Opinion
Any Need For Designated Smoking Areas?
It cannot be disputed that while smoking is optional,
breathing is not. Ban on smoking in certain public places has therefore been recommended by the World Health Organisation (WHO) to protect non-smokers from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke which include heart diseases, stroke etc.
A Global Health Observatory data reveals that second-hand smoke is one of the most harmful and widespread exposures in the indoor environment. It notes that more than a third of us are regularly exposed to the harmful effects of smoke with fatalities put at 600,000 per year, and accounting for at least 1% of the global burden of disease.
Because of this, hundreds of countries have introduced laws banning smoking in indoor places as the easiest way to reduce their health care costs.
While the tobacco companies operating in Nigeria bask in the euphoria that the Tobacco Control Act 2015 signed by former President, Goodluck Jonathan did not outrightly ban smoking in all public places, public health advocates believe the legislation has not gone far enough.
This argument finds meaning when viewed from the prism that Nigerians cannot forget in a hurry the barrage of groups claiming to promote smokers’ rights during the Public Hearings on the National Tobacco Control Bill (now Tobacco Control Act 2015) between 2014 and May 2015 when the law finally got the presidential signature. These groups, believed to be fronts for tobacco industry operators, claimed that introduction of Designated Smoking Areas (DSAs) will guarantee the rights of smokers without infringing on the rights of non-smokers.
Experts, however, discountenance the so-called smokers groups as role players of the tobacco corporations only interested in sustaining their profits by maintaining a stranglehold on addicted smokers. On an expanded scale, it is not a deniable fact that, the tobacco industry is in cahoots with the hospitality industry, promoting a lie that the hotels, restaurants and other places frequented by fun seekers will lose customers if smoking is disallowed in such places. Tobacco companies are known sponsors of restaurant owners’ associations which are deployed as fronts to campaign against the ban on smoke-free public places. The industry does this despite the growing body of evidence that smoking is harmful not just to smokers’ health, but secondary smokers as well.
Secret tobacco industry documents show they are ready to spend millions of dollars promoting films where actors are seen smoking to make the habit seem hype. In one of such documents, a leading tobacco corporation was said to have considered investing in a f2.25m ($4.2m) action film with a heroine who smoked, for distribution in Europe as part of an aggressive marketing campaign, according to an article published in the European Journal of Public Health.
In Lagos State which passed a legislation in 2014 prohibiting smoking in certain public places, public health advocates raised the alarm about attempts by British American Tobacco Nigeria (BATN) to confuse the public through several meetings with implementing agencies of the legislation including the Nigeria Police. The meetings were said to have served as platforms for promotion of DSAs and redefinition of smoke-free environments.
These attempts do not, however, erode global studies that point to smoke-free public places as influencing reduction in demand for tobacco by creating an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult. While the tobacco industry advocates limited smoke-free places with DSAs obviously for sustaining profits, medical experts insist total ban on smoking in public places is the way to go as they play a critical role in helping to shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Smoking ban has been confirmed by the WHO as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes.
Researches from the United States and Europe show that banning smoking in public places have helped to cut premature births by 10 per cent.
Ireland is noted as the first country in the world to have instituted a nationwide comprehensive smoke- free workplaces law. The law which came into force on 29th of March, 2004 expands on an existing outlaw of smoking in public places which began in 1988 and has been enforced in public buildings, hospitals, public pharmacies, schools, banking halls, cinemas, public hairdressing premises, restaurant kitchens, part of all restaurants, on public transport, aircraft and buses, among others.
On 1st July, 2009, Ireland prohibited in-store tobacco advertising and displays of tobacco products at retail outlets and new controls on tobacco vending machines. Following this successful example, Norway and Italy also did same. Britain, Portugal and Sweden, have drafted plans to establish similar laws.
These countries latch on Article 8 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO-FCTe) which recommends that Parties to the treaty adopt effective legislative measures “providing for protection from exposure to tobacco smoke in indoor workplaces, public transport, indoor public places and, as appropriate, other public places.”
The guidelines state that” approaches other than 100 per cent smoke free laws environments, including ventilation, air filtration and the use of designated smoking areas … have repeatedly shown to be ineffective and there is conclusive evidence, scientific and otherwise, that engineering approaches do not protect against exposure to tobacco smoke.”
As of this date, a host of countries have introduced similar laws, prompting the question: If progressive nations have discarded DSAs successfully to safeguard the wellness of their citizens, why can’t Nigeria do it?
It will be worthwhile that the provision in the Tobacco Control Act which permits DSAs in all outdoor public places, work places and on public transport is reviewed to conform to the emerging global standards that has the nod of the WHO. The overall benefits to this nation comes in form of improved work productivity, reduced risk of fire in areas with explosive hazards; while an incentive for smokers to quit can surely not be ignored.
Adelabu wrote in from Lagos
Felix Adelabu
The events that unfolded in Abuja on Tuesday November 11, 2025 between the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Chief Nyesom Wike and a detachment of soldiers guarding a disputed property, led by Adams Yerima, a commissioned Naval Officer, may go down as one of the defining images of Nigeria’s democratic contradictions. It was not merely a quarrel over land. It was a confrontation between civil authority and the military legacy that still hovers over our national life.
Nyesom Wike, fiery and fearless as always, was seen on video exchanging words with a uniformed officer who refused to grant him passage to inspect a parcel of land alleged to have been illegally acquired. The minister’s voice rose, his temper flared, and the soldier, too, stood his ground, insisting on his own authority. Around them, aides, security men, and bystanders watched, stunned, as two embodiments of the Nigerian state clashed in the open.
