Nigeria’s Tobacco Control at a Crossroads: Health Advocates Demand Review of 2025 Amendment Bill

More than 100 civil society groups demand withdrawal of 2025 amendment, warn proposed provisions could expose young Nigerians to emerging nicotine products

Nigeria’s next tobacco-control battle may not be about the cigarette. It may be about what comes after it.

Electronic cigarettes. Heated tobacco products. Nicotine pouches. Online purchases. Product sampling. Digital advertising.

These emerging products are at the centre of a growing controversy over Nigeria’s National Tobacco Control Act (Amendment) Bill 2025, with more than 100 civil society organisations, health advocates and public-interest groups warning that some provisions in the proposed law could weaken existing safeguards and create new commercial opportunities for the tobacco and nicotine industry.

The groups, operating under the Nigeria Tobacco Control Community, are demanding the immediate withdrawal and comprehensive review of the consolidated bill.

Their concern is not that Nigeria is attempting to update its tobacco-control framework.

In fact, they agree that the 2015 National Tobacco Control Act and its 2019 Regulations need to evolve to address products that did not feature prominently when the existing framework was developed.

Their objection is to what they describe as the direction of the proposed changes.

According to the coalition, the bill could permit advertising of non-combustible nicotine products through certain adult publications, point-of-sale materials and online platforms; allow sponsorship of some cultural, social and recreational events; permit online sales and courier deliveries; facilitate indoor product sampling; reduce the minimum number of cigarettes in a pack; and weaken some health-warning requirements.

The groups argue that these provisions, taken together, could make nicotine products more visible, accessible and commercially attractive particularly in a country with a predominantly young population.

“Our conclusion is that this bill does not protect Nigerians. It instead weakens existing safeguards and creates a wide-open market for tobacco and nicotine companies to thrive at the expense of public health,” the coalition said in a communique read by the Executive Director of Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa, CAPPA.

That is the central fault line in the debate.

Is Nigeria closing regulatory gaps created by new nicotine technologies or could some of the proposed changes create new gaps through which the industry can expand?

The Harm Reduction Question

One of the most contentious issues is buried in the language of the proposed legislation.

The coalition is challenging the proposed inclusion of “tobacco harm reduction objectives” among the purposes of the Act.

To the advocates, those words could have consequences beyond semantics.

They fear that “harm reduction” could become a basis for treating newer nicotine products less strictly than conventional tobacco products.

For Michael Olaniyan, In-Country Coordinator of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Nigeria must distinguish between reducing harm and preventing it.

“Harm reduction is not harm elimination,” Olaniyan said.

His concern is particularly focused on people who have never used tobacco.

He argues that newer nicotine products could become an entry point for people who have never smoked traditional cigarettes.

“It is a pathway for introducing people who have never used cigarettes, who have never used the traditional tobacco products, to start using tobacco and nicotine products,” he said.

That argument puts Nigeria’s young population at the heart of the controversy.

The campaigners are asking a broader question: if emerging products are easier to advertise, sample and purchase, could they introduce nicotine to consumers who might otherwise never have used tobacco?

When “Non-Combustible” Becomes a Regulatory Divide

The proposed classification of heated tobacco products has also become a major point of contention.

The groups oppose provisions they say would define heated tobacco products as non-combustible products and exclude non-combustible items from the legal definition of tobacco products.

Their argument is straightforward: heated tobacco products still contain tobacco.

They therefore want them to remain under the same strong regulatory framework as other tobacco products.

For the coalition, the issue is not simply how the product works.

It is what its legal classification could allow.

A separate category for non-combustible products, they argue, could potentially give manufacturers access to advertising, distribution and promotional channels that are more tightly restricted for conventional tobacco.

The debate therefore extends beyond product technology into the architecture of regulation itself.

The Advertising Door

The coalition’s strongest concerns emerge around advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

According to the groups, the proposed amendments could permit advertising of non-combustible products through adult publications, point-of-sale materials and online platforms.

The bill could also allow sponsorship of cultural, social and recreational events ostensibly targeted at adults.

But the advocates question how effective those restrictions would be in protecting children.

They point to the proposed definition of an “adult publication” as one in which at least 50 per cent of the readership is adult.

For the coalition, an audience that is majority adult does not automatically mean children are excluded.

And in the digital environment, the problem becomes even more complicated.

