Authored By: MERCY OLUWANIFEMI OLA
ADEKUNLE AJASIN UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
This article examines Nigeria’s legal and ethical landscape on compulsory vaccination, highlighting constitutional rights, public health imperatives, and real-life controversies. Using the Edo State COVID-19 mandate as a focal point, it analyses the tension between individual freedoms and disease prevention, identifies gaps in existing laws, and proposes actionable reforms to align Nigeria with global best practices.
INTRODUCTION
Vaccination has long been recognised as one of the most effective tools in safeguarding public health. From the eradication of smallpox to the global fight against polio and, more recently, the response to COVID-19, vaccines have played an indispensable role in preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Yet, vaccination policies have consistently sparked legal, ethical, and social debates, particularly when governments seek to make them compulsory.
Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, faces a complex challenge in this regard. Despite the fact that vaccinations are crucial for preventing illnesses including polio, yellow fever, and COVID 19, efforts to make vaccinations mandatory have run into problems with the law, public opposition, and constitutional disputes. This article critically examines Nigeria’s legal framework concerning compulsory vaccination, highlights significant court rulings, explores ethical concerns, and proposes paths towards a more coherent public health policy.
BACKGROUND: Compulsory Vaccination as a Global Public Health Tool Vaccination and Compulsory Vaccination
The phrase ‘Compulsory Vaccination’ refers to laws or regulations that mandate vaccinations for particular populations, usually as a prerequisite for employment, education, or entry to public spaces.
Examples of Compulsory Vaccination Programs at Various Stages of Execution
United States: Despite medical or religious exemptions, some states demand evidence of childhood vaccinations prior to school entrance.
Czech Republic: The European Court of Human Rights upheld the Czech Republic’s compulsory childhood vaccination policy, affirming that protecting public health justifies certain restrictions on individual rights.1
The Covid-19 Pandemic
Many nations found it difficult to strike a balance between public health requirements and civil freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, some even implemented vaccination requirements for certain industries, public employees, or healthcare professionals. Nigeria was no exception, but its approach revealed significant legal and institutional gaps.
Legal Framework for Vaccination in Nigeria
Nigeria’s legal landscape on public health is primarily shaped by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) (the Constitution), the National Health Act, 2014, and various state-level policies. However, the country’s stance on compulsory vaccination remains ambiguous in the following respects:
- Extent and Manner of Constitutional Restrictions on Constitutional Rights The Constitution guarantees several fundamental human rights relevant to the vaccination debate:
a.) Section 37 protects the right to privacy, which includes the right to one’s own body. b.) Section 38 guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, which may inform individuals’ acceptance or rejection of vaccines.
c.) Section 45 permits restrictions on these rights where reasonably justified in the interest of public health, defence, or public safety.2
As a result, whereas the Constitution acknowledges individual liberty, it also permits its restriction for the greater good of public health. Determining the scope and form of acceptable limitations is difficult, particularly when there is no explicit legal backing.
- Inarticulateness of the National Health Act, 2014
The National Health Act establishes a framework for delivering health services and protecting citizens’ rights within healthcare settings. It outlines the responsibilities of government and health authorities in promoting public health. However, the Act neither expressly authorises nor specifies how vaccination demands are to be implemented.3
Without explicit statutory provisions mandating vaccination, attempts to enforce vaccine requirements rely on executive directives, which often face legal contestation, as seen in recent events.
Real-Life Case Study: Edo State Compulsory Vaccination
The legal uncertainty surrounding compulsory vaccination came to the fore during the COVID-19 pandemic. In August 2021, Edo State Governor Godwin Obaseki announced that residents would not be permitted to visit public locations including banks, houses of worship, and event venues unless they could produce proof of their COVID-19 vaccination.4
Critics said the directive lacked parliamentary authorisation and violated fundamental rights, sparking a great deal of controversy. This led to the case of Charles Osaretin v. Governor Godwin Obaseki and five others, filed before the Federal High Court, Port Harcourt division.
The court granted an interim injunction restraining the state government from enforcing the compulsory vaccination pending the determination of the substantive suit.5 The ruling explained that no existing law empowered the governor to impose compulsory vaccination, and such a directive violated fundamental rights to privacy, freedom of movement, and religious liberty, and underscores the need for statutory clarity.
