In recent months, public discourse has intensified around the appointment of a substantive Director-General for the National Biosafety Management Agency (NBMA)—the federal institution mandated to ensure that activities relating to modern biotechnology in Nigeria are conducted safely and in alignment with international standards and treaties to which the country is a signatory. Much of this debate has centred on questions of legality, institutional competence, and constitutional authority, particularly as they relate to the powers of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria regarding appointments to public office.
At the heart of this discussion lies the constitutional prerogative vested in the president and commander-in-chief. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) clearly outlines the scope and nature of executive appointment powers. Section 147(1) expressly affirms the President’s authority to appoint ministers, underscoring his constitutional discretion to determine individuals he considers capable of advising him on matters of governance, national policy, and the public interest. Similarly, Section 171(1) further clarifies the President’s authority to appoint or remove persons occupying certain strategic offices within the federal structure.
Section 171(2) details the categories of such offices, reinforcing the principle that the ultimate judgement of competence for executive positions rests with the President, subject only to constitutional limits—not public sentiment or sectoral expectations.
In the case of the NBMA, the appointment of Mr Bello Bawa Bwari—an attorney and seasoned administrator—has generated mixed reactions. While some stakeholders have welcomed the decision, others have argued that it runs contrary to the provisions of the NBMA Act and the technical nature of the Agency’s mandate. To properly situate this debate, it is essential to first examine what the NBMA represents, the scope of its jurisdiction, and the institutional logic that underpins regulatory leadership roles.
The NBMA was established under the National Biosafety Management Agency Act, 2015 to create a comprehensive regulatory framework for the development, deployment, domestication, handling, use, transportation and transboundary movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and their products thereof in Nigeria. Its responsibilities include safeguarding human and animal health, protecting biodiversity, ensuring environmental sustainability, managing biosecurity risks, and promoting public confidence through awareness creation in the governance of emerging biotechnologies.
The Agency’s functions encompass risk assessment and risk management, regulatory oversight, enforcement of biosafety standards, public engagement and communication, institutional capacity building, monitoring and compliance, and the development of guidelines for laboratory research, field trials, importation, and commercial release of biotechnology products.
Crucially, NBMA operates as a technical regulator, not a political or advocacy institution. Its credibility is built on structured procedures, scientific review, professional judgement, and adherence to legal frameworks rather than media narratives or public opinion cycles. Much of the Agency’s work unfolds through expert committees, laboratory evaluations, field inspections, post-approval surveillance, safety audits, and inter-agency collaboration.
Like biosafety regulators across the world, the NBMA’s strength lies in institutional continuity, system discipline, and predictable regulatory processes—qualities that remain stable irrespective of changes in leadership.
This regulatory philosophy aligns with international practice. In many jurisdictions, leadership of highly technical institutions is not limited to individuals from scientific backgrounds alone. Instead, emphasis is placed on administrative competence, regulatory integrity, ethical accountability, and the capacity to coordinate multidisciplinary expertise. Modern regulatory systems—particularly those intersecting with law, science, and public policy—draw on diverse professional competencies, including legal analysis, policy formulation, organisational management, stakeholder coordination, and strategic oversight.
Leadership in such contexts is therefore not defined solely by academic specialisation but by the ability to manage systems, uphold due process, strengthen institutional autonomy, and ensure that expert knowledge is properly integrated into impactful decision-making. Technical expertise resides within the Agency’s professional and advisory cadres—scientists, risk assessors, biosafety officers, laboratory analysts, environmental experts, and policy researchers—whose work supports evidence-based regulatory outcomes. The Director-General’s role is primarily one of stewardship, governance, accountability, and strategic direction.
From a legal standpoint, law remains the backbone of regulation. Every scientific assessment, approval process, inspection protocol, or enforcement action derives its legitimacy from statutory and constitutional authority. Lawyers, by training, are custodians of due process, procedural fairness, institutional integrity, and the rule of law—core elements that sustain regulatory credibility. Across sectors—health, environment, energy, finance, and technology—numerous regulatory bodies worldwide are led by administrators or legal professionals who coordinate multidisciplinary teams rather than substitute technical expertise.
Nigeria is not an exception within this global paradigm. Even within the science and technology ecosystem, leadership frequently reflects administrative competence rather than narrow specialisation. What ultimately matters is whether the institution functions effectively, staff are empowered to perform their duties, and regulatory standards are upheld in the national interest.
Beyond institutional logic, the ongoing debate also reflects deeper tensions between perception and principle. Public commentary has often overlooked the constitutional realities governing appointments, instead placing disproportionate emphasis on sector-specific interpretation of competence. However, the Constitution—the supreme law—vests discretion in the President to appoint individuals he considers fit and capable, provided such appointments uphold good governance, merit, and public interest. The NBMA Act does not negate this constitutional authority; rather, both instruments operate within a complementary legal framework.
As Nigeria seeks to advance food security, environmental sustainability, technological innovation, and biosafety governance, the NBMA’s work will continue to play a pivotal role in shaping national outcomes. Public confidence in the Agency hinges not on the professional background of its leadership alone, but on institutional performance, transparency, accountability, and the consistent application of safety standards. What is most essential is that the Agency remains focused on its core mission—carefully assessing risks, enforcing regulations, strengthening biosecurity, and ensuring that biotechnology is deployed responsibly for national development.
In conclusion, the Constitution clearly affirms the President’s prerogative to appoint individuals based on his assessment of competence and suitability for office. This discretion is integral to executive governance and is exercised within the boundaries of law, merit, and public interest. Rather than generating unnecessary controversy, national discourse should prioritize strengthening institutions, supporting regulatory capacity, and ensuring that leadership—regardless of professional background—advances the mandate, credibility, and long-term stability of the National Biosafety Management Agency.
Dr. Adeyomi is a Lagos-based policy analyst and commentator on national issues.
