The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has urged the Federal Government to immediately clarify the content of the health cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed recently, between the country and the United States.
The ADC, in a statement by its interim National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, said this had become imperative in view of the conflicting information on the MoU by the two countries.
The opposition party explained that while the Nigerian government presents the MoU as a framework geared towards expanding primary healthcare and boosting health security in the country, the US account introduces “identity-based framing that may be in breach of Nigeria’s constitutional provisions on non-discrimination.”
The Nigeria and US, according to a post on the website of the American Embassy and Consulate, in Nigeria, recently signed a ” five-year, $5.1 billion bilateral health cooperation MOU, “in furtherance of “the America First Global Health Strategy.”
According to the post, the MoU is connection with “with reforms undertaken by the Government of Nigeria to prioritize the protection of Christian populations from extremist violence.”
However, the ADC stated that the government should not enter into any pact that “is sectional or potentially inimical to Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to inclusion and national unity.”
The party also expressed concerns that some of the conditions attached to the MoU, including the unilateral power of the US government to terminate the pact, are missing in the brief by the Nigerian government.
“The ADC believes that this divergence is not a mere communications issue. Instead, it appears calculated to avoid public scrutiny, thereby raising fundamental questions about transparency, constitutional compliance, and Nigeria’s sovereignty.
“Nigerians are entitled to know which version of this agreement reflects the actual terms that were signed, and why such consequential differences exist between Abuja’s account and Washington’s.
“The ADC affirms its support for foreign assistance and bilateral cooperation to strengthen Nigeria’s healthcare system, but insists that such partnerships must respect Nigeria’s diversity and must comply with our constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Section 42(1) states: ‘No citizen of Nigeria shall be discriminated against on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, or political opinion.’ Similarly, Sections 15 and 17 impose a duty on the state to promote national integration, eliminate discrimination, and guarantee equality of rights and opportunities for all citizens.
“Therefore, any international agreement, or public framing of such an agreement, that appears to introduce identity-based distinctions into the provision of public services raises serious constitutional and national cohesion concerns. We are particularly at a loss as to why the Nigerian Government would enter into such an agreement, especially considering that Nigeria is reportedly committing more resources under the arrangement,” the party stated.
Furthermore, the ADC added that “the MoU states that the United States is expected to provide approximately two billion dollars in grant support over five years, while Nigeria has reportedly committed close to three billion dollars in domestic health financing over the same period.
“It is difficult to justify an arrangement in which Nigeria bears the larger financial burden, yet decisions regarding target beneficiaries and the discretion to pause or terminate cooperation appear to rest outside the country. Healthcare is a core public good that must remain neutral, inclusive, and universally accessible,” the ADC further argued.
“The injection of identity considerations into health financing or security-linked performance assessments risks politicising care delivery, undermining public trust, and exposing already vulnerable institutions and workers to avoidable tension and danger.”
Consequently, it charged the federal government to publish the full text of the MoU, including any annexures or accompanying instruments, and to explain in clear terms “whether the identity-based and security-linked elements referenced by the United States form part of the agreement Nigeria actually signed or exist solely within foreign policy interpretations.”
