Editorial
No To Anti-Migration Bill
On April 6, this year, Nigeria’s lower legislative chamber, the House of Representatives, triggered an outrage. The House passed for second reading, a Medical and Dental Practitioners Act (Amendment) Bill, 2022, which seeks to make it compulsory for graduates in medical and dental fields to render services within Nigeria for five years before being licensed to practise.
The sponsor of the bill is Honourable Ganiyu Johnson, a member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) representing Lagos State. He strongly believes that once passed into law, the proposed legislation will end the massive movement of young Nigerian doctors abroad.
His argument is, Nigeria has only 24,000 licensed medical doctors in the country, which is less than 10 per cent of the number needed to meet the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) recommendation, hence, the need for the bill. He said, considering the growing trend of the Nigerian population and the current rate of emigration of Nigerian-trained medical and dental practitioners, passing this bill into law would provide Nigerians with quality medical services.
To further buttress his argument, the federal lawmaker compared the fees paid in the United Kingdom and other countries’ universities on the one side to what is paid in Nigerian universities, concluding that tuition fees in Nigeria’s public medical schools were highly subsidised. Thus, making it mandatory for the nation’s medical professionals to reciprocate.
Many Nigerian doctors have moved to the developed world, searching for greener pastures. About 5,600 of them have migrated to the United Kingdom in the past eight years. Now, in some southern states of the country, only one doctor is expected to treat about 30,000 patients while in the North, the ratio is a doctor to over 45,000 patients.
Nigeria is not the only African country losing its medical staff to developed nations. Virtually every African country is affected. Statistics from Britain’s Nursing and Midwifery Council showed that up to March 2002, over 2,000 African nurses left their countries to take up jobs in Britain. For instance, South Africa lost 2,114 nurses and midwives to Britain and Zimbabwe, 473 nurses.
Since the content of the bill became public knowledge, doctors and their unions have been lambasting the House of Representatives for the move. Tempers have been flaring, with the doctors claiming that the legislators are ill-informed to contemplate such a law, thus, picking holes in it, and vowing to stop the lawmakers on their track.
Expectedly, the National Association of Resident Doctors (NARD) rejected the bill. In a communique issued after the association’s emergency National Officers’ Committee (NOC) meeting, the resident doctors were particularly shocked by the bill’s sponsor, Hon. Johnson, and his attempts to enslave Nigerian-trained medical doctors. Also, an umbrella body of Nigerian medical doctors and dentists practising outside the country known as Diaspora Medical Association petitioned the National Assembly over the bill.
Similarly, the Medical and Dental Consultants of Nigeria (MDCAN) also faulted the bill. According to MDCAN, the proposed bill is harsh and discriminatory, lacking the basic ingredients of good faith. In a statement signed by the President, Dr Victor Makonhuola, and the Secretary-General, Dr Yemi Raji, MDCAN noted that the bill violated Section 34 (1) (b) of the Nigerian Constitution.
While we appreciate the passion and concern for the health of Nigerians as shown by Johnson in proposing this bill, we think it is misdirected, ill-informed, and poorly thought through. We wonder why the legislators should focus on medical doctors when Nigerians across all professions are fleeing the country to seek greener pastures abroad. Focusing attention only on the medical doctors is like curing one of many ailments that are threatening the life of a dying patient without finding solutions to the others.
The bill is undemocratic. It infringes on medical personnel’s freedom of movement to seek good means of livelihood elsewhere. It is laughable that these same legislators and their cronies in government who frequently go on medical trips overseas are now telling doctors where to work. Why do they not make a law against politicians going for medical tourism? Is it not our money these politicians spend abroad to treat themselves, while we have hospitals that are in dilapidated conditions?
The real motive for seeking to delay medical professionals from taking better opportunities overseas is yet to be seen. What Johnson advocates blatantly violates the acclaimed labour and market principles. The question is: how would the proposed law tackle the vexed issues of infrastructural deficits, low public investment, and poor workers’ welfare, as well as improve the quality of clinical outcomes in the least?
On the issue that medical workers must give back to society after enjoying subsidised training, it must be emphasised that bonding already exists in the civil service with clear guidelines for its application. Governments at both state and federal levels provide full sponsorship for university education at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, with a proviso that they will bond individuals who benefit from such sponsorship for a specified number of years. This does not apply to subsidies.
Resolving the challenge of brain drain in the country’s health sector cannot be achieved through this bill. Rather, Nigeria needs to address the various factors that make skilled health workers desire to migrate from the country. They should direct considerable efforts at improving the health system, with sustainable investments, to make it conducive for health workers to work and achieve better outcomes. Besides, their work environment and career expectations must be prioritised.
