The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has called on the All Progressives Congress (APC)-led Federal Government to clarify the contents of the recently signed health cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Government of Nigeria and the United States of America (USA).
The party, in a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Mallam Bolaji Abdullahi, said the call had become necessary following conflicting public descriptions of the agreement by both governments.
The ADC noted that while the Federal Government described 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 in Abuja portrayed the same agreement in different terms.
According to the party, the U.S. government’s characterisation introduced religious and identity-based framing, suggesting that spending under the MoU would be targeted at health institutions backed by a particular religion.
“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 party stated.
The ADC said it believes the divergence is not merely a communication 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 party demanded.
While affirming its support for foreign assistance and bilateral cooperation to strengthen Nigeria’s healthcare system, the ADC insisted that such partnerships must respect Nigeria’s diversity and comply with constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion or ethnicity.
The party cited Section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which prohibits discrimination 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,” it added.
The ADC therefore argued that 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 party said.
It noted that the MoU states that the United States is expected to provide approximately $2 billion in grant support over five years, while Nigeria has already committed close to $3 billion in domestic health financing over the same period.
According to the party, 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 stated.
The party therefore called on the Federal Government to publish 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,” the statement concluded.
