The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has called for the immediate withdrawal of the proposed Nutritionists Registration Council of Nigeria Bill, 2025, warning that its provisions could undermine indigenous food knowledge and expose traditional nutritional practices to unnecessary regulatory restrictions.

The Rights group warned against possible criminalisation of traditional food practices, and demands public consultation and safeguards for Nigeria’s food heritage.The group, in a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, on Friday, endorsed the position of the Centre for African Policy Research and Advisory (CAfPRA), which opposes the bill sponsored by Hon. Chike John Okafor, representing Ehime Mbano/Ihitte Uboma/Obowo Federal Constituency.

HURIWA said the proposed legislation, in its present form, could place Nigeria’s traditional food knowledge, family-based nutritional guidance and community learning systems under an excessively centralised regulatory framework without adequate safeguards for cultural heritage.It urged the National Assembly to withdraw the bill pending transparent and inclusive consultations involving nutritionists, traditional knowledge holders, farmers, public health professionals, food sovereignty advocates, civil society organisations and affected communities.

The association stressed that its opposition was not directed at professional standards, scientific research or the regulation of qualified nutrition practitioners, but at what it described as the bill’s sweeping regulatory provisions and failure to clearly distinguish formal professional practice from traditional and family-based knowledge.

According to HURIWA, Nigerian communities have long developed and transmitted knowledge about local foods, seasonal diets, food preservation, fermentation, medicinal plants, breastfeeding, complementary feeding and the nutritional properties of indigenous crops.It said such knowledge, passed down through families, farming communities, local markets and traditional food processors, forms part of the country’s living cultural heritage and should not be marginalised by the creation of a statutory regulatory council.

The group expressed concern that the bill did not provide explicit protections for indigenous, cultural and family-based nutritional practices or clearly define the boundaries of activities that would fall under the proposed council’s authority.It warned that the ambiguity could create uncertainty over whether ordinary household guidance and the transmission of inherited food knowledge would be regarded as regulated professional practice.

HURIWA also raised concerns about the penalties proposed under Sections 23, 27, 28 and 30 of the bill, which address various forms of unapproved training, unregistered practice and the employment of unregistered persons.It said Section 23 provides for a fine of up to N5 million, imprisonment for up to five years, or both, in specified cases involving unapproved training and certification, while Sections 27, 28 and 30 prescribe penalties for other specified offences.

The association argued that the absence of clear definitions and explicit exemptions for traditional knowledge could create room for excessive discretion, selective enforcement and disputes over practices that have historically existed outside formal professional regulation.It maintained, however, that protecting traditional knowledge should not mean exempting every inherited practice from scientific scrutiny or legitimate public health safeguards.

“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 group said.

HURIWA also called for greater transparency regarding the bill’s provisions on international collaboration, foreign qualifications, the approval of training institutions outside Nigeria and external funding for the proposed council.

It specifically cited Sections 3, 14, 17 and 32 as provisions requiring closer scrutiny, expressing concern that Section 32(2)(c) permits grants, endowments and donations to form part of the council’s funds without setting out a comprehensive framework for public disclosure and independent scrutiny of external funding.

Although Section 35(2) restricts the acceptance of gifts whose conditions conflict with or prejudice the council’s functions, HURIWA said further safeguards were needed to ensure transparency and prevent potential conflicts of interest.The association cautioned against assuming that foreign funding or international cooperation necessarily indicated wrongdoing, but insisted that Nigerians were entitled to know the interests and consultations that informed the proposed regulatory framework.

It called for the disclosure of stakeholder consultations, research findings and institutional assessments that informed the bill’s drafting, as well as any foreign funding, technical assistance or external advocacy associated with the proposal.On food sovereignty, HURIWA argued that the proposed legislation should give greater recognition to indigenous food systems, local cuisines, agroecological knowledge and Nigeria’s diverse food cultures.

It said improving nutrition and food security required more than establishing another regulatory institution, noting the importance of supporting smallholder farmers, improving food processing and storage, protecting biodiversity and ensuring access to affordable, locally produced food.

The group warned that a framework focused primarily on licensing, accreditation and professional control could overlook these broader priorities if it failed to recognise the contribution of traditional food systems to public health and livelihoods.

HURIWA also questioned the necessity and financial implications of establishing a separate statutory council, which the bill proposes to equip with a governing board, registrar, zonal or state offices, accreditation mechanisms, registration and practising fees, disciplinary structures and a dedicated fund.

It urged the National Assembly to commission an independent assessment of existing regulatory arrangements, the need for a new council, its projected costs and its likely public benefits.
The association said lawmakers should establish whether strengthening existing professional associations and relevant regulatory structures would address any identified gaps more efficiently than creating a new institution.

Among its demands, HURIWA called for explicit legal protections for indigenous, traditional, cultural and family-based food knowledge; clear definitions of the professional activities covered by the proposed law; proportionate penalties; and safeguards against arbitrary enforcement.

It also urged that any future regulatory framework provide meaningful representation for traditional knowledge holders, farmers, agroecological practitioners and community-based food advocates, alongside clear disclosure requirements for foreign grants, donations and partnerships.

HURIWA appealed to Okafor, the relevant legislative committee and the leadership of the National Assembly to reconsider the proposal and ensure that any future legislation balances professional competence and scientific integrity with cultural protection, public accountability and national food sovereignty.

It maintained that food was not merely a technical subject for licensed practitioners but was closely connected to culture, agriculture, livelihoods, family life and public health.

The association reiterated that it supported reasonable regulation of qualified nutrition practitioners but opposed a framework that, in its view, could marginalise indigenous knowledge without adequate consultation or legal safeguards. It urged lawmakers to subject the bill to rigorous public scrutiny before proceeding with any fresh legislative proposal.