Get Guardian on GoogleNigeria must strengthen its emergency preparedness systems, improve institutional coordination and ensure timely release of funds to prevent avoidable deaths and destruction during disasters, two policy experts at Nextier have said.
Dr Chibuike Njoku and Dr Ndu Nwokolo made the call in a policy brief titled, Beyond Emergency Response: Fixing Nigeria’s Preparedness and Early-Action System, which examined the country’s recurring difficulties in translating early-warning information into preventive action.
Njoku is an Associate Consultant at Nextier, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies, Ile-Ife, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Institut Français de Recherche en Afrique (IFRA-Nigeria), while Nwokolo is Managing Partner at Nextier and a Reader at the Institute for Peace, Security and Development Studies, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka.
The experts identified weak institutional coordination, inadequate state capacity, delayed financing and poor accountability as major obstacles undermining Nigeria’s ability to anticipate and manage emergencies.
They noted that flooding, climate-related hazards, disease outbreaks and conflict-induced displacement continued to place pressure on public institutions, disrupt livelihoods and increase humanitarian needs despite the existence of emergency management agencies and disaster-risk reduction policies.
Citing figures from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, (UNOCH) they said the 2024 floods displaced approximately 1.2 million people, destroyed about 116,000 homes and damaged 1.4 million hectares of farmland.
They recalled that the devastating floods of 2022 displaced approximately four million people, arguing that the recurring scale of such disasters exposed weaknesses in the country’s preparedness architecture.
According to them, Nigeria has established institutional and policy frameworks, including the National Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (2025–2030), but the existence of such policies does not necessarily translate into effective implementation.
They argued that the critical challenge was ensuring that risk information and official warnings triggered coordinated decisions, timely funding and practical interventions before emergencies escalated.
The experts identified four major bottlenecks in the country’s early-action system: delays in converting warnings into decisions, inadequate access to contingency financing, weak local implementation capacity and insufficient accountability for preparedness activities.
They stressed that federal, state and local governments must work together, while agencies responsible for weather forecasting, hydrological information, health, infrastructure and environmental management must strengthen information sharing.
On health emergencies, Njoku and Nwokolo said Nigeria’s experience with Ebola and Lassa fever demonstrated the need to improve early detection, risk communication and coordination among public health institutions.
They cited the Ebola case confirmed by the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC) on October 20, 2026, noting that although the national incident management system was activated and contacts placed under monitoring, the case was confirmed about two weeks after symptom onset.
They also highlighted the Lassa fever burden, stating that the NCDC had recorded 1,138 confirmed cases and 268 deaths by epidemiological week 40 of 2026, representing a case fatality rate of 23.6 per cent, compared with 18.6 per cent in 2025.
According to the policy experts, the figures underscored the consequences of late presentation, high treatment costs and inadequate health-seeking behaviour, particularly in areas where the disease is recurrent.
They maintained that health preparedness should be integrated into Nigeria’s broader anticipatory governance framework rather than treated as a separate emergency management responsibility.
To address the challenges, the experts called on the Federal Government to institutionalise operational early-action protocols under NEMA and the NCDC, linking verified risk thresholds to predetermined interventions, clear agency responsibilities and implementation deadlines.
They also recommended stronger intergovernmental coordination involving state governments, State Emergency Management Agencies, State Ministries of Health, local governments and relevant technical institutions.
On financing, they urged federal and state governments to establish transparent, predictable contingency funding arrangements that would allow resources to be released once agreed early-action triggers were reached.
They further called for targeted investments in trained emergency personnel, communication systems, updated risk maps, evacuation plans, emergency equipment, personal protective equipment, isolation facilities and accessible shelters.
The experts also recommended a national preparedness performance framework to assess whether warnings trigger action, funds are released promptly, local institutions are operationally ready and preventive interventions reach vulnerable communities.
For health emergencies, they said the framework should monitor the time between symptom onset and confirmation, as well as the completion of contact tracing and follow-up.
They emphasised that Nigeria’s priority should not be the indiscriminate creation of additional institutions but the strengthening of existing structures to ensure that early warnings translate into timely and measurable interventions.
