HURIWA demands immediate withdrawal of nutritionists’ council bill, warns against criminalising indigenous food heritage

The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has endorsed the position of the Centre for African Policy Research and Advisory (CAfPRA), opposing the proposed Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria Bill, 2025, sponsored by Hon. Chike John Okafor, representing Ehime Mbano/Ihitte Uboma/Obowo Federal Constituency.

HURIWA, in a press statement by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, weekend, said it considered the Bill, in its present form, a deeply troubling legislative proposal that threatens to place Nigeria’s indigenous food knowledge, traditional nutritional practices and community-based systems of learning under the shadow of an overcentralised statutory regulator.

“We therefore demand the immediate withdrawal of the Bill from the legislative process pending a transparent, comprehensive and genuinely inclusive national consultation involving nutrition experts, traditional knowledge holders, farmers, food sovereignty advocates, public health professionals, civil society organisations and affected communities.

“This is not a rejection of professional standards, scientific research or the legitimate regulation of qualified nutrition practitioners. It is a principled rejection of legislation that seeks to establish sweeping regulatory powers over nutrition without first guaranteeing the protection of Nigeria’s cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge systems and the everyday food practices through which generations of Nigerians have sustained their families and communities,” the group stated.

According to HURIWA, the bill was a dangerous overreach into Nigeria’s cultural heritage, stating: “HURIWA aligns itself with CAfPRA’s central concern that nutrition did not begin with universities, professional associations or statutory councils. Long before the emergence of modern nutritional science, Nigerian communities had developed sophisticated knowledge of local foods, seasonal diets, food preservation, fermentation, medicinal plants, breastfeeding, complementary feeding and the nutritional properties of indigenous crops.

“These practices form part of Nigeria’s living cultural heritage. They have been transmitted through families, farming communities, local markets, traditional food processors and generations of practical experience. Yet the proposed legislation contains no clear safeguards protecting indigenous, traditional, cultural and family-based nutritional knowledge from being marginalised by a new statutory monopoly.”

The group further stated, “HURIWA finds this omission profoundly unacceptable. A law that establishes a regulatory council with powers to determine professional standards, approve training institutions, control professional practice and impose penalties must clearly distinguish formal professional services from ordinary family guidance, cultural practices and the legitimate transmission of traditional knowledge.

“Without such safeguards, the legislation creates unnecessary uncertainty over the boundaries of lawful practice and risks empowering a new institution to determine which forms of nutritional knowledge are recognised and which are excluded.

“Nigeria must not enact a law that places its indigenous food heritage at the mercy of an unelected professional gatekeeping structure.

“Sections 23, 27, 28 and 30 of the proposed Bill prescribe penalties for various forms of unapproved training, unregistered practice and the employment of unregistered persons.

“Section 23 provides for a fine of up to ₦5 million or imprisonment for up to five years, or both, in specified cases involving unapproved training and certification. Sections 27 and 28 prescribe penalties for certain forms of unregistered practice, while Section 30 addresses the employment of unregistered persons.

“These provisions become particularly troubling because the Bill does not clearly define the full scope of the expression “practice of nutrition” or establish an explicit exemption for traditional and family-based knowledge.”

HURIWA expressed concern that such ambiguity could create room for excessive discretion, selective enforcement and disputes over activities that have historically existed outside formal professional regulation.

“A grandmother advising her family on traditional foods, a community elder transmitting knowledge about local diets, or a household maintaining inherited food preparation practices must not be placed under a cloud of legal uncertainty because the National Assembly failed to draw clear boundaries around a proposed regulatory regime.

“We are not suggesting that every traditional practice is scientifically validated or should be exempt from legitimate public health safeguards. Rather, traditional knowledge should be respected, carefully researched and protected from indiscriminate criminalisation, while demonstrably dangerous or fraudulent health claims remain subject to appropriate laws.

“The distinction is essential to a fair, culturally informed and constitutionally responsible legislative frameworh,” the group further stated.