Content promoted to adults can be viewed, shared and circulated far beyond its intended audience.

The campaigners therefore fear that restrictions framed around adult audiences may not provide adequate protection for younger Nigerians.

The Online Sales Test

Perhaps the biggest practical challenge is the proposed permission for online sales, remote orders and courier delivery of non-combustible nicotine products.

The coalition says age verification could easily become the weakest link in the system.

Olaniyan questions whether online platforms can reliably establish that a buyer is an adult.

“You and I know that there are several online platforms that all you need to verify your age is just click ‘Yes, I am 18 years old,’” he said.

But even if a platform verifies the age of the person placing an order, another question remains: who receives the product?

The coalition argues that enforcement becomes more difficult when a nicotine product is ordered from a phone or computer and delivered to a home, office or another location.

For the campaigners, the proposed online-sales framework could therefore create a significant enforcement challenge.

The problem is not merely whether the law says minors cannot buy nicotine products.

It is whether the system can reliably stop them from doing so.

Sampling: Where Marketing Meets Experimentation

Another provision attracting concern is the proposed allowance for indoor vaping for product sampling.

The coalition argues that this could transform retail outlets into spaces where consumers are not simply shown products but encouraged to experience them.

Kenneth Anetor, Executive Director of the New Thing International Foundation, says the potential impact on young people should not be underestimated.

“Sampling products at the point of sale creates an opportunity to increase curiosity amongst people that are not even using substances and even increase curiosity among youths,” Anetor said.

For the campaigners, this is particularly troubling because tobacco control is not only about managing existing users.

It is also about preventing initiation. A person who has never smoked may never walk into a shop looking for a cigarette.

But a product presented as new, different or less harmful could create a different form of curiosity.

That is the concern the advocates say policymakers must consider.

Five Cigars Instead of Twenty

Another proposed change appears less dramatic but has significant implications for accessibility.

The coalition says the bill would permit cigars to be sold in packs of five instead of the existing minimum of 20.

The advocates argue that smaller packs could reduce the upfront cost of purchase and, consequently, lower a financial barrier to experimentation.

Their concern is particularly focused on young people.

If fewer units can be purchased at a lower initial cost, the coalition argues, the product becomes easier to try.

The proposal therefore fits into a broader concern about accessibility: how price, packaging, availability and marketing can collectively influence consumption.

What Happens to the Health Warnings?

The proposed changes to product packaging have also drawn criticism.

The coalition says the bill could allow text-only warnings on vape liquids and smaller warnings on nicotine pouches.

It also objects to provisions it says would exempt some electronic cigarettes and heating devices from carrying health warnings.

Olaniyan is particularly critical of what he describes as a shift from minimum standards to maximum limits.

“The standard gold practice is to put it at a minimum benchmark,” he said.

His argument is that a minimum establishes a floor below which manufacturers cannot go.

A maximum, by contrast, could potentially become a ceiling.

For public-health advocates, that distinction matters because health warnings are one of the few mandatory messages consumers encounter directly on the product.

Another issue raised by the coalition concerns how product safety would be established.

The groups object to provisions under which manufacturers would generate and internally approve their own safety dossiers.

They argue that products containing addictive substances require robust and independent regulatory scrutiny.

The coalition is also concerned about proposed powers that would allow the Minister of Health to exempt certain non-combustible products from provisions of the law.

Olaniyan says such broad discretion could create opportunities for regulatory capture.

He argues that exemptions should be based on transparent, evidence-driven criteria rather than broad administrative discretion.

“The Nigerian health infrastructure cannot bear the burden of diseases and deaths that this bill, if passed, will bring upon us,” he said.

From Four Pages to 31: The Legislative Question

The controversy does not end with the substance of the bill.

The campaigners are also questioning how the consolidated legislation emerged.

Olaniyan claims that two amendment proposals presented during a public hearing in November 2024 amounted to four pages, but that the subsequent consolidated document expanded to 31 pages.

More importantly, he alleges that the new document contained provisions substantially different from the original proposals presented to Nigerians for input.

“Two documents totaling four pages were presented to the people of Nigeria for intervention… and then came out with a 31-page new document that has absolutely no bearing on the original two documents that were presented to Nigerians,” he said.

If accurate, the allegation raises a question that goes beyond tobacco control. It touches on legislative transparency.

