A bill titled, “A Bill for an Act to Amend the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, Cap. M379, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 to mandate any Nigeria trained Medical or Dental Practitioner to Practice in Nigeria for a Minimum of Five (5) before granted a full license by the Council in order to make quality health services available to Nigeria; and for Related Matters (HB.2130)” sponsored by the member representing Oshodi/Isolo II Federal Constituency of Lagos State, Hon Abiodun Ganiyu Johnson, which recently passed second reading, is generating a lot of heat within the polity. In this interview, Johnson explains why he will not relent in forging ahead with it. Correspondent Nicholas Kalu was there.
Your bill has generated a lot of controversy. What are the highlights of this bill? Is it trying to prevent Nigerian doctors from travelling out for greener pastures?
The Bill does not prevent anybody from travelling. I started by raising a motion on the same issue, medical brain drain. In that motion I prayed for three things, that the welfare of medical personnel should be reviewed, as the first prayer, the second prayer is that we should also look into the health facilities we have that we should also improve on our health facilities, maintaining and upgrading our primary healthcare centres to general hospitals, and maintain and upgrading our general hospitals to specialist hospitals, then maintaining and upgrading our specialist hospitals to research institutes. Then the last prayer was that the government should collaborate with private sector such as insurance companies and the reason why I mentioned insurance companies is that we have so many unclaimed dividends with insurance companies.
If they collaborate with them, they would be able to fund the projects. That is trying to create an enabling environment for the doctors and also improve their welfare. After that motion, I noticed a decline of further capital flight of our medical doctors abroad. So I now looked at the Act, establishing a licensing of medical doctors and I noticed that after their housemanship, because once you graduate from school, you go and do your housemanship. Your housemanship is one year. After your housemanship, you go for your NYSC, which is also one year. The reason why you do your housemanship before you do your NYSC is because you will be able to practice as a medical doctor.
When you go out there for NYSC, it is assumed that you are going to practice as a medical doctor. So after your housemanship you are given a license, so I now looked at that and now said okay, it would be a thing of great interest to our society because our population is over 200 million and as I speak, the number of doctors we have is about 10, 000 and if care is not taken, we may have a crisis, in fact we have a crisis already. And how do we mitigate this crisis, is by slowing down and carrying out a kind of stop gap that lets us increase the number of years, they will get their final license, and the reason is that it is not that one is trying to restrict them. The five years I am talking about are inclusive of housemanship.
It is inclusive of the NYSC. So technically we are talking about three years. And the three years is a way of promoting professionalism because you can as well register for your residency. In the medical line, after your NYSC, if you are engaged in hospitals you can enroll for your residency. Your residency program takes an average of five to six years. So if with your residency you are a specialist at the end of that programme. So it is a way of encouraging and promoting our doctors to be specialists instead of just general medical practitioners. So if you will gain three years while you’re here doing your residency, so by the time you complete those three years, you can as well complete your residency and leave. One, it is a win-win for the nation. It is a win-win for the medical doctors. Really that is the purpose and background of my motion.
Are you not concerned about the controversies, this particular bill has generated?
I am not. What I am saying is that in the country already we have a crisis. How do we mitigate these crises? I only suggested a way out. I am not saying that this is the final solution. Fortunately, it has just passed second reading. There is still opportunity for everybody and all stakeholders to come during public hearing and have robust debates on the issue. Nobody is saying they should not travel. All I am saying is that we have a population of over 200 million and if care is not taken, maybe Babalawo would be the one treating our people.
It is not a funny situation but the medical doctors are only looking at it from their own point of view. I am looking at it holistically. I am looking at the nation. What are the challenges we are facing? Just recently WHO placed a red alert on us and the UK has restricted them from coming. Yes we have other places they can go, but if they should abide WHO’s resolution, what are we talking about?
Some people feel you should have restricted your bill to students in the public schools and not include those in private schools. What do you make of this?
Like I said it has just passed second reading. There is room for robust debate during public hearing. You see, when it comes to getting a license as a professional it does not matter which school you go to. We must get that clear. We are all one. The institution is to train you, guide you towards that profession, but by the time you are writing your professional exam, it is a different ball game. You all come together. It is the same exam you will write. It does not matter.
Nigerians are wondering if the bill is not selfish because in 2019 there was this motion that had to do with public office holders, which includes lawmakers, discouraging medical tourism, it failed.
In 2019, I don’t know the basis. First of all, I am not the Speaker of the House. I am just a member of the House, one out of 360. Usually once there is a Bill like that there is always a robust debate in the House. Whatever is the outcome of that Bill, will be binding. So there is always robust debate. You see in 2019, I may not be in a position to tell you this is the reason why it was shut down. But today, the point I am saying is that we have a crisis. Unless you yourself do not agree that we have a crisis in the health sector. It is because of this crisis that I am doing this. I am just being passionate about the situation now and that is why I am forging ahead with the bill. Two, it is not a law yet because it has to pass through so many processes. We have a third reading, public hearing, I mean there must also be concurrence from the senate before it goes to Mr President for assent. Before it is passed to law. So it is a long process. So if people believe that they are not too comfortable with it, at the public hearing, we would request for memoranda from people.
The main reason why people go out of the country is welfare?
When you talk about welfare. Welfare is everything. I said they should improve their welfare which includes the salaries, allowances, even to the extent of trying to give them loans to own their own houses, mortgages, you know it is all under welfare. And also create an enabling environment, improve their working condition. Improve the facilities where they are going to operate.
What is your view on the bill that seeks to restrict public office holders from traveling abroad to seek treatment?
I am in support of that bill. You know why? Like I told you, I am passionate about this thing. By the time we upgrade our health facilities, why would people go out? We can get all these things here. One we would save on our foreign exchange, two, we would create more jobs for our medical personnel, and three, it would encourage us to even improve further on our health facilities. So I am in support. I said I do not want medical personnel to go out until after a certain period, because we know we have a crisis. If WHO is telling us that we have a crisis. And cannot continue to deplete their doctors, they are only helping us by supporting my position.