Group rejects proposed Nutritionists Registration Council Bill, indicates gray areas

The Global Prolife Alliance (GPA), a coalition of religious, pro-life and civil society advocates, has petitioned the National Assembly over the proposed

Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria Bill, saying it overreaches into culinary practice, traditional food preparation, religious customs, household activities and the livelihoods of Nigerians

The group stated: “The Bill should not be passed in its present form. Its broad regulatory powers, licensing requirements and criminal penalties could improperly extend beyond professional nutrition practice to ordinary cooking, catering, traditional food preparation, religious dietary observance and lawful food-related livelihoods, potentially affecting food access and constitutional interests in food security under Section 16A. Unless narrowly defined and amended, it may also risk inconsistency with rights to personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy, freedom of religion and freedom of expression under Sections 35–39. The Bill should therefore regulate qualified nutritionists without unnecessarily restricting ordinary food practices, cultural traditions or lawful livelihoods.”

The petition signed by Dr Philip C Njemanze Chairman Global Prolife Alliance (GPA), stated: “I, on behalf of myself and the Global Prolife Alliance (GPA), respectfully submit that the Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria Bill, in its present form, raises serious constitutional concerns because its regulatory provisions may extend beyond the professional regulation of qualified nutritionists to affect a much wider range of people engaged in nutrition-related activities.

“Nutrition is not exclusively a modern regulated profession. Food preparation, dietary practices, culinary knowledge and the transmission of food traditions are integral to Nigerian family life, culture, religion, commerce and employment. Millions of Nigerians participate in these activities as cooks, chefs, caterers, food vendors, traditional food practitioners, culinary instructors, restaurant operators and household food preparers.

“The National Assembly should therefore distinguish clearly between the regulation of professional nutritionists who provide specialised services and the ordinary preparation, sale, teaching and discussion of food.

“My objection is that the Bill does not adequately establish this boundary. Its broad regulatory powers, criminal penalties and authority over training and professional practice create a risk that people who are not practising as professional nutritionists could be subjected to regulatory restrictions or criminal proceedings.

“If the Bill is enacted without precise definitions and express exclusions, it could interfere with constitutionally protected interests, restrict lawful livelihoods and impose unnecessary barriers on Nigeria’s culinary and food-service industries.”

The group specifically said that Sections 1(b)–(e) and 3(d): Regulation and control of professional practice required scrutiny.

“Section 1 establishes the Council and identifies its regulatory responsibilities, while Section 3(d) provides for the regulation and control of the practice of nutrition by nutrition practitioners.

“These provisions should be expressly confined to professional nutrition practice. The Bill should not permit the general concept of nutrition to be used as a basis for regulating every person who prepares food, provides culinary services, teaches traditional recipes or discusses the nutritional qualities of food.

“Without a precise definition of the regulated profession, uncertainty may arise over whether activities traditionally performed by cooks, caterers, food vendors and other culinary workers fall within the Council’s authority.

“Constitutional relevance: Sections 35, 37, 38 and 39, where the application of the regulatory provisions interferes with personal liberty, private household activities, religious observance or lawful expression. Section 16A is also relevant to the policy objective of food security.”

The said Sections 3(a)–(c), 3(e)–(l), 17–22 and 38, 42–46 accords broad regulatory, accreditation and rulemaking powers.

“The Bill confers functions relating to standards, education, training, accreditation, quality assurance, professional registration and the making of rules and guidelines.

“Sections 17–22 address accreditation and training arrangements. Sections 38 and 42–46 provide for rules, regulations, guidelines and associated matters.

“These powers should not be interpreted as authorising the Council to control all forms of culinary education, traditional food knowledge, religious food instruction or general nutrition education. Accreditation requirements intended for professional qualifications should not automatically be extended to ordinary culinary training or informal instruction unless the legislation clearly establishes a legitimate and proportionate basis for doing so.

“The National Assembly should also ensure that delegated rules cannot expand the Act’s scope beyond the profession Parliament intends to regulate.

“Constitutional relevance: Section 39 protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to impart information, subject to the Constitution’s applicable limitations. Section 38 protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Sections 35 and 36 are relevant where enforcement may result in deprivation of liberty or proceedings that fail to provide fair hearing. Section 16A supplies an important food-security policy consideration.

“Section 23, as supplied, provides for a fine of up to N5,000,000, imprisonment for up to five years, or both, for specified unauthorised training, qualification-related and associated activities. Section 29 provides separate penalties for specified unauthorised training and certification activities.

“These provisions are particularly important because training and knowledge-sharing take many forms in Nigeria. Professional accreditation requirements must be clearly distinguished from ordinary culinary instruction, apprenticeship, traditional knowledge-sharing and general public education about food.

“The National Assembly should ensure that criminal penalties apply only to clearly identified conduct within the intended professional regulatory framework. The law should not leave culinary instructors, traditional practitioners or food-service businesses uncertain about whether their ordinary activities require approval from the Council.