The recent massacre in Yelewata, Benue State, ranks among Nigeria’s deadliest attacks of
2025. While official figures put the death toll at 59, media reports and Amnesty International estimate between 100 and 200 fatalities. This atrocity extends a decade-long pattern of violence in Nigeria’s Middle Belt, where Beacon Security data records 1,043 deaths in Benue alone between May 2023 and May 2025.
President Tinubu’s visit on 18 June—four days after the 14 June attack—has drawn sharp criticism for its lateness. This delay echoes a history of inadequate responses, with Human Rights Watch documenting similar inaction in Plateau and Kaduna states since 2013, fuelling a culture of impunity. The attack lasted over two hours without meaningful security intervention, despite claims of swift action.
The violence bore hallmarks of genocide, with survivors recounting systematic house burnings and executions. More than 2.2 million people have been displaced in the region since 2019 due to comparable attacks. Data show Benue’s agricultural output falls by 0.21 per cent in crops and 0.31 per cent in livestock for every 1 per cent rise in violence.
Security forces continue to underperform. No arrests were made following the Easter attacks in April (56 killed) or May’s Gwer West massacre (42 killed). During his visit, Tinubu questioned publicly why no suspects had been detained four days after Yelewata, highlighting entrenched accountability failures.
The roots of the conflict are complex, with climate change pushing northern herders south and 77 per cent of Benue’s population reliant on agriculture. A Tiv community leader described the violence as “calculated land-grabbing” rather than mere clashes, with over 500 deaths recorded since 2019.
Government interventions have largely fallen short. The 2018 federal task force and 2025 Forest Guards initiative failed to curb violence. Tinubu’s newly announced committee of ex-governors and traditional rulers has been met with scepticism given the litany of past unkept promises.
The economic fallout is severe. Benue’s status as Nigeria’s “food basket” is crumbling as farms are destroyed and farmers displaced. This worsens the nation’s food crisis, with hunger surges in 2023-2024 directly linked to farming disruptions caused by insecurity.
Citizens demanding justice have been met with force; protesters faced police tear gas, and the State Assembly conceded total failure in safeguarding lives, admitting that the governor, deputy, and 32 lawmakers had all neglected their constitutional responsibilities.
The massacre has drawn international condemnation. Pope Leo XIV decried the “terrible massacre,” while the UN called for an investigation. The hashtag “200 Nigerians” trended worldwide on X, with many contrasting Nigeria’s slow response to India’s swift action following a plane crash with similar fatalities.
Nigeria’s centralised security system is clearly overwhelmed. A single police force is tasked with covering 36 states and 774 local government areas for a population exceeding 200 million. Between 2021 and 2023 alone, 29,828 killings and 15,404 kidnappings were recorded nationally. Proposals for state police, floated since January 2025, remain stalled.
Other populous nations offer alternative models. Canada’s provincial police, India’s state forces, and Indonesia’s municipal units demonstrate the effectiveness of decentralised policing. Nigeria’s centralised structure creates intelligence and response gaps, worsened by the distance—both physical and bureaucratic—from Abuja to affected communities.
The immediate aftermath is dire: 21 IDP camps in Benue are overwhelmed, and a humanitarian crisis is deepening. The State Assembly declared three days of mourning (18-20 June), but survivors lack sufficient medical aid. Tragically, many of those killed were already displaced by earlier violence.
A lasting solution requires a multi-pronged approach, including targeted security deployment, regulated grazing land, and full enforcement of Benue’s 2017 Anti-Open Grazing Law. The National Economic Council’s failure to prioritise state police in May 2025 represents a missed chance for reform.
Without decisive intervention, trends suggest conditions will worsen. More than 20,000 Nigerians have been killed and 13,000 kidnapped nationwide in 2025 alone. As Governor Hyacinth Alia stressed during Tinubu’s visit, state police may be the only viable path forward. All 36 states have submitted proposals supporting decentralisation—a crucial step towards breaking Nigeria’s vicious cycle of violence.
Nigeria’s return to democratic rule in 1999 marked a watershed moment in the nation’s political history. After enduring nearly 16 years of successive military dictatorships, Nigerians embraced a new era of civil governance with the inauguration of President Olusegun Obasanjo on May 29, 1999. Since then, the country has sustained a democratic system for 26 years. But, this democratic journey has been a complex mix of progress and persistent challenges.
The formal recognition of June 12 as Democracy Day in 2018 by former President Muhammadu Buhari acknowledged a long-standing injustice. The annulment of the 1993 presidential election, Nigeria’s freest, betrayed the democratic aspirations of millions. That it took decades to honour this date reflects the nation’s complex relationship with its democratic memory.
