A legal practitioner, Bernard Okpi, has filed a suit at the Federal High Court in Abuja challenging a health cooperation agreement between Nigeria and the United States over concerns about data privacy, constitutional breaches and transparency.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/15/549/2026 and dated 16 March, Mr Okpi is asking the court to determine whether the Bilateral Health Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed on 19 December 2025, violates the rights of Nigerians.
The defendants in the case include the President, the Attorney-General of the Federation, the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Concerns over data sharing
At the centre of the suit is the provision of the MoU that allegedly allows for the collection and transfer of sensitive health data of Nigerians to the United States government.
According to the court filings, the data could include medical records, blood samples, pathogen testing and genetic sequencing.
Mr Okpi argued that a related but undisclosed “Specimen Sharing Agreement” obliges Nigeria to provide such data within five days of request and could remain in force for up to 25 years.
He contended that the arrangement amounts to a breach of the National Health Act 2014, which protects the confidentiality of patient information, as well as the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 governing the processing and transfer of personal data.
The plaintiff also argued that the agreement violates Section 37 of the Constitution, which guarantees citizens’ right to privacy.
Religious and legislative concerns
The suit further raises concerns about alleged emphasis on Christian faith-based health facilities in the agreement.
Mr Okpi said any healthcare programme tied to religious considerations in a multi-faith country like Nigeria could trigger social tension and may contravene constitutional provisions on non-discrimination and freedom of religion.
He also questioned the role of the National Assembly, arguing that agreements with significant national implications should be subjected to legislative scrutiny and approval.
Among other reliefs, the plaintiff is seeking a declaration that the MoU is unconstitutional and an order suspending its implementation, which is scheduled to begin on 1 April 2026.
He also asked the court to compel the government to publish the full text of the agreement.
Government yet to release full agreement
The controversy surrounding the MoU has been heightened by the non-disclosure of its full contents.
In February, PREMIUM TIMES submitted Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare and the US Embassy seeking details of the agreement.
While the ministry has yet to respond, the US Embassy Abuja, in an email signed by its spokesperson, Nicole Holler, said the MoU is not publicly available.
The embassy stated that the agreement would provide about $2.1 billion in funding over five years, subject to annual approval by the US Congress, with Nigeria expected to contribute more than $3 billion in counterpart funding.
On concerns about religious bias, it said: “The jointly negotiated MOU reserves funding for Nigeria’s 900 faith-based clinics and hospitals which currently serve more than 30 percent of the population.
“The majority of faith-based health facilities in Nigeria are Christian and provide services to all Nigerians. Investments in these facilities are positioned to complement efforts in publicly managed facilities and strengthen Nigeria’s overall health infrastructure.”
On eligibility of other public facilities, the embassy added: “US government resources will be directed to organisations that have the capacity to deliver services to a significant portion of clients.
“In Nigeria’s case, faith-based clinics represent approximately 10 per cent of health care service providers but currently serve more than 30 per cent of the population.”
Background and earlier concerns
Nigeria and the United States signed the MoU in December 2025 as part of efforts to strengthen health security, expand primary healthcare and improve disease surveillance.
However, differing public descriptions of the agreement by Nigerian authorities and the US government have raised questions.
While Nigeria described the MoU as a technical and inclusive framework, the US places a strong emphasis on Christian faith-based healthcare providers and includes about $200 million in dedicated support for such institutions.
In January, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) called on the federal government to clarify the terms of the agreement, citing concerns over transparency, sovereignty and possible constitutional breaches.
The party said the differences between both governments’ accounts raised “fundamental questions” about the actual content of the agreement and warned against any arrangement that could appear sectional or undermine national unity.
It also questioned provisions allowing the United States to pause or terminate programmes under the MoU based on its national interests, describing such conditions as potentially inconsistent with Nigeria’s sovereignty.
In a separate analysis, Nigeria Health Watch, also raised concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding the agreement, noting that the full text has not been made public.
Its Managing Director, Vivianne Ihekweazu, said the absence of the full document makes it difficult to fully assess the implications of the MoU, particularly regarding data sharing and national control.
Mrs Ihekweazu also highlighted particular concern about provisions related to health data sharing. A circulated summary of the MoU refers to negotiations on regulated data-sharing arrangements, raising questions about data ownership, privacy and national control.
Similar clauses in other African countries have sparked debate, especially where agreements included references to long-term sharing of pathogen samples or access to national databases.
“Until the final signed MoU between Nigeria and the United States is made public, it is not possible to fully understand the commitments made or their implications for Nigeria’s sovereignty,” Mrs Ihekweazu noted.
