US-Nigeria Health Deal: Expert, Others Query Data Sharing, Annual $600m Commitment

BY PATIENCE IVIE IHEJIRIKA and AZA MSUE

A professor of virology and former vice-chancellor of Redeemer’s University, Oyewale Tomori, has warned that Nigeria could become more dependent on foreign assistance under its health agreement with the United States (US).

He cited concerns over data sharing, pathogen access and the sustainability of funding.

Also, the Northern States Christian Elders Forum (NOSCEF) has expressed deep concern over the medical aid agreement reportedly signed between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Government of the United States of America.

NOSCEF said it was particularly worried about the reported provisions relating to the supply of vaccines and medicines, Nigeria’s financial commitments, and the regulatory responsibilities of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).

Tomori told LEADERSHIP that the agreement could undermine Nigeria’s health security if the country shared health data and pathogen samples without guarantees of equitable benefit sharing.

He expressed concern that Nigeria could provide valuable health information and biological resources to the US but later have to purchase medicines, reagents and other products developed from them.

“By simply giving away our health data and pathogens to America, with no guarantee of benefit sharing,” Nigeria could end up in a situation where it continues to depend on external assistance to address its health challenges, he said.

The Nigerian and US governments signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 19 December 2025, covering health cooperation and funding from April 2026 to December 2030.

Under the agreement, the United States is expected to provide nearly $2 billion in grant funding over five years, while Nigeria has committed to allocating at least six per cent of executed annual federal and state budgets to health, a move projected to mobilise nearly $3 billion in domestic health financing.

The agreement covers disease surveillance, outbreak response, laboratory systems, support for frontline health workers, health information systems and access to essential medical commodities.

However, Tomori questioned whether Nigeria could sustain its financial commitments, given its history of low budgetary allocations and challenges in releasing approved funds.

He said Nigeria’s proposed contribution amounted to approximately $600 million annually, raising questions about the government’s capacity to provide the resources required to implement the agreement.

Tomori cited figures attributed to the Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Professor Muhammad Ali Pate, indicating that only N36 million had been released from the ₦218 billion health capital budget for 2025.

He asked how the government would mobilise the resources required to meet its commitments while addressing existing gaps in the health system.

According to him, although the US funding could provide additional resources for Nigeria’s health programmes, the country risked remaining dependent on American supplies after the agreement expires.

He argued that the assistance was not necessarily a direct cash transfer, but included materials, facilities, reagents and drugs sourced from the US economy.

“Knowing the way of aid, Nigeria will still continue to need all these resources from America, after the end of the agreement,” he said, warning that the country could eventually have to finance the purchases with its own resources.

On accountability, Tomori said Nigeria must strengthen its own mechanisms for ensuring that public funds are properly allocated and spent.

He argued that while the United States could demand accountability for its contribution, Nigeria must take responsibility for monitoring its own spending and ensuring that domestic resources deliver measurable benefits.

“There is no accountability you can put in place for money or funds that you did not contribute,” he said, adding that Nigeria already had institutions and procedures for accountable spending but needed the political will to enforce them.

Tomori also questioned whether the country’s technical capacity and institutional safeguards would be sufficient to protect its interests under the agreement.

Although he acknowledged that Nigeria possessed the expertise and institutional capacity required to manage such arrangements, he said the country had not created a sufficiently supportive environment for scientists, researchers and health workers to contribute effectively.

He identified self-interest at different levels of governance as a major obstacle to ensuring that national interests take precedence over individual interests.

To address these concerns, Tomori called for a review of the data- and pathogen-sharing provisions, arguing that the agreement did not guarantee equitable benefits for Nigeria.

He urged the government to invest its domestic contribution in strengthening local research, laboratory infrastructure and the capacity of Nigerian scientists to analyse health data and process pathogen samples within the country.

According to him, developing these capabilities locally would help Nigeria retain greater value from its health resources while strengthening national health security.

Meanwhile, Nigeria is not the only African country to raise concerns over the United States’ new bilateral health agreements. Ghana, Zimbabwe and Namibia have rejected proposed deals, while Kenya and Zambia have also faced disputes over provisions relating to health data and biological specimens.

The agreements, introduced under the US “America First” global health strategy, are designed to provide health assistance over five years while requiring recipient countries to increase domestic health spending. However, concerns have emerged over whether the financial support justifies the proposed access to sensitive health information and biological resources.

According to available reports, Zimbabwe withdrew from negotiations over a proposed $367 million, five-year agreement in February 2026, citing concerns that it would be required to share sensitive health data and biological resources without guarantees of access to medical innovations developed from them.

Government spokesperson Nick Mangwana described the proposed arrangement as an “unequal exchange”, arguing that it threatened the country’s data sovereignty and national interests.