The images spread fast, igniting debates across drawing rooms, beer parlours, and social media platforms. Some hailed Wike for standing up to military arrogance; others scolded him for perceived disrespect to the armed forces. Yet beneath the noise lies a deeper question about what sort of society we are building and whether power in Nigeria truly understands the limits of its own reach.
It is tragic that, more than two decades into civil rule, the relationship between the civilian arm of government and the military remains fragile and poorly understood. The presence of soldiers in a land dispute between private individuals and the city administration is, by all civic standards, an aberration. It recalls a dark era when might was right, and uniforms conferred immunity against accountability.
Wike’s anger, even if fiery, was rooted in a legitimate concern: that no individual, however connected or retired, should deploy the military to protect personal interests. That sentiment echoes the fundamental democratic creed that the law is supreme, not personalities. If his passion overshot decorum, it was perhaps a reflection of a nation weary of impunity.
On the other hand, the soldier in question is a symbol of another truth: that discipline, respect for order, and duty to hierarchy are ingrained in our armed forces. He may have been caught between conflicting instructions one from his superiors, another from a civilian minister exercising his lawful authority. The confusion points not to personal failure but to institutional dysfunction.
It is, therefore, simplistic to turn the incident into a morality play of good versus evil.
*********”**** What happened was an institutional embarrassment. Both men represented facets of the same failing system a polity still learning how to reconcile authority with civility, law with loyalty, and service with restraint.
In fairness, Wike has shown himself as a man of uncommon courage. Whether in Rivers State or at the FCTA, he does not shy away from confrontation. Yet courage without composure often feeds misunderstanding. A public officer must always be the cooler head, even when provoked, because the power of example outweighs the satisfaction of winning an argument.
Conversely, soldiers, too, must be reminded that their uniforms do not place them above civilian oversight. The military exists to defend the nation, not to enforce property claims or intimidate lawful authorities. Their participation in purely civil matters corrodes the image of the institution and erodes public trust.
One cannot overlook the irony: in a country where kidnappers roam highways and bandits sack villages, armed men are posted to guard contested land in the capital. It reflects misplaced priorities and distorted values. The Nigerian soldier, trained to defend sovereignty, should not be drawn into private or bureaucratic tussles.
Sycophancy remains the greatest ailment of our political culture. Many of those who now cheer one side or the other do so not out of conviction but out of convenience. Tomorrow they will switch allegiance. True patriotism lies not in defending personalities but in defending principles. A people enslaved by flattery cannot nurture a culture of justice.
The Nigerian elite must learn to submit to the same laws that govern the poor. When big men fence off public land and use connections to shield their interests, they mock the very constitution they swore to uphold. The FCT, as the mirror of national order, must not become a jungle where only the powerful can build.
The lesson for Wike himself is also clear: power is best exercised with calmness. The weight of his office demands more than bravery; it demands statesmanship. To lead is not merely to command, but to persuade — even those who resist your authority.
Equally, the lesson for the armed forces is that professionalism shines brightest in restraint. Obedience to illegal orders is not loyalty; it is complicity. The soldier who stands on the side of justice protects both his honour and the dignity of his uniform.
The Presidency, too, must see this episode as a wake-up call to clarify institutional boundaries. If soldiers can be drawn into civil enforcement without authorization, then our democracy remains at risk of subtle militarization. The constitution must speak louder than confusion.
The Nigerian public deserves better than spectacles of ego. We crave leaders who rise above emotion and officers who respect civilian supremacy. Our children must not inherit a nation where authority means shouting matches and intimidation in public glare.
Every democracy matures through such tests. What matters is whether we learn the right lessons. The British once had generals who defied parliament; the Americans once fought over states’ rights; Nigeria, too, must pass through her own growing pains but with humility, not hubris.
If the confrontation has stirred discomfort, then perhaps it has done the nation some good. It forces a conversation long overdue: Who truly owns the state — the citizen or the powerful? Can we build a Nigeria where institutions, not individuals, define our destiny?
As the dust settles, both the FCTA and the military hierarchy must conduct impartial investigations. The truth must be established — not to shame anyone, but to restore order. Where laws were broken, consequences must follow. Where misunderstandings occurred, apologies must be offered.
Let the rule of law triumph over the rule of impulse. Let civility triumph over confrontation. Let governance return to the path of dialogue and procedure.
Nigeria cannot continue to oscillate between civilian bravado and military arrogance. Both impulses spring from the same insecurity — the fear of losing control. True leadership lies in the ability to trust institutions to do their work without coercion.
Those who witnessed the clash saw a drama of two gladiators. One in starched khaki, one in well-cut suit. Both proud, both unyielding. But a nation cannot be built on stubbornness; it must be built on understanding. Power, when it meets power, should produce order, not chaos.
We must resist the temptation to glorify temper. Governance is not warfare; it is stewardship. The citizen watches, the world observes, and history records. How we handle moments like this will define our collective maturity.
The confrontation may have ended without violence, but it left deep questions in the national conscience. When men of authority quarrel in the open, institutions tremble. The people, once again, become spectators in a theatre of misplaced pride.
It is time for all who hold office — civilian or military — to remember that they serve under the same flag. That flag is neither khaki nor political colour; it is green-white-green, and it demands humility.
No victor, no vanquish only a lesson for a nation still learning to govern itself with dignity.
By; King Onunwor