“Constitutional relevance: Section 35 is relevant to any resulting deprivation of liberty, while Section 36 requires fair hearing in the determination of criminal charges and civil rights and obligations. The existence of a criminal penalty does not itself establish a constitutional violation, but ambiguity in the conduct being criminalised warrants careful legislative review.

“Section 26 provides for discipline of registered persons in specified circumstances. Sections 27 and 28 address specified conduct involving professional titles and the practice of nutrition without the required registration or licence.

“The central concern is whether the Bill defines professional practice narrowly enough to prevent these provisions from being applied to people who are merely preparing food, operating culinary businesses, teaching recipes or discussing nutrition without holding themselves out as registered nutritionists.

“Section 27(2), as supplied, refers to practising or offering services for gain as a nutritionist. It should not be treated as automatically prohibiting every commercial activity involving food. Nevertheless, the Bill should clearly distinguish the provision of regulated professional nutrition services from the preparation and sale of meals, ordinary catering and other culinary services.

“Constitutional relevance: Sections 35 and 36 are relevant to criminal enforcement and fair procedure. Sections 38 and 39 may be implicated where the provisions are applied to religious dietary practices or lawful communication. The strength of any constitutional challenge will depend on the actual statutory definitions and how the provisions are interpreted and enforced.

The group said Section 30 talks about employment or engagement of unregistered persons as nutritionists and provides penalties for employing or engaging an unregistered or unlicensed person as a nutritionist.

“The legislation should make clear that this provision applies to employment or engagement in the regulated professional capacity of a nutritionist, not to the employment of cooks, chefs, caterers, food vendors, kitchen staff or other culinary workers who do not provide regulated professional nutrition services.

“An unclear boundary could create uncertainty for restaurants, hotels, hospitals, schools, catering businesses and other employers that operate kitchens or provide meals.

“The National Assembly should expressly protect ordinary culinary employment while retaining appropriate safeguards for services that genuinely require professional nutrition qualifications.

The group gave constitutional grounds for legislative review, stressing right to life.

“The right to life is fundamental. Food and adequate nutrition are essential to human survival, health and wellbeing. The Bill’s regulation of professional nutrition practice should therefore be assessed for unintended effects on the availability, affordability and accessibility of food-related services. Unnecessary licensing barriers, disproportionate penalties or restrictions that impede legitimate food-service activities could have adverse consequences for public access to food and nutrition services.

“However, Section 33 does not automatically establish a constitutional right to engage in every food-related activity without regulation. The relevant concern is whether the Bill’s actual operation would unlawfully interfere with life or create unjustified risks to public health and wellbeing.”

The group acnowledges the right to personal liberty, stating: “Sections 23, 27, 28, 29 and 30 contain criminal penalties, including possible imprisonment. Paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule also provides for imprisonment of up to six months for failure, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a duly issued summons.

“These provisions require particular scrutiny because criminal penalties can affect personal liberty. The National Assembly should ensure that each offence is clearly defined, that its scope is confined to conduct Parliament intends to prohibit, and that lawful activities such as ordinary cooking, catering and traditional culinary instruction cannot inadvertently attract criminal liability.

“Sections 24–26 establish mechanisms for investigating and determining professional misconduct. The Second Schedule provides for legal representation and fair hearing, but the complete disciplinary framework must be assessed as a whole.

“Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Second Schedule expressly recognise legal representation and fair hearing. Paragraphs 21 and 22 provide for publication and the commencement of disciplinary decisions.

“These safeguards should be strengthened by clear requirements for notice of allegations, access to relevant evidence, an opportunity to answer adverse evidence, reasoned decisions and effective appeals.

“The legislation should also ensure that disciplinary findings are not published or treated as final in a way that unfairly prejudices a person while a relevant appeal remains unresolved.

Section 37 protects the privacy of citizens and their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications.

“The Bill should not create an implied authority to intrude into private households merely because people prepare meals or make dietary decisions. Any inspection, compulsory attendance, document-production requirement or other investigative measure must have a proper legal basis and comply with applicable constitutional protections.

“Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Second Schedule authorise the Disciplinary Committee to summon persons and require relevant documents or materials. These powers should be confined to legitimate proceedings and should not be interpreted as permitting general searches of private homes or unrestricted access to private household information.

“The Bill should make the limits of investigative powers clear and provide appropriate safeguards for confidential and personal information.”

Talking about Freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the group maintained: “Food practices can form an important part of religious observance, customary traditions and personal conscience in Nigeria.

“The preparation and consumption of particular foods, the observance of dietary restrictions, and the transmission of traditional culinary practices may be connected with religious and cultural life.

“The Bill should therefore expressly distinguish professional nutrition services from the ordinary practice and transmission of religious dietary customs. It should not permit professional regulatory requirements to become an unnecessary barrier to religious observance or the lawful sharing of traditional food practices.

“Any limitation on religious freedom must be assessed in accordance with the Constitution; the mere existence of a professional regulatory scheme does not automatically amount to a violation of Section 38.

