Opinion
On Nigeria’s Sugar Tax Policy
On December 31, 2021, the president signed into law a policy that would become a major weapon in our fight against obesity and overweight. The policy was part of the new finance bill, and it fixed a N10 sugar tax per litre on all carbonated and sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) drinks.
According to the Minister for Finance and National Planning, Mrs Zainab Ahmed, the tax is meant to discourage excessive sugar intake; but it is also an avenue to generate the much needed revenue to strengthen health care delivery in the country. It is estimated that the sugar tax will generate as much as N81 billion in three years.
The federal government is following after 50 other countries that have implemented a similar sugar tax, including South Africa in 2016 and UK in 2018. These countries have seen more than expected reductions in sugar intake since their policies became active.
In Nigeria, the sugar tax is a welcomed development and a major step in the fight against the evil Siamese twins of obesity and overweight; and this is why the National Action on Sugar, a health coalition for advocating for policy measures to combat non-communicable disease, views the policy as a preventive measure. Also, the Nigerian Cancer Society, while commending the federal government, noted that non-communicable diseases account for one in three deaths in the country.
SSB has been linked with obesity, Type 2 diabetes, overweight, tooth decay and cardiovascular diseases, according to a 2010 World Bank report. Obesity and overweight are further associated with other health complications, such as heart disease and certain types of cancer and stroke. Globally, obesity and overweight are now ranked as the third leading cause of death for adults. A 2016 report by Statista, a global data firm, indicates that around 1.9 billion people are overweight globally; and out of this number, 650 suffer obesity. The figure for Nigeria as of 2020 was 12 million.
Research has shown a strong correlation between SSB and obesity-overweight. The evidence is overwhelming, and it should scare us. For instance, according to Statista, Nigeria is the fourth largest consumer of soft drinks after the US, China and Mexico.
Apparently, we are number one in Africa, consuming more than 40 million liters of soft drinks per annum. In fact, the estimated year-on-year volume growth for 2022 is 0.5 percent – meaning that Nigerians will consume a whopping 73,567,500 liters of soft drinks this year.
So far, there have been major attacks on the policy from the Manufacturers Association of Nigerian (MAN) and the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC). Their arguments have been targeted at the two main aims of the policy; namely discouraging excessive sugar intake and revenue generation to support the 2022 budget.
They asserted that there were other avenues of major sugar intake aside from soft drinks, especially our heavy carbohydrate diet. On the revenue side, they picked holes in the federal government’s revenue projections.
According to MAN’s estimate, the federal government will lose up to N197 billion in VAT, tertiary tax, and company income tax. MAN further contends that the implementation of the policy will trigger the loss of N1.9 trillion in the sector over the next five years; and that the consumer will be on the receiving end, bearing the full brunt of the policy.
In the same vein, the NLC is concerned that as many as 15,000 jobs could be on the line as a result of the policy. They argue that the impact of the policy could be far-reaching, considering the current unemployment rate of 33 per cent; and the fact that 38 per cent of the total workforce of MAN is domiciled in the soft drinks sub-sector.
The primary intent of the policy is laudable, but the idea of generating revenue is completely flawed, consequently making the policy deficient, and neither MAN nor NLC addressed this deficiency in their opposition to the policy. For instance, the UK government estimated about £500 million from their own sugar tax; but in 2020, the tax generated only £33 million due to the compliance component of the policy.
The UK sugar tax termed soft drinks industry levy (SDIL) took off in 2018, and since then a myriad of reports have shown its effectiveness in the reduction of sugar intake, both for households and residents. One report indicated that the SDIL is responsible for the reduction of sugar intake of nearly 6500 calories per resident, and a reduction of about 30g per household per week. The SDIL has a layered structure, whereby, soft drinks having eight grams of sugar per 100 ml is taxed £0.24 per litre.
Contrary to the position of MAN an NLC, available research has not shown any overall decline in the sales of soft drinks in the UK, indicating that the policy is actually achieving the intended result without any negative consequence on the soft drinks industry. A similar result was seen in South Africa after the implementation of their own sugar tax in 2016. A report from The Lancet indicates that the policy prompted an industry-wide sugar content reduction.
However, the Nigerian sugar tax, in spite of being a major step in the right direction, is deficient. Unlike the UK sugar tax, the Nigerian sugar tax is structured in a manner that perpetually puts the burden on the consumers. It does not incentivise innovation among the soft drinks manufacturers that is capable of leading to sugar content reduction in their products.
For instance, sugar reduction was seen in the UK and South Africa before the implementation of the policy. Before 2018, most of the soft drinks manufacturers in the UK have reduced their gram per 100 ml. Most of the manufacturers producing above five grams per 100 ml brought their sugar content to 4.5 grams per 100 ml; while those producing at above eight grams per 100 ml brought their content to about 7.5 gram per 100 ml.
The Nigerian policy of N10 per litre is a disincentive for change. In the long run, it might not be effective as compared to the SDIL of the UK which has spurred an industry-wide sugar revolution of immense benefits both to the consumer and the soft drink manufacturers. The federal government should take another look at the policy in a bid to better it by addressing the inherent deficiencies in order for the policy to achieve its primary aim.
