOUS DISEASES – through which each member of the House of Representatives enlightens and create awareness in his/her constituency.

Once more, accept the assurances of our esteemed consideration and best regards.

Long Live a respected and citizens-friendly National Assembly.

Long Live a rule of law respecting Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Elder Ayokunle FAGBEMI

Executive Director, CePSERD

About CePSERD:

For the avoidance of doubts, CePSERD is a Nigerian non-governmental organization. We exist to facilitate the development of state – non-state actor partnership and understanding of the “peace – conflict – development nexus”. Our emphasis is on human security by contributing to the quest for peaceful, stable, strong and virile polity through our Governance,

Democratic Sustenance and Public Policy (GDSPP) programming thrust. We draw attention of stakeholders and demand their proactive responses to mitigate and transform conflict issues often discovered to have their causative and/or exacerbating links with challenges of governance services delivery. That is, through acts of omission and commission linked to legal or policy initiatives and the conduct of government or political elites that are in breach of democratic structures or noncompliance with democratic processes and principles of rule of law. CePSERD supports and encourages cooperative responses, experience and information sharing; produces resource materials and develop mechanisms and frameworks for the emergence or sustenance of viable partnerships amongst stakeholders using preventive peace-building principles.

Elder Ayokunle FAGBEMI