The national coordinator also raised suspicion of foreign influence, which he said must be investigated, and not presumed, stating: “HURIWA is also concerned by the Bill’s provisions permitting collaboration with international organisations, recognition of foreign qualifications, approval of training institutions outside Nigeria and the receipt of grants, endowments and donations into the proposed Council’s fund.

“Sections 3, 14, 17 and 32 contain provisions that warrant particularly close scrutiny in this regard.

“Of special concern is Section 32(2)(c), which permits grants, endowments and donations to form part of the Council’s funds without expressly establishing safeguards against external financial influence over the institution’s regulatory priorities.

“Section 35(2) restricts the acceptance of gifts where their conditions conflict with or prejudice the Council’s functions. However, the Bill does not provide an equally explicit and comprehensive framework for transparency, disclosure and public scrutiny of foreign grants and other external funding.

“HURIWA stresses that international cooperation is not inherently objectionable, nor is foreign funding proof of improper conduct. Nevertheless, where legislation proposes to create an institution with significant authority over professional standards, educational curricula and public nutritional guidance, Nigerians are entitled to demand full transparency about the interests that could shape its operations.”

On those advocating for the regulatory framework, he queried: “What consultations informed its provisions? What evidence supports the proposed institutional arrangement? Have any foreign organisations, donors or commercial interests participated in developing or promoting the proposal? What safeguards will prevent conflicts of interest?

“These are legitimate questions that deserve clear answers before the Bill proceeds any further. HURIWA demands transparency and accountability, not speculation. No foreign or domestic interest should be permitted to shape Nigeria’s nutritional policies at the expense of the Nigerian people. Nigeria’s food sovereignty must not become an afterthought.

“The Bill’s stated objectives include promoting sound nutritional practices, healthy lifestyles, sustainable food systems, research and public education. These are legitimate goals.

“However, the legislation does not expressly require the proposed Council to prioritise indigenous food systems, local cuisines, agroecological knowledge or the protection of Nigeria’s diverse food cultures in carrying out those functions.

“HURIWA agrees with CAfPRA that this omission requires serious attention. Nigeria’s food security challenges cannot be addressed solely through the creation of another regulatory institution. They require sustained investment in local agriculture, support for smallholder farmers, improved food processing and storage, nutrition education, protection of biodiversity and stronger access to affordable, locally produced foods.

“A regulatory framework that fails to recognise these realities risks elevating institutional licensing and professional gatekeeping above the broader public interest.”

HURIWA stressed that, “The National Assembly must not create an arrangement under which indigenous knowledge is treated as inferior simply because it was transmitted through community experience rather than formal academic institutions.

“Nigeria’s traditional food systems should be examined through credible scientific research where appropriate, improved where necessary and protected against unjustified exclusion. They should not be erased through legislative silence.”

The group expressed fears that the proposed council could become an expensive new bureaucracy, stating: “The Bill proposes a governing board, a registrar, zonal or state offices, staff, accreditation mechanisms, registration fees, annual practising fees, disciplinary structures and a dedicated fund.

“It also provides for the receipt of grants, endowments and donations, borrowing under specified conditions, investment of funds and the payment of salaries, allowances and administrative expenses.

“HURIWA demands evidence that the proposed Council is necessary in its current form, financially sustainable and clearly differentiated from existing public institutions and professional structures.

“At a time when Nigerians face severe economic pressures and public institutions are expected to demonstrate efficiency, the National Assembly must explain why the establishment of a new statutory council is preferable to strengthening existing professional associations and relevant regulatory arrangements, subject to an independent assessment of any genuine regulatory gaps.

“The proposal to transform a professional field into a heavily licensed and centrally controlled structure must be justified by demonstrable public benefits, not merely by the desire to establish another institution.”

HURIWA endorsed CAfPRA’s position and demanded withdrawal and reconsideration of the Bill.

“Indeed, given the breadth of the proposed Council’s powers and the absence of essential safeguards, we believe that withdrawal is the most responsible immediate course of action.

“The National Assembly should not proceed with a law whose implications for indigenous knowledge, cultural continuity, professional access, public health communication and food sovereignty have not been adequately addressed,” the group stated.