In the first instance, the federal government should stipulate an acceptable sugar-content level per litre instead of the N10 per litre which is arbitrary, and disregards sugar content level. Secondly, the federal government should jettison the idea of using the policy to generate revenue; rather, it should amplify the health benefits of reducing excessive sugar intake. If this is done, MAN, NLC and other members of the organised private sector will fully be onboard
By: Raphael Pepple
Opinion
Professor Kamene Okonjo: A Life Beyond Motherhood
Quote “Professor Kamene Okonjo
Some women leave behind more t
Yet, to remember Professor Kam
Professor Okonjo was the belov
one of the most dramatic chapt
On December 14, 2012, the then
She leaves behind children, gr
Professor Kamene Okonjo deserv
By: Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
Opinion
On Ancestrial Worship: My Take
Quote: An African who invokes
This is the concluding part
… Given the fact that I was
At the end of the visit by the
Back to my apartment, at abo
Under normal circumstances, yo
That all she asks is that Chie
For some reason that I do not
I believe that everyone in hu
Our ancestors have not gone fa
By: Jason Osai
Opinion
FG’s Transport Support And Rivers Workers
The Federal Government’s approval of a N70,000 monthly transport intervention for public service workers for six months, beginning in November 2026, offers hope to employees struggling with the rising cost of living. The agreement with the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), reached at a conciliation meeting in Abuja on October 27, is intended to cushion transport costs and ease pressure on workers’ incomes. But for public servants in Rivers State, it raises a familiar question: will the State Government key into the intervention and ensure that its workers benefit? The agreement provides for N70,000 monthly across all levels, for six months. The Federal Government also approved peculiar allowance arrears effective from May 1, 2026, to be paid in three equal instalments beginning in November.
The parties agreed to reconvene after one month to assess implementation. Ultimately, the value of these resolutions will be measured not by announcements but by whether eligible workers receive the money. Transport costs consume a substantial share of many civil servants’ earnings before they can meet household needs. Support for commuting is therefore not a luxury or political favour; it is temporary assistance to help workers remain at their jobs without sinking further into hardship. For lower-paid employees, transport costs can turn modest salaries into a daily exercise in difficult choices and sacrifice.
The agreement also urges State and Local Governments to participate and unions to press for implementation. The federal agreement does not automatically guarantee that every State and Local Government employee will receive the support. State authorities must clarify how it will apply to their workforce, make the necessary arrangements and publish a payment timetable. Rivers State must approach the arrangement with urgency and transparency. The Government should State whether it will implement the intervention and when payments will begin. Any administrative or financial question should be addressed promptly with organised labour, not allowed to become excuses for delay.
The concern is sharpened by the earlier N35,000 monthly wage award introduced by the Federal Government in 2023 after petrol subsidy removal. It was intended as temporary relief pending a new national minimum wage. While several States negotiated and paid wage awards or related sums, implementation nationwide was uneven. Reports in 2024 indicated that many States had failed to pay the federal award, while others provided different amounts. In Rivers, labour and media reports raised concerns about implementation of the N35,000 award for State workers, amid separate announcements and arrangements concerning Local Government employees.
The wage award was meant to ease the immediate effects of subsidy removal, yet workers faced uncertainty over whether the promised relief would reach them. In February 2024, the Rivers State Government announced approval of the N35,000 award for local government workers, but subsequent reports showed that implementation across worker categories remained a concern. The lesson is clear: approval and implementation are not the same. A declaration at a meeting offers little comfort to a worker whose account does not reflect the promised payment. For workers who travel to their offices daily, the implications of delayed support are significant. Transportation expenses compete with food, rent, school fees, healthcare and other essential household needs.
As fares rise, employees may be forced to reduce spending on necessities or borrow to sustain their families. A timely transport intervention would therefore provide practical relief and demonstrate that government understands the economic pressures confronting its workforce. Its temporary nature makes prompt implementation even more important. It is fair to acknowledge that this transport intervention is a new agreement and that its administrative details may require clarification. Rivers State should not be condemned in advance for a failure that has not occurred. Nevertheless, the earlier experience gives workers legitimate grounds to seek assurances before the November commencement date. The State should avoid allowing uncertainty to persist until workers begin asking why the promised assistance has not arrived.
The NLC and unions in Rivers State should engage the State Government immediately and seek a written commitment, an implementation plan and a process for reporting missed payments. If clarification from the Federal Government is needed, the State should seek it without abandoning the goal of providing relief. Labour leaders must also keep members informed about progress and insist that any agreed arrangements are applied fairly and transparently. The Rivers State Government should treat this intervention as an opportunity to rebuild confidence. Timely support would show that workers’ welfare is more than a talking point and that the State recognises the economic realities confronting its employees.
Silence, delay or selective implementation, by contrast, would revive frustration over earlier relief measures and weaken trust between government and labour. Every month lost to administrative delay leaves workers facing the same transport burden without the intended assistance. The State should consult labour, publish arrangements and pay eligible workers on time. Rivers workers should not have to wonder whether federal relief will reach them. The Federal Government has announced the support; now the State must make its position clear. We hope the N70,000 monthly transport intervention will not follow the troubling path of the earlier wage award. Rivers State should learn from that experience and ensure that this time, relief is not merely promised but delivered.
Sylvia ThankGod-Amadi
-
Rivers2 days ago
NUJ Set To Attend UNIPORT’s 217th Inaugural Lecture
-
News2 days agoNJC Suspends Three Judges, Sanctions Eight Others
-
Politics2 days ago
Atiku Kicks-Off 2027 Campaign, Promises To Tackle Nigeria’s Challenges
-
Featured2 days agoAPC Presidential Campaign Storms PH, ‘Morrow
-
News2 days ago
FG Explains Supply Disruption As Power Generation Drops To 3,659MW
-
Metro2 days ago
Port Harcourt Prepares For 10,000 Runners As International Marathon Returns
-
News2 days agoBille Gas Leak: Coalition Tasks FG On Proactive Measures
-
News2 days agoIGP Orders Arrest, Prosecution Of Campaign Billboard Vandals