Ghana also declined a proposed agreement reportedly worth $109 million over five years, citing concerns about the sharing of sensitive health data as a major reason for its decision. Namibia similarly rejected a proposed deal amid concerns about provisions on the sharing of health data and biological specimens.

Zambia’s experience highlights how such concerns can influence negotiations. Following a prolonged dispute, the country finalised a health agreement with the US in October 2026 after contentious provisions requiring access to patient data and medical specimens were removed from the final deal.

The developments have intensified debate over whether African countries can secure external health funding without compromising control over their health information and biological resources.

However, the Federal Government has described the agreement as a major step towards strengthening health security, expanding primary healthcare and building a more resilient and self-reliant health system.

In its announcement following the signing, the government said the partnership would support the early detection, prevention and control of infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, while improving laboratory systems, disease surveillance and access to essential health commodities.

The government also said the agreement aligned with ongoing health sector reforms aimed at improving healthcare accessibility, affordability, quality and accountability.

It maintained that progressively increasing domestic health financing as external grant support declines would support a transition towards a more sustainable health system.

The Coordinating Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Prof. Muhammad Ali Pate, described the MoU as a major step towards safeguarding Nigerians’ health and strengthening national resilience.

“This partnership underscores our determination to build a health system that can prevent, detect, and respond to health threats, while expanding access to affordable, quality care for all Nigerians.

“It also reflects our firm commitment to domestic investment, accountability, and long-term sustainability,” Pate said.

The agreement is expected to run until December 2030.

Also, the Northern States Christian Elders Forum (NOSCEF) has expressed deep concern over the medical aid agreement reportedly signed between the Federal Government of Nigeria and the Government of the United States of America.

NOSCEF said it was particularly worried about the reported provisions relating to the supply of vaccines and medicines, Nigeria’s financial commitments, and the regulatory responsibilities of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC).

In a statement issued by NOSCEF chairman, Elder Sunday Oibe, at the weekend, the forum asked the Federal Government to explain the financial implications of the reported $2.1 billion Nigerian counterpart contribution, the specific obligations undertaken by both countries, and the safeguards established to protect Nigerian patients.

The forum said President Tinubu and the Federal Government must explain the true terms of the agreement and demonstrate, with evidence, that Nigeria’s interests have been adequately protected.

The statement called on the Federal Government to make the full text of the agreement public, particularly any clauses relating to the testing, evaluation, approval, monitoring, and distribution of vaccines and medicines supplied under the arrangement.

It urged the National Assembly, particularly the relevant committees responsible for health, foreign affairs, and public finance, to urgently investigate the reported agreement and establish the full facts.

NOSCEF stated, “According to the reports, the United States is expected to provide vaccines and medicines valued at approximately $3 billion to support Nigeria’s efforts to combat malaria and other life-threatening diseases, while Nigeria is expected to contribute a counterpart fund of approximately $2.1 billion. Of even greater concern are allegations that the agreement restricts NAFDAC from independently reviewing or testing the supplied medical products”

“If these reported provisions accurately reflect the agreement signed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, they raise serious questions about public health protection, regulatory independence, ethical responsibility, transparency, and Nigeria’s national sovereignty.

The health and lives of Nigerians must never become bargaining chips in any international agreement”

NOSCEF maintained that, “The Independence of NAFDAC Must Be Protected. NAFDAC exists to safeguard the health of Nigerians by ensuring that medicines, vaccines, and other regulated products meet the required standards of safety, quality, and efficacy.

“Any agreement that prevents or unduly restricts NAFDAC from carrying out its statutory regulatory responsibilities would be a matter of grave national concern. No matter how generous an aid package may appear, Nigerians must not be expected to surrender the independent oversight necessary to protect their lives”

The government must categorically clarify whether NAFDAC retains its full regulatory authority over these products. Nigerians Deserve Transparency, not speculation”

The statement added, “The public has a right to know the actual terms of an international agreement that concerns the health and well-being of millions of citizens. Free medical supplies must not mean compromised safety”

“NOSCEF recognises the importance of international cooperation in addressing malaria and other diseases that continue to threaten lives across Nigeria. We also acknowledge that properly evaluated vaccines and medicines can play an important role in reducing preventable illness and death.”

“Nevertheless, the fact that a medical product is provided free of charge does not remove the need for appropriate safety assessments, regulatory oversight, informed public communication, and post-distribution monitoring”

“We are concerned by reports that other African countries, including Ghana, have raised objections to similar arrangements or declined to accept particular terms. These reports should be clarified by the relevant governments so that Nigerians can understand the precise nature of the agreements and the decisions taken,” the statement explained.