One of the most momentous successes of Nigeria’s democracy has been the uninterrupted civilian rule over the last two and a half decades. The country has witnessed seven general elections, with power transferring peacefully among different political parties. This is particularly notable considering that prior to 1999, no civilian government had completed a full term without military intervention. The peaceful transitions in 2007, 2015, and 2023 are testaments to Nigeria’s evolving democratic maturity.
Electoral participation, while uneven, has also reflected a level of democratic engagement. In 2003, voter turnout stood at about 69 per cent, but this figure dropped to approximately 34.75 per cent in 2023, according to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). Although the declining turnout raises concerns, it also highlights the increasing expectations of the electorate, who demand credible and transparent elections.
Another area of progress is the growth of a vibrant and free press. Nigerian media has played a crucial role in holding governments accountable and fostering public discourse. Investigative journalism and civil society activism have exposed corruption and human rights abuses. The rise of social media has further expanded the democratic space, enabling young Nigerians to mobilise and advocate for change, as evidenced by the 2020 #EndSARS protests.
Judicial independence has seen mixed results. On one hand, the judiciary has occasionally demonstrated resilience, such as in landmark rulings that overturned fraudulent elections or curtailed executive excesses. On the other hand, allegations of political interference and corruption within the judiciary persist, undermining public confidence in the legal system’s impartiality.
Nigeria’s democracy has also facilitated the decentralisation of power through the federal system. State governments now wield some autonomy, allowing for experimentation in governance and service delivery. While this has led to innovative policies in some states, it has also entrenched patronage networks and uneven development across the federation.
Despite these successes, Nigeria’s democratic journey faces formidable problems. Electoral integrity remains a critical concern. Reports from election observers, including those from the European Union and ECOWAS, frequently highlight issues such as vote-buying, ballot box snatching, and violence. The introduction of the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System (BVAS) and electronic transmission of results in 2023 elections showed promise, but technical glitches and alleged manipulations dampened public trust.
Corruption continues to be a pervasive issue. Nigeria ranks 145th out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, with a score of 25/100. Democratic institutions meant to check graft—such as anti-corruption agencies and the legislature—often struggle due to political interference and weak enforcement mechanisms.
Security challenges have also strained Nigeria’s democracy. Insurgency in the North East, banditry in the North West, separatist agitations in the South East, and herder-farmer conflicts across the Middle Belt have collectively resulted in thousands of deaths and displacements. According to the Global Terrorism Index 2024, Nigeria ranks as the eighth most impacted country by terrorism. The government’s difficulty in ensuring safety erodes public confidence in the state’s capacity and legitimacy.
The economy poses another critical remonstrance. Nigeria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita stands at approximately $2,400 as of 2024, with over 40 per cent of the population living below the national poverty line. High unemployment and inflation have fueled discontent and disillusionment with democratic governance, especially among youth. Without addressing economic grievances, the democratic dividend will remain elusive for many Nigerians.
Ethnic and religious divisions further complicate Nigeria’s democratic consolidation. Politicians often exploit identity politics for electoral gains, exacerbating social tensions. Although federal character principles aim to promote inclusiveness, they have also sometimes fostered a quota mentality rather than merit-based appointments.
Gender representation remains inadequate in Nigeria’s democratic institutions. Women occupy less than 10 per cent of seats in the National Assembly, one of the lowest rates globally. Efforts to pass gender parity bills have faced stiff resistance, highlighting deep-seated cultural and institutional barriers to female political participation.
Civil liberties, while constitutionally guaranteed, are under threat. Crackdowns on protesters, restrictions on press freedom, and surveillance of activists reveal an authoritarian streak within the democratic framework. The controversial Twitter ban in 2021 exemplified the country’s willingness to curb digital freedoms, prompting domestic and international criticism.
The political crisis in Rivers State embodies broader democratic struggles. Attempts to control the state through undemocratic means expose weaknesses in federal institutions and the rule of law. Immediate restoration of democratic governance in Rivers State is vital to preserving Nigeria’s democratic integrity and institutional credibility.
Local governments remain under the control of state governors, depriving citizens of grassroots democracy. Last year’s Supreme Court judgment on local government autonomy is promising, but state-level resistance threatens its implementation. Genuine autonomy would bring governance closer to the people and foster democratic innovation.
As we mark Democracy Day, we must honour the sacrifices of Chief M.K.O. Abiola, Kudirat Abiola, Femi Falana, Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Pa Alfred Rewane, President Bola Tinubu, and countless others, who fought for Nigeria’s freedom. As democracy in Nigeria continues to evolve after 26 years, this day should inspire action toward its renewal. With despotism and state failure as real threats, both citizens and leaders must take responsibility—citizens by demanding more, and leaders by delivering. Excuses are no longer acceptable.