The proposed amendment to Nigeria’s tobacco-control law has triggered a fresh public-health storm, with a coalition of more than 100 civil society organisations accusing lawmakers of attempting to dismantle critical safeguards and create new commercial avenues for tobacco and nicotine companies.

The coalition, under the Nigeria Tobacco Control Community, said the consolidated National Tobacco Control Act (Amendment) Bill 2025 represents a dangerous departure from Nigeria’s existing tobacco-control framework and could expose millions of Nigerians, particularly young people, to aggressive promotion and easier access to emerging nicotine products.

Speaking at a press briefing, Executive Director of the Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA), Akimbode Oluwafemi, said the country was facing “a major public health danger disguised as legislative reform.”

Oluwafemi said the coalition had scrutinised the consolidated Bill and reached a damning conclusion: rather than strengthening the National Tobacco Control Act 2015 and its 2019 Regulations, the proposed amendments could create loopholes through which tobacco and nicotine companies would expand their market.

“We cannot protect public health by carving out weak rules and loopholes for vapes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches,” the coalition declared.

The organisations acknowledged that the existing law requires updating in response to changing tobacco and nicotine markets but warned that modernization must not become an excuse for weakening regulation.

At the centre of the controversy is a proposed amendment inserting “tobacco harm reduction objectives” into the purposes of the principal Act.

The coalition described the language as potentially deceptive, arguing that the concept could be exploited to justify lighter regulation of newer nicotine products.

According to the groups, portraying vapes, nicotine pouches and heated tobacco products as alternatives to conventional cigarettes must not automatically translate into weaker advertising, marketing, sales or public-health restrictions.

“True harm reduction means breaking addiction, not enabling multinational corporations to recruit a new generation of youth,” the coalition said.

It warned that Nigeria could inadvertently move from controlling tobacco consumption to creating a regulatory environment in which the industry can promote a new generation of nicotine products to consumers.

The coalition’s strongest objection centres on Clause 16, which it says would define heated tobacco products as non-combustible products while excluding non-combustible items from the legal definition of tobacco products.

The groups described the proposed classification as a “massive deception”, insisting that heated tobacco products contain tobacco and should therefore remain subject to tobacco-control restrictions.

They argued that changing the legal classification because tobacco is heated rather than burned could establish a dangerous precedent, not only for Nigeria but potentially for tobacco-control policy across Africa.

The coalition also invoked the position of the World Health Organization, which treats heated tobacco products as tobacco products requiring regulation.

Another flashpoint is Clause 7, which proposes an exception to the existing prohibition on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

Under the coalition’s reading, the proposed amendment would permit promotion of non-combustible products through adult publications, point-of-sale materials and online platforms, while also allowing sponsorship of cultural, social and recreational events.

The groups said the definition of an “adult publication” is particularly troubling because a publication could qualify where only 50 per cent or more of its readership consists of adults.

That, they argued, potentially leaves publications with a substantial child readership open to tobacco and nicotine advertising.

The coalition questioned how regulators would establish the age profile of a publication’s audience and how such data would be independently verified.

With Nigeria’s large youth population and the rapid circulation of content across websites and social-media platforms, the groups warned that an advertisement theoretically targeted at adults could easily find its way into the hands of children.

The coalition also raised concerns over the interaction between provisions allowing point-of-sale promotional materials and provisions permitting indoor vaping for product sampling.

According to the organisations, the combined effect could transform retail outlets into promotional centres where consumers are exposed to products, encouraged to sample them and subsequently pushed towards purchase.

The groups argued that such an arrangement would effectively move tobacco and nicotine promotion from traditional advertising channels into everyday commercial spaces.

The proposed relaxation of restrictions on internet-based sales also came under intense criticism.

The existing framework prohibits the sale or distribution of tobacco products through the internet, mail and other online channels. But the coalition said the amendment would create exceptions for non-combustible products, permitting online orders, shipping, mail and courier deliveries subject to age-verification requirements.

The groups questioned whether age verification would be sufficiently robust to prevent minors from gaining access.

They pointed to scenarios in which adults could purchase products on behalf of minors, identification documents could be misused and deliveries could be received by individuals other than the purchaser.

More fundamentally, they questioned whether Nigerian regulators possess the capacity to monitor the vast ecosystem of websites, social-media vendors, courier companies and delivery platforms that could become involved in the distribution chain.

The coalition therefore warned that the amendment could create an enforcement nightmare.