“Section 39 protects freedom of expression, including the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart ideas and information, subject to applicable constitutional limitations.

“Food and nutrition knowledge is communicated through families, apprenticeships, culinary schools, religious communities, books, public lectures, media, research and informal education.

“The Bill should not inadvertently restrict lawful discussion of food, traditional recipes, general nutrition information or culinary teaching merely because these activities concern nutrition.

“Sections 3, 17–22, 38 and 42–46 should be reviewed to ensure that the Council’s functions, accreditation requirements and delegated powers do not extend beyond legitimate professional regulation into unnecessary control of general information-sharing and culinary education.

“Section 16A, inserted through the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Fifth Alteration) (No. 34) Act, 2023, establishes a constitutional policy objective concerning food security.

“The National Assembly should consider whether the Bill’s licensing, accreditation, criminal and regulatory provisions could unnecessarily increase the cost of food services, restrict the availability of culinary workers, or create barriers to traditional food preparation and community nutrition education.

“Section 16A is a directive principle of State policy, rather than an automatically enforceable fundamental right equivalent to the rights in Chapter IV. It nevertheless provides an important constitutional policy framework for assessing legislation that could affect food availability, accessibility and affordability.

“The Bill should be designed to strengthen public health and nutrition without imposing unnecessary burdens on food production, preparation, distribution or access.”

On the impact on Nigeria’s culinary workforce and traditional practices, GPA stated: “The culinary sector includes restaurant and hotel kitchens, caterers, food vendors, traditional cooks, culinary instructors, apprentices, food processors and household food preparers.

“These people do not necessarily practise as professional nutritionists. Their work often relies on practical skills, inherited knowledge, commercial experience and cultural traditions rather than formal nutrition qualifications.

“The National Assembly should therefore ensure that the Bill does not inadvertently create a licensing barrier for people whose work is the preparation and sale of food rather than the provision of regulated professional nutrition services.

“The legislation should expressly exclude ordinary household food preparation, conventional catering, culinary apprenticeships, traditional recipe-sharing and general non-professional nutrition education from registration requirements, unless a person separately undertakes an activity that is clearly defined as regulated professional practice.

“Such clarification would protect legitimate employment and traditional knowledge while preserving the Council’s ability to regulate qualified professionals and address genuine risks to public health.”

The group therefore made some recommendations to the National Assembly. It requested thus:

“Narrow the scope of regulation: Define professional nutrition practice precisely and expressly distinguish it from ordinary culinary and food-service activities.

“Protect household and traditional practices: Clarify that household cooking, family feeding, religious dietary observance and traditional food preparation do not, by themselves, require registration or licensing.

“Protect the culinary workforce: Exclude ordinary cooks, chefs, caterers, food vendors, kitchen staff and culinary apprentices from professional registration requirements unless they undertake clearly defined regulated nutrition services.

“Clarify training and accreditation: Ensure that Sections 17–23 and 29 apply to the intended professional training and qualification activities, rather than ordinary culinary education or informal knowledge-sharing.

“Review criminal penalties: Ensure that Sections 23 and 27–30 and paragraph 7 of the Second Schedule define prohibited conduct clearly and impose proportionate penalties.

“Strengthen fair hearing: Ensure that Sections 24–26 and the Second Schedule provide effective procedural safeguards, transparent decisions and meaningful appeal rights.

“Protect privacy: Define the limits of investigative and compulsory document-production powers and prevent any unwarranted intrusion into private households.

“Limit delegated powers: Ensure that Sections 38 and 42–46 cannot be used to extend professional regulation beyond the clear limits of the Act.

“Assess food-security implications: Examine the possible effects of the Bill on the cost, availability and accessibility of food services, traditional culinary livelihoods and public nutrition education.

“Conduct public consultation: Invite submissions from nutritionists, medical professionals, culinary workers, farmers, educators, religious communities, consumer groups and other affected members of the public before final passage.”

In conclusion, GPA stated: “The regulation of professional nutrition practice may serve a legitimate public-health purpose. However, professional regulation must be carefully distinguished from the regulation of food itself, traditional culinary practices, religious dietary customs, ordinary household activities and the livelihoods of people who are not practising as professional nutritionists.

“The present wording of the Bill raises concerns that its broad functions, accreditation provisions, criminal offences and rulemaking powers may extend beyond that legitimate purpose unless the scope of regulated practice is precisely defined.

“I therefore respectfully urge the National Assembly to review the Bill against Sections 33, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the Constitution, together with the food-security policy objective in Section 16A, and to amend the Bill so that professional standards and public health are protected without unnecessarily restricting constitutional freedoms, traditional practices, lawful livelihoods or access to food.

“The objective should be a clear, proportionate andi constitutionally sound law that regulates professional nutritionists without turning ordinary food preparation and culinary practice into activities subject to professional licensing.”

The post Group rejects proposed Nutritionists Registration Council Bill, indicates gray areas appeared first on The Sun Nigeria.