Nigeria’s Federal Government’s Compulsory Vaccination Policy for Workers In December, 2021, the federal government of Nigeria mandated Covid-19 vaccination for all federal government employees, proof of which allows them resume work. Most civil servants showed good awareness of Covid-19 and willingness to be vaccinated, driven by effective government campaigns and workplace vaccination efforts. However, the primary reasons for hesitancy include misinformation, religious beliefs, distrust, and the belief that the advantages of the pandemic are not distributed equally.6
Discussions on the Law and Ethics of Compulsory Vaccination in Nigeria The Nigerian vaccination controversy mirrors a global dilemma, that is, how to reconcile individual freedoms with the collective imperative of disease prevention.
From a legal standpoint, compelling vaccination without legislative backing raises constitutional concerns. Restrictions to these fundamental human rights must adhere to legality, necessity, and proportionality norms, even though the rights to privacy and freedom of conscience are not unlimited.7
Ethically, compulsory vaccination raises questions of bodily autonomy, informed consent, and public trust, which are core principles in both medical ethics and human rights discourse. Heavy handed policies risk eroding confidence in health authorities, particularly in Nigeria, where vaccine hesitancy is fueled by misinformation, religious beliefs, and historical distrust of government interventions, thereby shaking the already fragile relationship between citizens and public institutions.
CONCLUSION
Compulsory vaccination remains a potent tool for combating infectious diseases, but its implementation in Nigeria demands a delicate balance between protecting public health and upholding constitutional freedoms. During health emergencies, safeguarding public welfare justifies reasonable limitations on personal freedoms. Many international vaccination programs are explained by the solidarity idea, which aims to protect the weak and create herd immunity.
In contrast, nations like France and Italy enacted laws requiring medical personnel to get vaccinated against COVID-19.8 Undisputedly, clear laws, ethical safeguards, and robust public engagement are vital in navigating this legal and ethical crossroads. Therefore, the absence of such laws in Nigeria leaves compulsory vaccination vulnerable to legal contestation and public resistance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
- Clear Statutory Provisions for Compulsory Vaccination
To avoid future ethical and legal opposition, enact comprehensive legislation that clearly defines when vaccinations can be made mandatory, describes enforcement procedures, and protects individual rights.
- Enhanced Public Education and Awareness
Strengthen education campaigns to address vaccine hesitancy, correct misinformation, and promote informed consent, especially within the civil service.
- Transparent and Accountable Health Frameworks
Create legislative frameworks that ensure accountability, openness, and proportionality in health initiatives to preserve public confidence and safeguard human rights in the event of future medical emergencies.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Channels Television, ‘COVID-19: Edo to Restrict Unvaccinated Residents from Public Places’ https://www.channelstv.com/2021/08/16/covid-19-edo-to-restrict-unvaccinated-residents-from public-places/ (accessed 26 June, 2025).
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Okonkwo (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt 711) 206. National Health Act, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2014.
Sahara Reporters, ‘Court Stops Edo Government’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy’ https://saharareporters.com/2021/09/01/court-stops-edo-governments-mandatory-covid-19- vaccination-policy (accessed 26 June, 2025).
Vanguard News, Just in: Court stops compulsory Covid-19 vaccination in Edo https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/08/just-in-court-stops-compulsory-covid-19-vaccination-in edo/ (accessed 30 June, 2025).
Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic (2021) Application No. 47621/13 (ECtHR).
Views of Nigerian civil servants about compulsory COVID-19 vaccination: A qualitative study https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10913142/ (accessed 30 June, 2025).
1 Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic (2021) Application No. 47621/13 (ECtHR).
2 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).
3 National Health Act, Law of the Federation of Nigeria, 2014.
4 Channels Television, ‘COVID-19: Edo to Restrict Unvaccinated Residents from Public Places’ https://www.channelstv.com/2021/08/16/covid-19-edo-to-restrict-unvaccinated-residents-from-public-places/ (accessed 26 June, 2025).
5 Sahara Reporters, ‘Court Stops Edo Government’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy’ https://saharareporters.com/2021/09/01/court-stops-edo-governments-mandatory-covid-19-vaccination-policy (accessed 26 June, 2025); Just in: Court stops compulsory Covid-19 vaccination in Edo
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2021/08/just-in-court-stops-compulsory-covid-19-vaccination-in-edo/ (accessed 30 June, 2025).
6 Views of Nigerian civil servants about compulsory COVID-19 vaccination: A qualitative study https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10913142/ (accessed 30 June, 2025).
7 Medical and Dental Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal v. Okonkwo (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt 711) 206.
BBC News, ‘Covid: France and Italy Mandate Vaccines for Health Workers’ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57819002 (accessed 26 June, 2025).
8 BBC News, ‘Covid: France and Italy Mandate Vaccines for Health Workers’ https://www.bbc.com/news/world europe-57819002 (accessed 26 June, 2025).
