Featured, Health
The controversy that trails the Control of Infectious Disease Bill 2020 has compelled the lawmakers to subject the proposed bill to public hearing. This exercise will surely allow for the input of all the stakeholders, especially the group that has described it as Superfluous, illegal and unconstitutional
By Anayo Ezugwu
THE controversy that has so far trailed the Control of Infectious Disease Bill 2020 introduced by the House of Representatives can only be likened to that of the Social Media Bill and Hate Speech Bill in this country. The nine-letter word, REJECTION, can best describe the reaction of most Nigerians to the controversial bill last week.
Once again, Nigerians are united against any tyrannical and overbearing bill before the National Assembly that will not see the light of the day like other unwanted bills. They believe that the bill is anti-people, against fundamental human rights and designed to turn Nigerians into guinea pigs.
Even some members of the House have also rejected the bill, saying that it contains several contentious provisions. For instance, when members received copies of the bill, they observed that the bill failed to take into consideration the current federal structure of the country where powers are shared between the federal, state and local governments.
They also observed that the bill gives the director-general of the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control, NCDC, absolute powers, including over and above that of security agencies on matters that deal with law and order and over and above the courts on judicial matters. Another contentious provision of the bill is in Section 30. The section allows forceful vaccination against a person’s choice. Subsection 2 specifically states, “Notwithstanding subsection (1)(b), a Port Health Officer may require such person to undergo vaccination or other prophylaxis and may subject him to isolation or surveillance for such period as the Port Health Officer thinks fit.”
Also, the immunity provided in Section 70 of the bill effectively removes court jurisdiction and places the DG and his health officers above the law. Some analysts are of the opinion that the power to confiscate and turn the property in any state of the federation into an isolation centre is also not only open to abuse, but it is also in conflict with the powers of state governors and runs in conflict with the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens.
Likewise, the bill also authorises the arrest without warrant on almost every issue based on suspicion and the private opinion of the DG of the NCDC. Section 8 of the proposed bill clearly takes away the duty of confidentiality owed patients by their personal physician. Section 12 empowers the DG on suspicion to prohibit the burial of a deceased by his/her family. This again violates the citizens’ right to human dignity.
Apart from the contentious provisions, the Control of Infectious Disease Bill 2020 also violates Article 6 of the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. UNESCO in 2003 set universal standards in the field of bioethics with due regard for human dignity and human rights and freedom, in the spirit of cultural pluralism inherent in bioethics.
Subsequently, the declaration was adopted by UNESCO’s General Conference on October 19, 2005, and it supports the doctrine of informed consent, being an element of global medical ethics and Bioethics. It stipulates that any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be conducted with free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.
However, another twist has been added to the raging controversy. Arinze Ekwem, a pharmacist based in Manchester, United Kingdom, has alleged that what is coming is not a vaccine, but genetic malpractice. He said the compulsory vaccination if approved, has the potential of tampering with the human being in a fundamental way.
According to him, it will raise the issue of tampering with the genetic infrastructure of the human race. “A vaccine is a weakened or inactivated whole germ or a part of the germ. The principle is that on introduction into your body, mobile white blood cells will eat up and destroy the weak or inactive germ and then present the fragments to stationary white blood cells that will study it as a foreign particle and then produce antibodies against it.
“Those antibodies will circulate in the blood and bind to any cells infected by that foreign organism making it easy for mobile white blood cells to bind to the infected cell and destroy it. This is called immunization.
“But the technology being used to create a vaccine for corona will not bring a weakened form of the virus to you. It will bring a piece of genetic code (mRNA) which will insert itself into your cells and hijack the cells to produce antibodies or what else it is programmed to express in the same way a virus hijacks the cell to replicate itself,” he said.
In the face of all these controversies, the bill being sponsored by Femi Gbajabiamila, Speaker of the House and two others have passed the second reading. But Civil Society Organisations, lawyers and other well-meaning Nigerians are determined to stop the bill like the Social Media Bill and Hate Speech Bill.
A coalition of civil society groups has described the bill as a threat to human rights. The group, comprising 41 organisations, said the House should subject the bill to public scrutiny by embarking on stakeholders’ consultations and public hearing to harness public inputs into the legislation.
The group in a statement made available to Realnews on Tuesday, May 5, noted that the bill empowers NCDC to restrict fundamental rights and freedom of the people. “The Bill empowers the NCDC to restrict the fundamental rights and freedom at will, and abuse constitutionally established institutions and processes, without any form of accountability. For instance, Section 10 (3) gives the Director-General express powers to use force to enter any premises without a warrant,” it said.
