The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has called on the Federal Government to immediately clarify the contents of the recently signed health cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Nigeria and the United States, citing sharply conflicting public descriptions of the agreement by both governments. While Abuja has presented the MoU as a technical, inclusive framework to strengthen health security and expand primary healthcare, the ADC notes that official statements from the United States introduce identity-based framing that may be in breach of Nigeria’s constitutional provisions on non-discrimination, as well as discretionary termination powers that subordinate Nigeria’s interests and raise serious questions about national sovereignty.
The full statement read:
The African Democratic Congress (ADC) calls on the Federal Government to urgently clarify the contents and implications of the recently signed health cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between Nigeria and the United States, following clearly conflicting public descriptions of the agreement issued by both governments.
While the Federal Government has presented the MoU as a technical and inclusive framework aimed at strengthening health security, expanding primary healthcare, and increasing domestic health financing, official statements released by the United States Embassy describe the same agreement in materially different terms. The U.S. characterisation introduces religious, identity-based framing, indicating that spending under the MoU should be targeted at health institutions backed by a particular religion only.
It is the ADC’s considered view that the Nigerian government should not enter into any agreement that is sectional or potentially inimical to Nigeria’s constitutional commitment to inclusion and national unity. We find it particularly curious that these troubling conditionalities, including those that grant the United States unilateral powers of termination, are conspicuously missing from the Federal Government’s public rendering of the agreement.
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 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 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.
The ADC therefore calls on the Federal Government to come clean by publishing the full text of the signed MoU, including any annexes or accompanying instruments, and to clearly explain 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. Nigerians also deserve a clear explanation of how this agreement aligns with the Constitution and preserves Nigeria’s sovereign authority over its public policy choices.
