NECA, SON and tobacco firms oppose Nigeria’s proposed 2026 registration bill, warning of regulatory conflicts, rising compliance costs and business disruptions.
The proposed overhaul of Nigeria’s regulatory framework for food, medical and related products has drawn criticism from organised businesses, standards regulators and tobacco industry operators, who fear that some provisions could create conflicting legal requirements and increase the cost of doing business.
The Nigeria Employers’ Consultative Association (NECA), the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) and tobacco industry stakeholders have called for a closer examination of the proposed Food, Medical Products and Related Products (Registration, Etc.) Bill, 2026, warning that the introduction of additional regulatory powers without clearly defined boundaries could complicate existing compliance procedures.
Their concerns centre on the possibility that the proposed legislation could duplicate responsibilities already assigned to government agencies, expose businesses to conflicting directives and create uncertainty over the approval and regulation of products covered by existing laws.
The bill, sponsored by Senator Umar Sadiq Suleiman, passed its second reading in the Senate on July 21, 2026.
It seeks to repeal the Food, Drugs and Related Products Act, 2004, and replace it with a revised legal framework for regulating food, medical products and other related items.
However, stakeholders have questioned whether the proposed changes adequately account for the laws and institutions already responsible for overseeing particular industries.
NECA Seeks Exemption for Tobacco Products
In its submission to the Senate Committee on Health, NECA urged lawmakers to exclude tobacco products from the proposed legislation, arguing that the sector already operates under specific laws and regulations.
The association identified the National Tobacco Control Act, 2015, the National Tobacco Control Regulations, 2019, and the Standards Organisation of Nigeria Act, 2015, as existing legal instruments that must be considered when reviewing the proposed bill.
According to NECA, introducing another regulatory layer without properly harmonising these laws could create uncertainty over the responsibilities of the institutions involved.
The association warned that businesses could face multiple product registration procedures, repeated approval requirements, inconsistent enforcement decisions and additional compliance expenses.
It argued that such complications could affect legitimate operators by increasing administrative demands and making it more difficult for companies to plan their operations within a predictable regulatory environment.
NECA also expressed reservations about provisions that would expand regulatory powers relating to product registration, suspension, seizure, factory operations and enforcement.
Particular concern was raised over the proposed ceiling-list mechanism, which the association said could give the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) considerable discretion to restrict products without sufficiently clear safeguards.
The organisation called for transparent procedures and appropriate checks to ensure that regulatory decisions are consistent with the law and do not conflict with the responsibilities of other agencies.
Health Ministry calls for more consultations
The Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare has also expressed reservations about aspects of the proposed legislation.
At a public hearing on the bill, the ministry, represented by Dr Adebisi Adegoke, Director of Hospital Services, warned that the proposed amendments could lead to overlapping mandates and disagreements among regulatory institutions.
It recommended deferring consideration of the bill to allow further consultations and a more detailed assessment of its implications for existing regulatory arrangements.
The ministry’s position underscores the importance of examining how the proposed framework would interact with current laws before introducing new responsibilities for government agencies.
Further consultations, it indicated, would provide an opportunity to address possible inconsistencies and clarify the respective roles of the institutions involved.
SON warns of possible conflict with existing law
SON has similarly called for a comprehensive review, arguing that some provisions of the proposed bill could conflict with its enabling legislation and affect the discharge of its statutory responsibilities.
The organisation also pointed to possible duplication of regulatory functions and concerns about the extent of stakeholder consultation preceding the proposed changes.
Its objection adds to the wider debate over how regulatory responsibilities should be distributed among agencies responsible for product standards, public health, registration and enforcement.
For businesses operating in regulated sectors, unclear boundaries between institutions could make it difficult to determine which requirements apply and which agency has the authority to enforce them.
The stakeholders have therefore called for a coordinated approach that takes existing legislation into account rather than introducing provisions that could create competing regulatory demands.
Tobacco operators caution against higher business costs
Tobacco industry operators have also challenged the proposed changes, maintaining that the production, importation, distribution, packaging and labelling of their products are already subject to statutory controls.
They noted that existing requirements also cover health warnings and applicable product standards, arguing that additional approval and enforcement systems could complicate compliance for businesses already operating under established regulations.
The operators warned that parallel regulatory procedures could expose companies to contradictory instructions from different authorities, higher administrative costs and interruptions to normal business activities.
They stressed that their position should not be interpreted as opposition to public-health protection.
Rather, their concern is that additional obligations should be justified by clearly established objectives and designed to work alongside existing regulations.
The industry representatives also cautioned that uncertainty over compliance requirements could affect investment decisions, discourage business expansion and weaken investor confidence.
They argued that a stable regulatory environment is important for businesses to plan operations, allocate resources and meet their legal obligations without facing unnecessary duplication.
Lawmakers urged to balance public health and business interests
NECA has maintained that effective regulation requires clear institutional responsibilities, predictable compliance procedures and proportionate enforcement.
The association believes that coordination among relevant government agencies is necessary to prevent conflicting decisions and ensure that businesses are not subjected to overlapping requirements.
It has consequently urged the National Assembly to reconsider the inclusion of tobacco products in the proposed legislation while introducing safeguards against unilateral regulatory decisions.
The association also expressed its readiness to engage with lawmakers and other stakeholders to help develop a framework that protects public health without creating avoidable uncertainty for legitimate businesses.
As consideration of the bill progresses, the concerns raised by NECA, SON, the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, and tobacco industry operators highlight the need to reconcile regulatory reform with existing laws and institutional responsibilities.
The central issue remains whether the proposed legislation can achieve its public-health objectives while providing clear rules for regulators and businesses.
Further engagement among lawmakers, government agencies and affected industries could help identify provisions requiring clarification or amendment before the bill advances through the legislative process.
About The Author
