Odita Sunday 
By Odita Sunday
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, traditional nutritional practices and Nigeria’s cultural heritage.
The rights group, in a statement signed by its National Coordinator, Comrade Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko, on October 23, 2026, said it endorsed the position of the Centre for African Policy Research and Advisory (CAfPRA), which had opposed the proposed legislation sponsored by Hon. Chike John Okafor, representing Ehime Mbano/Ihitte Uboma/Obowo Federal Constituency.
HURIWA described the Bill, in its present form, as a troubling legislative proposal capable of placing indigenous food knowledge and community-based nutritional practices under an overcentralised regulatory structure.
It therefore demanded the Bill’s immediate withdrawal pending a transparent and inclusive national consultation involving nutrition experts, traditional knowledge holders, farmers, public health professionals, food sovereignty advocates, civil society organisations and affected communities.
The association stressed that its opposition was not a rejection of professional standards, scientific research or the regulation of qualified nutrition practitioners, but a response to what it considered the absence of adequate safeguards for Nigeria’s cultural heritage and traditional knowledge systems.
According to HURIWA, Nigerian communities had developed extensive knowledge of local foods, seasonal diets, food preservation, fermentation, medicinal plants, breastfeeding, complementary feeding and indigenous crops long before the emergence of modern nutritional science.
It noted that such knowledge had been transmitted through families, farming communities, traditional food processors and generations of practical experience.
The group, however, expressed concern that the proposed legislation did not clearly protect indigenous, traditional, cultural and family-based nutritional knowledge from being marginalised by the proposed statutory council.
HURIWA said a law establishing a regulatory council with powers to determine professional standards, approve training institutions, regulate practice and impose penalties must clearly distinguish formal professional services from ordinary family guidance and cultural practices.
It warned that failure to establish such boundaries could create uncertainty over lawful nutritional practices and give the proposed institution excessive discretion.
The association also raised concerns over the Bill’s proposed penalties for unapproved training, unregistered practice and the employment of unregistered persons.
It specifically cited Sections 23, 27, 28 and 30, noting that Section 23 provides for a fine of up to N5 million or imprisonment for up to five years, or both, in specified cases involving unapproved training and certification.
Sections 27 and 28 prescribe penalties for certain forms of unregistered practice, while Section 30 addresses the employment of unregistered persons.
HURIWA argued that the absence of a clear definition of the practice of nutrition and explicit exemptions for traditional and family-based knowledge could expose ordinary Nigerians to unnecessary legal uncertainty.
It said activities such as a grandmother advising family members on traditional foods, community elders transmitting knowledge about local diets and households maintaining inherited food preparation practices should not be subjected to ambiguous criminal provisions.
The group, however, clarified that it was not advocating blanket exemption for all traditional practices, noting that harmful practices and fraudulent health claims should remain subject to appropriate public health safeguards.
On the Bill’s provisions for international cooperation and funding, HURIWA expressed concern about Sections 3, 14, 17 and 32, particularly Section 32(2)(c), which permits grants, endowments and donations to form part of the proposed Council’s funds.
It said the legislation did not provide an equally explicit and comprehensive framework for transparency, disclosure and public scrutiny of foreign grants and external funding.
The association also referenced Section 35(2), which restricts the acceptance of gifts where their conditions conflict with or prejudice the Council’s functions, but argued that stronger safeguards were required.
HURIWA insisted that international cooperation and foreign funding were not inherently objectionable, but Nigerians deserved transparency regarding interests that could influence professional standards, educational curricula and public nutritional guidance.
It called for disclosure of consultations, research, stakeholder submissions and any foreign technical assistance or advocacy associated with the proposal.
The group further warned that the proposed regulatory framework could undermine Nigeria’s food sovereignty if it failed to prioritise indigenous food systems, local cuisines, agroecological knowledge and the protection of diverse food cultures.
While acknowledging the Bill’s objectives of promoting sound nutritional practices, healthy lifestyles, sustainable food systems, research and public education, HURIWA said the proposed legislation did not expressly require the Council to prioritise indigenous knowledge and local food systems.
It maintained that Nigeria’s food security challenges required investment in agriculture, support for smallholder farmers, improved food processing and storage, nutrition education, biodiversity protection and access to affordable locally produced foods.
The association also questioned the necessity and financial sustainability of establishing a separate statutory council, citing proposed structures including a governing board, registrar, zonal or state offices, staff, accreditation mechanisms, registration fees, annual practising fees and disciplinary structures.
It urged the National Assembly to explain why a new council was preferable to strengthening existing professional associations and regulatory arrangements, subject to an independent assessment of existing gaps.
HURIWA consequently outlined eight demands, including immediate withdrawal of the Bill, public disclosure of the consultations and research that informed its drafting, independent assessment of the proposed council’s necessity and cost, and explicit legal protection for indigenous and traditional food knowledge.
It also demanded proportionate penalties, clear definitions of regulated activities, safeguards against arbitrary enforcement, prioritisation of food sovereignty and transparent scrutiny of foreign grants, donations and partnerships.
The association urged Hon. Okafor, the relevant legislative committee and the leadership of the National Assembly to reconsider the proposal and ensure that any future legislation is developed through a genuinely inclusive process.
It called on relevant ministries, public health institutions and civil society organisations to insist on transparency and meaningful consultation before another legislative proposal is introduced.
HURIWA maintained that food was not merely a technical subject for licensed practitioners, but was closely connected to culture, agriculture, livelihoods, public health, family life and national sovereignty.
The group reiterated that it did not oppose scientific nutrition, professional competence or reasonable regulation of qualified practitioners, but rejected what it described as a potential regulatory monopoly without adequate protections for indigenous knowledge and public accountability.
It urged the National Assembly to withdraw the Bill, subject its implications to rigorous public scrutiny and ensure that any future framework is built around scientific integrity, cultural protection, transparent governance and the interests of Nigerians.
About the Author
