By Desire Uzochukwu
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 excessive regulation.
The group also demanded wider public consultation on the Bill, sponsored by Hon. Chike John Okafor, representing Ehime Mbano/Ihitte Uboma/Obowo Federal Constituency, insisting that any framework for regulating nutrition professionals must protect Nigeria’s cultural heritage and food sovereignty.
In a press statement issued on Friday and signed by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, HURIWA said it endorsed the position of the Centre for African Policy Research and Advisory (CAfPRA), which has opposed the proposed legislation.
The association clarified that its objection was not to professional standards or the regulation of qualified nutritionists, but to what it described as the absence of adequate safeguards for indigenous knowledge, family-based food practices and community traditions.
“This is not a rejection of professional standards, scientific research or the legitimate regulation of qualified nutrition practitioners,” HURIWA stated.
“It is a principled rejection of legislation that seeks to establish sweeping regulatory powers over nutrition without first guaranteeing the protection of Nigeria’s cultural heritage, indigenous knowledge systems and the everyday food practices through which generations of Nigerians have sustained their families and communities.”
Concerns over penalties
HURIWA expressed concern over Sections 23, 27, 28 and 30 of the Bill, which it said prescribe penalties for specified forms of unapproved training, unregistered practice and the employment of unregistered persons.
According to the group, Section 23 provides for a fine of up to ₦5 million or imprisonment for up to five years, or both, in specified cases involving unapproved training and certification.
It argued that the failure to clearly define the full scope of the practice of nutrition, while providing explicit exemptions for traditional and family-based knowledge, could create uncertainty about the activities subject to regulation.
“A grandmother advising her family on traditional foods, a community elder transmitting knowledge about local diets, or a household maintaining inherited food preparation practices must not be placed under a cloud of legal uncertainty,” the statement said.
The group, however, acknowledged that not all traditional practices are scientifically validated, adding that cultural protection should not prevent appropriate action against demonstrably harmful practices or fraudulent health claims.
Seeks transparency over foreign interests
The association also called for transparency regarding international partnerships, foreign qualifications, technical assistance and funding arrangements contemplated under the proposed law.
It specifically cited Sections 3, 14, 17 and 32 as provisions requiring closer scrutiny, particularly the provisions allowing grants, endowments and donations to form part of the proposed Council’s funds.
HURIWA said international cooperation and foreign funding were not inherently improper but argued that clear disclosure and accountability mechanisms were necessary to prevent conflicts of interest.
“International cooperation is not inherently objectionable, nor is foreign funding proof of improper conduct,” the statement said.
“Nevertheless, where legislation proposes to create an institution with significant authority over professional standards, educational curricula and public nutritional guidance, Nigerians are entitled to demand full transparency about the interests that could shape its operations.”
The group called for disclosure of the consultations, research and stakeholder submissions that informed the Bill, including any external interests involved in its development or promotion.
Calls for protection of local food systems
HURIWA further argued that Nigeria’s food security challenges could not be addressed solely through the establishment of another regulatory institution.
It called for increased support for smallholder farmers, local food processing, food storage, nutrition education, biodiversity and access to affordable locally produced foods.
The association said any future legislation should recognise indigenous food systems, traditional cuisines and agroecological knowledge as important elements of Nigeria’s cultural and agricultural heritage.
“Food is not merely a technical subject for licensed practitioners. It is inseparable from culture, agriculture, livelihoods, public health, family life and national sovereignty,” the statement said.
HURIWA also questioned the financial implications of creating the proposed Council, which it said would require administrative structures, staff, accreditation mechanisms, registration fees and disciplinary arrangements.
It urged lawmakers to commission an independent assessment of the necessity, cost and expected public benefits of the proposed institution, including its relationship with existing regulatory arrangements.
Eight-point demand
The association demanded the immediate withdrawal of the Bill in its present form, public disclosure of the consultations behind its drafting, and an independent review of existing regulatory arrangements.
It also called for explicit legal protection for indigenous and family-based food knowledge, clear definitions of regulated professional activities, proportionate penalties, representation for traditional knowledge holders and farmers, and safeguards for foreign grants and partnerships.
HURIWA urged Hon. Okafor and the relevant National Assembly committee to reconsider the proposal and ensure that any future legislation follows an inclusive consultation process.
The group reiterated that it supported scientific nutrition and reasonable regulation of qualified practitioners but opposed a framework that could marginalise traditional knowledge or create unnecessary barriers to professional practice.
It maintained that the Bill should be withdrawn and subjected to further public scrutiny before any revised proposal is introduced.