On its part, the coalition of United Political Parties, CUPP, raised alarm over plans by the leadership of the House to forcefully and without adherence to the rules of lawmaking to pass the bill. The group questioned the rationale behind the hurry in trying to pass the bill.
“What if the world eventually does not find a vaccine or cure for coronavirus just like it has not found a cure for HIV AIDS? What is the hurry in passing a Bill based on speculation or is there anything else the leadership of the House would want to tell Nigerians? Is this bill what will stop the mass deaths and infections rising in Lagos, Kano, Abuja, Gombe, Borno, Kaduna, Ogun, Bauchi and indeed all over the country?” A statement issued by Ikenga Ugochinyere, national publicity secretary, CUPP questioned.
Likewise, Femi Falana, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN and human rights lawyer, has described the bill as superfluous, illegal and unconstitutional. He said the efforts to replace the Quarantine Act was a waste of time as the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention Act of 2018 has taken care of what the lawmakers are trying to achieve.
In an interview with Channels Television on Wednesday, May 6, Falana said: “It is pertinent to inform Nigerians that in November 2018, a law was enacted in this country – the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control Act, NCDC Act, which has taken care of infectious diseases in the country. So, it is not correct, in fact, it is misleading on the part of the House of Representatives to say that it is amending the 1926 Quarantine Act because there is already a development between 1926 and now. You had the 2018 Act which has taken care of the entire provisions of the new bill. The new bill, as far as the law is concerned, is superfluous. Its provisions are largely illegal and unconstitutional.”
But Gbajabiamila has defended the bill, saying it was conceived in the best interest of the Nigerian people and no one else. He said since the introduction of the bill, there has been a barrage of criticisms against it, with allegations of sinister motives.
While addressing his colleagues at the resumption of the plenary session on Tuesday, May 5, the Speaker said the allegation that the bill was a sinister attempt to turn Nigerians into guinea pigs for medical research while taking away their fundamental human rights was far from the truth.
“None of these allegations are true. Unfortunately, we now live in a time when conspiracy theories have gained such currency that genuine endeavours in the public interest can quickly become mischaracterised and misconstrued to raise the spectre of sinister intent and ominous possibility.
“This House of Representatives will never take any action that purposes to bring harm to any Nigerian here at home or abroad. As we have thus far shown by our conduct, the resolutions and actions we take in this 9th House of Representatives will always be in the best interests of the Nigerian people who elected us, and no one else,” he said.
Also the House has gone to court over allegations that it collected $10 million bribe to pass the bill. Gbajabiamila had mandated the Clerk of the House to liaise with the Majority Leader of the House and Legal Adviser to the National Assembly to begin legal action.
To fine-tune the efficacy of the legal action, the House also set up an investigative panel headed by Henry Nwawuba to fish out those responsible for the damaging report. The panel is to report back to the House in 10 days.
Apart from the House of Reps, the Senate has also introduced the National Health Emergency Bill. The bill was sponsored by Senator Chukwuka Utazi, chairman, Senate Committee on Primary Healthcare and Communicable Disease. It is not clear if the bill is similar to the controversial Control of Infectious Diseases Bill before the House of Representatives.
As Gbajabiamila has yielded to people’s demand for wider consultations and public hearing on the bill, a group of CSOs has commended the decision of the House to subject the bill to a public hearing. The CSOs, numbering 69, said harnessing the inputs of critical stakeholders and the Nigerian people, for whom the bill is proposed, gives it the necessary legitimacy.
They noted that the purpose of a public hearing is to ensure that there is free exchange of ideas and opinions, effective information dissemination, and consideration of expert opinions in the process of lawmaking for a more effective, responsive, and robust legislation. “We acknowledge the imperative of strict adherence to the guidelines on physical distancing and other preventive measures to curb the spread of COVID-19.
“Enforcing these guidelines therefore requires a review of the format for the public hearing and all other forms of citizen engagement to enrich the Bill. It is pertinent to implore that the review of legislative process formats must adhere to the principles of transparency, accessibility, inclusivity and clarity to ensure the robust public participation of citizens,” it said.
This notwithstanding, many Nigerians accept the House of Representative to withdraw this contentious bill, consult more widely with critical stakeholders, including the Nigeria Governors Forum officials and health sector professionals, and come up with a draft that will serve the interest of Nigerians.
– May 9, 2020 @ 8:49 GMT |
Tags: COVID-19: Controversy over Control of Infectious Disease Bill 2020
