It was the late MKO Abiola who originated the expression “shaving a man’s head in his absence” to describe a situation where decisions directly affecting a person or a group are taken without any consultation with or contribution/input from that person or group. A clear instance of this scenario is the so-called Berlin Conference of 1884-5 where European powers met to partition African territories among themselves without any African representative.
Fortunately, all things being equal, the National Tobacco Control Bill (NTCB), currently before the National Assembly, will not likely be cited by future historians as another case where a man’s head was shaved in his absence. This is because on July 16, 2014, the House of Representatives Joint Committee on Health and Justice took the pains to organise a public hearing to feel the pulse of all stakeholders in the tobacco industry as well as other concerned stakeholders and allow them make input that would eventually shape the direction of the proposed law.
To be clear, the NTCB seeks for an Act to enact the Tobacco Smoking (Control) Bill to, among other things, “provide for the regulation of the production, importation, advertising, promotion, sponsorship, distribution, sale and designation of areas where tobacco products may and may not be smoked and for matters connected therewith”.
At the public hearing, stakeholders – including Nigerian Tobacco Control Research Group (NTCRG), Association of Public Health Physicians of Nigeria (APHPN), Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA), National Tobacco Retailers Association of Nigeria (NTRA), Manufacturers Association of Nigeria (MAN), Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, Epidemiological Society of Nigeria (EPISON), Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), Coalition Against Tobacco (CAT), among others – elaborately expressed their views on the proposed bill mostly in form of position papers submitted to the committee.
From all the views expressed by the stakeholders, it was evident that, indeed, there are more points of agreement than divergence between the pro- and anti-tobacco groups. Fundamentally, every stakeholder, including key players in the tobacco industry, agree that tobacco smoking is dangerous to health. Which is why the inscription ‘THE FEDERAL MINISTRY OF HEALTH WARNS THAT SMOKERS ARE LIABLE TO DIE YOUNG’ appears boldly on packs of cigarettes.
Furthermore, all stakeholders agree on the urgent need to regulate the tobacco industry in order to safeguard the health of the citizens and protect non-smokers, especially young people below the age of 18 who are exposed to smoke mostly out of no fault of theirs. The major point of divergence is perhaps the best approach to the proposed law. However, all stakeholders in the submissions pinpointed sections of the bill which they felt did not accommodate the rights and interests of all stakeholders, tasking the House to amend those aspects before the final passage of the bill.
But to further the argument, MAN in its submission highlighted the economic contribution of local production of tobacco. This includes that “in the entire supply chain of tobacco production, hundreds of thousands of Nigerians earn their livelihood either as suppliers, retailers or transporters”, adding that passing the bill in its present form would, among other adverse consequences, lead to closure of existing tobacco factories in the country with all its negative implications for the economy.
But perhaps more instructive are the views expressed by NACCIMA. “We are aware that the tobacco and brewery industry have in recent times come under stiff attack by the government, religious leaders and public on the ground that it is negatively affecting the health of the citizens. At the same time we are also aware that both industries contribute so much in terms of taxes and levies paid to government and job creation for the citizens,” said NACCIMA in its submission. “We believe that rather than conveying the idea of strangulating the industry, especially the tobacco sector, they should be encouraged through enacting a producer-user-friendly legislation fashioned out to drastically reduce the negative effects and maximise the positive effects of tobacco production and smoking in Nigeria,” it said.
Also speaking to journalists after the public hearing, Freddy Messanvi, director, corporate and regulatory affairs, BAT West Africa, said British American Tobacco Nigeria (BATN), a key player in the tobacco industry in the country, supported the passage of a balanced and evidence-based regulation of the tobacco industry in Nigeria, pointing out, however, that any proposed regulation must not force the legal and regulated businesses out of operation and leave the market at the mercy of smugglers and illicit traders.
And going by the comments made by the committee members themselves, one is also confident that the final legislation would accommodate the rights and interests of all stakeholders. Ndudi Elumelu, chairman, House Committee on Health, who presided over the hearing, for instance, assured tobacco firms in the country that government was not frightening them out of business but rather intended to ensure that the rights of non-smokers were protected as well.
Similarly, Walid Hammad, chairman, House Committee on Justice, said, “We cannot ban smoking, but we must control it. The bill is not out to ban smoking and the tobacco companies.” He emphasised the need to formulate a robust national framework for tobacco control such that everyone’s rights would be protected, noting that Nigeria was lagging in the global framework for tobacco control.
Onyebuchi Chukwu, minister of health, who was represented by Linus Awote, permanent secretary in the ministry, also said the bill was of great importance considering the country’s quest to save non-smokers, adding, “We should note that the bill is not about ban on tobacco but health concern. We should not lose sight of that. However, we should subject the bill to existing global framework on tobacco control, which Nigeria is a signatory to.”
Even Yaqoob Alebiosu, a member of the House of Representatives and sponsor of the bill, maintained that the bill he sponsored was not to ban the operations of tobacco firms.
“We need to control tobacco distribution and ensure that those in its supply chains are licensed in order to monitor their compliance with the regulatory framework; but we are not banning tobacco firms from operation. They only need to know that and comply with regulation,” he said.
Now that the die is cast, it is hoped that pious pronouncements would be backed up with positive action; that in taking its final decision, the House would take into consideration all the submissions made at the public hearing, look at all the sides of the argument and evolve a robust, balanced, evidence-based, workable legal framework that meets international standards and carries every stakeholder along, not one that will stifle the legal tobacco industry while creating room for the illicit market to thrive. This is the only way to ensure that the public hearing was not a waste of time and resources after all.
Frank Odumodu
