The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has called on the Federal Government to immediately clarify the contents of a health cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) recently signed between Nigeria and the United States, citing concerns over “conflicting framings.”
In December, the U.S. signed a five-year bilateral health MoU with Nigeria aimed at strengthening the country’s healthcare system. A notable point of contention is an alleged focus on supporting Christian faith-based healthcare providers.
The agreement is intended to expand access to essential preventive and curative services, including interventions for HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, polio, and maternal and child health.
Under the terms of the MoU, the U.S. government intends to commit nearly $2.1 billion over five years to health funding in Nigeria. In turn, Nigeria is expected to increase its domestic health expenditures by nearly $3 billion during the same period.
The U.S. government stated that the agreement remains subject to its broader foreign policy priorities, noting that the U.S. President and Secretary of State retain the right to pause or terminate any programs that do not align with their national interests.
In a statement issued on Sunday, ADC spokesperson Bolaji Abdullahi said the party is disturbed by the “materially different” ways the agreement has been framed by both nations.
Abdullahi noted that while the Nigerian government portrayed the MoU as an inclusive framework to boost health security and domestic financing, official statements from the U.S. introduced “identity-based elements” that were absent from the Nigerian account.
He argued that the U.S. description suggests spending under the MoU could be targeted specifically at health institutions linked to a particular religion—a framing the ADC claims violates Nigeria’s constitutional provisions on non-discrimination and national unity.
“The U.S. characterization introduces a religious, identity-based framing, indicating that spending under the MoU should be targeted at health institutions backed by a particular religion only,” the statement read.
“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.”
The statement continued: “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.”
Abdullahi argued that the discrepancy raises serious questions regarding transparency, constitutional compliance, and national sovereignty.
Citing Section 42(1) of the 1999 Constitution, Abdullahi reminded the government that no citizen of Nigeria “shall be discriminated against on the grounds of place of origin, sex, religion, or political opinion.”
He further noted that Sections 15 and 17 of the Constitution 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,” he said.
“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.”
Abdullahi called on the government to state clearly which version of the agreement reflects the actual terms signed and to explain why such significant differences exist between the two accounts.