The proposed changes to retail sales have also alarmed the tobacco-control community.

The coalition said the amendment would permit cigars to be sold in packs of five instead of intact packages of at least 20.

It argued that smaller packs could reduce the financial barrier to first-time experimentation, particularly among young consumers.

For the organisations, the change is fundamentally inconsistent with the objective of preventing tobacco initiation.

Perhaps even more disturbing, the coalition alleged, are provisions it says would remove specific penalties relating to violations of tobacco-control requirements.

Clause 10, according to the groups, deletes Section 16(1) and key penalty provisions dealing with issues including sales to minors, packaging violations and non-compliant distribution.

The coalition warned that deleting explicit offences and penalties could weaken enforcement and create legal uncertainty that ultimately favours violators.

In its assessment, a law without clear and enforceable sanctions risks becoming little more than a declaration of intent.

The proposed packaging regime is another major area of concern.

While conventional tobacco products currently carry graphic health warnings covering 60 per cent of packaging, the coalition said the amendment introduces substantially weaker requirements for novel nicotine products.

It alleged that vape liquids would carry text-only warnings covering no more than 30 per cent of the front of the package, while nicotine pouches would have text warnings covering no more than 10 per cent.

The coalition also pointed to a provision it says would exempt e-cigarette and heating devices from carrying health warnings altogether.

For the groups, the contrast is stark: products capable of creating nicotine dependence could enter the market with significantly weaker health communication requirements than conventional tobacco products.

The coalition also attacked provisions dealing with safety dossiers for novel products.

Under Paragraph 18 of the Third Schedule, it said manufacturers would be responsible for generating, holding and internally approving their own safety dossiers.

The groups questioned the wisdom of allowing tobacco manufacturers to generate and retain evidence concerning the safety of products from which they stand to make substantial commercial profits.

They also objected to provisions requiring the Health Minister to protect such information, arguing that public-health policy should be based on independently verifiable evidence rather than undisclosed industry-generated material.

The coalition described the arrangement as fundamentally incompatible with public accountability.

The organisations further criticised Paragraph 21, which they said would give the Minister broad powers to exempt non-combustible products from provisions of the proposed law on undefined “public interest” grounds.

They warned that such discretionary powers could create opportunities for lobbying and regulatory capture.

The question, they said, is not merely whether a minister would exercise the power responsibly, but why a tobacco-control law should contain broad escape routes capable of weakening its own safeguards.

The coalition’s most explosive question, however, concerns the legislative process itself.

According to the organisations, the controversial provisions were absent when HB 47 and HB 1151, now consolidated into the current Bill, were presented at a public hearing on November 22, 2024.

The groups are therefore demanding answers over how the provisions entered the consolidated text.

“Who introduced these provisions, and which public-health institutions reviewed them?” the coalition asked.

It accused the public of being excluded from the process through which what it described as significant concessions to tobacco and nicotine interests found their way into the consolidated Bill.

The allegation places the National Assembly and relevant government institutions under pressure to explain the legislative trail behind the controversial provisions.

The Nigeria Tobacco Control Community is now demanding the immediate recall of the consolidated Bill and a fresh, transparent, public-health-led review.

Among its demands are the publication of all committee reports, voting records and stakeholder submissions that contributed to the development of the current draft.

The coalition also wants the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare to publicly state its position and, if it was not adequately consulted, demand that the Bill be recalled.

It further called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to withhold assent if the controversial draft eventually reaches his desk.

The groups are insisting on what they described as a single, strong and product-neutral regulatory framework covering every tobacco and nicotine product.

Advertising, sponsorship, product sampling, retail display and remote sales, they argued, should remain prohibited rather than being reopened through exemptions for emerging products.

The battle over the Bill is now shaping up as a wider test of Nigeria’s approach to corporate influence in public-health policymaking.

For the tobacco-control coalition, the issue is not whether the law should evolve. It is whether that evolution should strengthen protection for Nigerians or create commercial openings for an industry whose products are inherently linked to nicotine dependence.

The groups urged health professionals, parents, young Nigerians, civil society organisations, journalists and other stakeholders to challenge the proposed changes before they become law.

Their message to lawmakers was blunt: a tobacco-control law should not become a vehicle for expanding the tobacco and nicotine market under the guise of reform.

The coalition’s demand is therefore clear—recall the Bill, expose how the controversial provisions entered it, subject every clause to transparent public scrutiny, and put public health ahead of commercial interests.