Home Health

Buhari demands report on local vaccine production from the Health Minister

April 21, 2022

in Health

VIEWS

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

By Ide Ide

President Muhammadu Buhari on Wednesday in Abuja directed the Minister of Health, Dr. Osagie Ehanire, to submit a progress report by the end of May 2022 on the production of vaccines in Nigeria.

The President gave the directive while receiving the leadership of the Nigeria Integrated Biopharmaceuticals Industries Consortium (NIBI), led by Mr. Vilarugel Cuyas, Chairman/Chief Executive Officer of Fredlab.

The President commended the NIBI consortium made up of European biotechnology companies Merck, Unizima, Rommelag, and Fredlab, who are collaborating with the Nigerian start-up PIA BioPharma to establish a world-class Bio-Pharma Industrial Complex for the manufacture of vaccines and essential therapeutics in Nigeria.

Stressing that this administration considers food and medicine sufficiency as national security issues, the President asked the health minister and his team to work closely with the consortium on the Federal Government support required for the actualization of the NIBI project within the next few months.

‘‘While the Ministry of Health continues to drive collaboration with investors for vaccines, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices, in a move towards self-sufficiency, I welcome the NIBI consortium’s desire to partner with the Federal Government in support of our agenda and look forward to the implementation of the NIBI project as it takes shape,’’ the President said.

Recounting the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Nigeria’s economy and health systems and how some nations with comparative advantages in being centres of bio-pharmaceutical productions adopted a “me-first” attitude towards securing their citizens, President Buhari said:

‘‘I want Nigeria to make a bold statement in this field not just for reasons mentioned earlier, but because of its knock-on effects on our economy at large.’’

The President told his audience that Nigeria has learnt key lessons from the pandemic, including that countries must look inward for sustenance in food and medical supplies.

‘‘Having witnessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our health system, our communal life and national economy, from which we are yet to fully recover, we are reminded that the wealth of a nation is dependent on the health and wellbeing of its citizens.

‘‘At the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, Nigeria was quick to respond to what seemed an existential threat, by strengthening the health system’s capacity to handle the pandemic – an initiative that continues till today in collaboration with the state government, private sector, and international partners.

‘‘Key lessons of the pandemic are that nations can be brought to their knees by disease outbreaks that cripple national and international trade, and that countries must be able to look inwards for sustenance in food and medical supplies. The benefit of this Administration’s early investment in agriculture came to light during this global turbulence.

‘‘However, we cannot say the same for essential medicines, health supplies and most importantly vaccines to protect our citizens. Increasing the capacity for in-country production of vaccines and medical supplies has therefore become a matter of not just urgency, but of national security.

‘‘As we saw, many nations who had developed comparative advantages in being centres of bio-pharmaceutical productions adopted a “me-first” attitude towards securing their citizens. These actions placed developing nations, particularly those in Africa at severe disadvantage.’’

The President noted that as part of the fallout and lessons learned from the crises, under his directive, the Minister of Health has been conducting local and international high-level consultations to seek access to the know-how and finance to revive domestic manufacturing of vaccines.

He added that the consultations had become more important as Nigeria prepares to fully transition from the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) support for the supply of vaccines by 2028.

‘‘Since we consider food and medicine sufficiency as national security issues, technical and financial investments and partnerships are priorities in our policy planning, with the assurance that Nigeria has the market and a pool of expert scientists to draw upon, from within and outside the country,’’ he said.

I pardoned Dariye, Nyame on ground of life-threatening ill health – Buhari

Boko Haram has no Islamic ideology, Buhari tells ICC

Opinion

Suspension of Mike Ozekhome SAN: A Hasty Decision By The LPPC And The Prejudicial Effect Of Same

by Newsdesk Africa

June 26, 2026

By Sheriff. C. ADELE, Esq On June 23, 2026, the Legal Practitioners’ Privileges Committee (LPPC), at its 173rd General Meeting, approved the suspension of Chief Mike Ozekhome from the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). The suspension, announced pursuant to Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria, is to remain in force pending the final determination of disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. While the LPPC asserts that the suspension is intended to "safeguard the integrity, dignity and prestige of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria", this decision raises profound concerns about procedural propriety, jurisdictional overreach, and the prejudicial effect it portends for both the legal profession and the administration of justice. This article critically examines the hasty decision of the LPPC, its implications, and why it constitutes a premature verdict that undermines the very principles of natural justice the legal profession is sworn to uphold. Chief Mike Ozekhome, a prominent constitutional lawyer and human rights advocate, is currently facing disciplinary proceedings before the LPPC’s Disciplinary and Ethics Sub-Committee. The proceedings relate to his involvement in a controversial property dispute in the United Kingdom concerning a property located at 79 Randall Avenue, London. Chief Ozekhome is also standing trial before an FCT High Court in Maitama, Abuja, on a 12-count charge, to which he has pleaded not guilty. What is particularly significant and troubling is that the same issues before the LPPC are also pending before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC), the body statutorily charged with the responsibility of sanctioning legal practitioners for professional misconduct. The LPDC is yet to make any determination on the substantive allegations against chief Ozekhome. Yet, the LPPC has proceeded to impose a suspension that, in practical effect, constitutes a pre-determinative sanction. The Distinct Jurisdictions of the LPPC and LPDC To appreciate the gravity of the LPPC’s decision, it is essential to understand the distinct and separate roles of the LPPC and the LPDC under Nigerian law. The LPPC is a statutory body established under Section 5 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its primary function is to consider and determine eligible applicants for the conferment of the rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. Chaired by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, the LPPC is also empowered to make rules as to the privileges to be accorded to Senior Advocates of Nigeria. While the LPPC has disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers are ancillary to its primary function of conferring and regulating the rank. The LPPC's disciplinary authority is derived from its guidelines, including Paragraph 26(6) of the Guidelines for the Conferment of the Rank of Senior Advocate of Nigeria. However, this authority is limited to matters pertaining to the rank itself and the privileges associated with it. The LPDC, by contrast, is a committee of the Body of Benchers established under Section 10 of the Legal Practitioners Act. Its mandate is far broader and more fundamental: it is the primary disciplinary body for all legal practitioners in Nigeria. The LPDC exercises jurisdiction over all lawyers called to the Nigerian Bar and is empowered to investigate allegations of professional misconduct and impose sanctions ranging from admonition to suspension and disbarment. The Critical Distinction The distinction between these two bodies is not merely academic, it is fundamental to the proper administration of justice in the legal profession. The LPPC is primarily a conferring and privilege-regulating body. The LPDC is the disciplinary body par excellence. While the LPPC may have incidental disciplinary powers over SAN holders, these powers cannot supplant or pre-empt the primary disciplinary jurisdiction of the LPDC. When the same issues are pending before both bodies, as they are in chief Ozekhome’s case, the LPDC’s determination on professional misconduct must logically precede any disciplinary sanction from the LPPC. The LPPC cannot independently determine facts of professional misconduct that are the exclusive province of the LPDC. The Hasty Decision: A Premature Verdict The LPPC’s decision to suspend chief Ozekhome from the rank of SAN pending the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings is, with respect, a hasty and premature verdict that suffers from several fundamental flaws. Procedural Impropriety ...