By Olumide Olusola Metilelu

Disagreement and contestation are natural features of a progressive society in which individuals and institutions may hold different perspectives and interests. What matters is how differences are managed.

This article is not intended to promote or undermine any individual, institution or government agency. It proposes a constructive pathway based on experience. The objective is not to apportion blame or take sides, but to find solutions that respect the law, recognise stakeholder interests and place Nigeria’s long-term tourism, hospitality and travel development above institutional contestation.

Nigeria’s tourism, hospitality and travel industry is at a defining moment. Its potential to create jobs, stimulate enterprise, attract investment, earn foreign exchange and support diversification is enormous. Yet investment alone cannot unlock it.

Nigeria also needs regulation that protects the public, raises professional standards and enables businesses to invest, operate and grow.

The disagreement surrounding implementation of the National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism (NIHOTOUR) Act 2022 deserves national attention. The question is not whether Nigeria needs regulation. It does. The real question is how regulation can be exercised clearly and proportionately while allowing professional bodies, industry associations, private enterprises and other public institutions to perform their legitimate roles without unnecessary duplication or conflict.

The National Institute for Hospitality and Tourism (Establishment) Act, 2022 is federal law. It establishes NIHOTOUR and provides a statutory framework for the training, certification and registration of hospitality, travel and tourism personnel, alongside functions relating to professional development, standards and regulation within its scope. NIHOTOUR therefore has a statutory mandate that must be respected.

Respect for the law, however, does not place implementation beyond scrutiny. Questions concerning interpretation, proportionality, compliance and regulatory overlap can be addressed through evidence, consultation and lawful processes.

Effective regulation requires cooperation with relevant organisations and stakeholders. The concerns expressed by the Federation of Tourism Associations of Nigeria (FTAN) also deserve fair consideration. FTAN has raised concerns about implementation and consultation, while calling for a more collaborative regulatory framework. Questioning implementation is not the same as rejecting regulation, just as raising industry concerns should not be interpreted as questioning the legitimacy of a statutory institution. NIHOTOUR has a legal mandate; FTAN has a representative role. Both can coexist constructively.

The deeper issue is the appropriate scope of professional regulation and how it should relate to other regulatory responsibilities. Professional standards, certification, continuing development, quality assurance and consumer protection are essential to a credible industry. However, regulation becomes problematic when businesses are uncertain about which institution is responsible for a requirement or when mandates appear to overlap.

This is where concerns about the 2025 Regulations have emerged among sections of the industry. They should neither be dismissed nor treated as evidence that regulation is wrong. Good regulation should protect the public while remaining proportionate to legitimate enterprise. A tourism operator should know who regulates what; an investor should understand the compliance environment before committing capital; and a small business should not face requirements designed without regard to its scale or risk. The objective should be regulatory clarity, not competition among regulators.

The economic implications are significant. Overlapping responsibilities, multiple compliance requirements and cumulative costs can raise operating expenses, delay investment and hinder formalisation, particularly for micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. A multinational hotel, neighbourhood restaurant, small guesthouse and travel enterprise do not have the same capacity. Regulation should therefore be proportionate to risk and appropriate to the nature and scale of each enterprise. The answer is not deregulation but better regulation, raising standards while encouraging investment, innovation and sustainable enterprise.

This is where Nigeria should move from contestation to co-design. The inauguration by NIHOTOUR of the National Committee on Industry Professional Bodies Recognition and Governance (NCIPBRG), chaired by Professor Wasiu A. Babalola, provides an important opportunity to address professional recognition and governance and consider how professional bodies can be better coordinated within a coherent framework.

The Committee should be viewed not as an arena for contestation, but as an opportunity for engagement. Stakeholders should submit memoranda and evidence to assist it in developing balanced and workable recommendations. The outcome should matter more than personalities.

By co-design, I mean a process in which government, NIHOTOUR, FTAN, professional bodies, operators, educators, workers, investors and other stakeholders identify regulatory challenges and develop workable solutions within the law. At its centre should be institutional complementarity.

NIHOTOUR should confidently exercise its statutory responsibilities in training, certification, registration, standards, quality assurance and regulation of personnel.

Responsibilities assigned to other institutions should remain within their respective legal frameworks. Where mandates intersect, coordination should replace competition. Corporate incorporation, taxation, public health, immigration and corporate governance should continue under the laws governing those areas. The goal should be clear responsibility and a simpler regulatory experience.

The way forward is practical. The Babalola Committee should receive memoranda, engage stakeholders and examine competing perspectives. Areas of regulatory overlap should undergo legal and policy review. Regulation should be risk-based, reflecting business nature, size and risk. Inter-agency coordination should ensure that businesses experience government as a coherent system. Consultation should be institutionalised so affected stakeholders can influence implementation. Consultation does not require everyone to agree; it requires that affected interests are genuinely heard.

The choice before Nigeria is not between NIHOTOUR and FTAN, or regulation and enterprise. It is between regulatory fragmentation and regulatory coherence. NIHOTOUR has a legitimate statutory role in professionalising Nigeria’s hospitality, travel and tourism sector.

FTAN and other industry associations have legitimate roles in representing operators and communicating industry concerns. Their participation should be treated as an essential component of effective policy development, not an obstacle to regulation. The supervising Ministry also has a critical responsibility to provide policy direction, encourage dialogue and ensure that implementation advances the national interest.

As stakeholders, we are the focus of attention today, but we will not remain there forever. History and posterity will judge us by whether we helped resolve the industry’s challenges and left behind a stronger, more equitable governance system. Divergent opinions are natural, but banter, accusations and counter-accusations deepen divisions. Professional relationships often outlive appointments and institutional positions; we should therefore be guided by mutual respect, restraint and responsibility.

Nigeria’s tourism, hospitality and travel industry cannot afford a prolonged contest over institutional territory when it urgently needs investment, professionalism, innovation and growth. The NIHOTOUR Act is law, and its mandate must be respected. At the same time, legitimate questions about implementation, proportionality, regulatory overlap and compliance should be addressed through evidence, consultation and lawful review.

Nigeria does not have to choose between a strong NIHOTOUR and a vibrant private sector, or between professional standards and investment. It can achieve both through a governance architecture in which statutory institutions exercise their mandates, professional bodies contribute expertise, industry associations are heard, and businesses operate within a clear, proportionate and predictable framework.

The future should not be defined by institutional competition, but by institutional complementarity; not by regulatory proliferation, but by professional excellence; and not by contestation, but by co-design. If Nigeria can make that transition, the present disagreement could become the catalyst for a clearer, more coherent and investment-friendly governance framework for the country’s tourism, hospitality and travel industry.

Metilelu, Ph.D is Associate Professor, Tourism and Hospitality Management.