When a bill changes significantly during the amendment process, how much opportunity do citizens, experts and affected stakeholders have to scrutinise the new provisions? For the coalition, the answer is that the current process requires another round of consultation.

The campaigners say the debate over emerging nicotine products cannot be separated from the existing burden of tobacco use.

Olawale Makanjuola of the Nigerian Tobacco Control Alliance says Nigeria loses more than 20,000 people to smoking-related deaths annually.

He also puts smoking-related healthcare costs at more than ₦201 billion.

Those figures, cited by the advocates, form a major part of their argument against any policy they believe could increase nicotine consumption.

Their concern is amplified by Nigeria’s demographics.

Makanjuola points to the country’s predominantly young population and argues that this makes Nigeria an attractive potential market for manufacturers of emerging nicotine products.

He alleges that the industry sees young Nigerians as future consumers.

“They see a country that is populated by young persons, over 60 percent. And so these people are also potential business interests. So they must do all they can to cultivate that business interest,” he said.

The concern, therefore, is not simply about today’s smokers. It is about who becomes tomorrow’s nicotine consumer.

Nigeria’s African Leadership at Stake?

Makanjuola also warns that Nigeria’s tobacco-control decisions could have implications beyond its borders.

He describes Nigeria as a “North Star” for tobacco-control developments across Africa, pointing to measures taken to regulate tobacco promotion, including in the entertainment industry.

His argument is that weakening Nigeria’s safeguards could have a demonstration effect across the continent.

The proposed bill, in his view, therefore represents more than a domestic regulatory exercise.

It could influence how other African countries approach emerging nicotine products.

There is, however, a genuine regulatory challenge beneath the controversy.

Nigeria cannot regulate today’s nicotine market using only rules designed for yesterday’s products.

Electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches present questions that policymakers must address.

Should they be regulated exactly like conventional cigarettes?

Should they have separate rules? How should online purchases be controlled?

How should advertising be restricted? What health warnings should be mandatory?

Who should determine whether a product is safe enough to qualify for an exemption?

And most importantly, how should the law prevent children and non-users from becoming the next generation of nicotine consumers?

Those questions require regulation. But the civil society coalition argues that regulation must not become deregulation by another name.

READ ALSO:

• CAPPA Hails FG Food Procurement Rules, Seeks Swift Rollout
• ‘World Vape Day’ Is a Marketing Scam to Dilute Campaigns Against Tobacco Use – Advocate Warns
• WHO, Advocates Push Back as Tobacco Industry Shifts Tactics
• CAPPA Urges Reps to Fast-Track SSB Tax Bill After Senate Approval

The coalition is demanding the immediate withdrawal of the consolidated 2025 amendment bill.

It wants the National Assembly to reopen the process and undertake a transparent review involving public-health experts, civil society organisations and other relevant stakeholders.

It is also calling on the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare to take a stronger position on the proposed amendments.

And should the bill eventually reach the presidency in its present form, the campaigners are asking President Bola Tinubu not to assent to it.

Makanjuola says the commercial interests of the tobacco and nicotine industry must not override public health.

“The industry’s interest can never, can never be put first on top of the public health and national security of this country,” he said.

The Battle Is About More Than Cigarettes

Nigeria’s tobacco-control debate is changing.

The cigarette remains a public-health concern, but the next battle is increasingly being fought over products that look different, are marketed differently and can be purchased through channels that barely existed when the country’s current tobacco-control framework was created.

That is precisely why the 2025 amendment bill matters.

Its supporters may argue that Nigeria needs modern rules for modern products.

Its critics fear that some of those rules could do more than regulate a new nicotine economy they could help build it.

The outcome will determine more than how electronic cigarettes, heated tobacco products and nicotine pouches are treated in law.

It could determine how visible nicotine becomes in Nigerian society, how easily young people can encounter it, how aggressively new products can be marketed and how much power regulators ultimately have over an expanding industry.

For the more than 100 organisations opposing the bill, the warning is already clear: Nigeria should not sacrifice hard-won tobacco-control protections in the name of modernisation.

The question now before lawmakers is whether the proposed amendment will close the loopholes created by new nicotine products or create new ones.

And in a country where tobacco already carries a substantial human and economic cost, that distinction could prove consequential for an entire generation.