“Telemedicine has exploded in Nigeria. Driven by smartphones, a shortage of doctors, and post-COVID habits, Nigerians now consult doctors, get prescriptions, and receive diagnoses through platforms that barely existed a decade ago.”
Imagine a woman who downloads a health app at 2:00 a.m. The fever has lasted three days. The nearest hospital is one hour away. The app promises a consultation in minutes.
She types her symptoms, uploads a photo, and waits.
An algorithm suggests a diagnosis. A licensed doctor confirms it. A prescription follows. She pays. The drugs arrive by courier.
Three days later, she is in an emergency ward.
The app missed the real condition. The doctor never examined her physically. And when her family seeks answers, they discover the platform is registered abroad, the doctor holds a distant licence, and no Nigerian regulator has clear oversight over either.
This scenario – not a specific case, but a representative one – is already happening across Nigeria.
Telemedicine And The Regulatory Gap
Telemedicine has exploded in Nigeria. Driven by smartphones, a shortage of doctors, and post-COVID habits, Nigerians now consult doctors, get prescriptions, and receive diagnoses through platforms that barely existed a decade ago.
Yet the law has not kept pace.
The Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) recognises telemedicine in its Code of Medical Ethics – “medicine requested and practised at a distance.”
The Code offers ethical cautions on confidentiality, competence, and equipment. But it is not a detailed regulatory structure.
There is no dedicated licensing regime for telemedicine platforms. No harmonised standards for crossborder consultations. No specialised accreditation for digital healthcare providers.
The National Health Insurance Authority Act 2022 mandates ICT infrastructure integration, and the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 protects personal health data. But neither establishes comprehensive rules on the clinical quality, accountability, or safety of virtual medical practice.
Data protection is vital. It is not a substitute for clinical regulation.
The AI Problem
The challenge grows when artificial intelligence enters the consultation.
Some digital health platforms use algorithms to triage symptoms, rank possible diagnoses, or suggest treatments before a human doctor reviews the case. In better-regulated countries, such systems are treated as medical devices – subject to validation, audit, and liability standards.
In Nigeria, they operate in a legal fog.
There is no comprehensive law specifically regulating AI-assisted diagnosis. No mandatory requirement that diagnostic algorithms be independently validated before deployment. No framework for auditing them. No clear guidance on liability when AI recommendations cause harm.
The National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (September 2025) and NITDA’s proposed AI Ethics Expert Group are welcome steps. But strategy is not statute.
Equally important: dataset reliability. Algorithms trained on foreign populations may perform poorly on Nigerian patients with different disease patterns, genetics, and access to care. An AI that fails on the people it serves is not merely inefficient – it raises questions of equity, safety, and human dignity.
Who bears responsibility when the machine is wrong? The developer? The platform operator? The doctor who approved the recommendation?
Nigeria has no specific AI liability law, but general negligence principles will apply – though courts will struggle to adapt physical consultation standards to algorithmic diagnosis.
Section 34 of our Constitution guarantees human dignity. The patient who opens a telemedicine app at 2:00 a.m. is no less deserving of legal protection than one who walks into a teaching hospital.
Digital patients are uniquely vulnerable. They may have no way to verify the doctor’s credentials. They may not know if an algorithm participated in their diagnosis. They may not understand where their medical data is stored or transferred.
The doctor-patient relationship is fundamentally a relationship of trust. Digitalisation does not dissolve it. Technology may mediate care, but it cannot mediate responsibility.
A system that allows opaque algorithms to sit between patient and doctor – without clear accountability – degrades both medical integrity and patient dignity.
Learning From Others
Other African nations are moving faster. Kenya’s Digital Health Act 2023 provides institutional oversight for digital health services. South Africa’s professional guidelines impose licensing and informed consent obligations for telemedicine.
Nigeria has yet to fully confront the principle these frameworks recognise: digital healthcare requires digital accountability.
What Must Change
First, the National Assembly should enact a Digital Health Act that defines telemedicine services, licenses platforms and practitioners, and sets standards of care for virtual delivery – including when physical referral is mandatory.
Second, AI-assisted diagnostic systems should be regulated as medical technologies – requiring pre-deployment validation, periodic audit, and ongoing clinical oversight. A human clinician must retain final responsibility.
Third, the National Health Insurance Authority should establish standardised reimbursement for telemedicine, integrating digital care responsibly into national health financing.
Fourth, the MDCN should maintain a public register of licensed telemedicine practitioners and accredited platforms, so patients can verify credentials.
Fifth, liability rules must be clarified. The law should specify the duties of developers, platform operators, and clinicians when digital systems contribute to patient injury.
Know Your Rights
Telemedicine providers remain subject to the Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 regarding your health information.
Doctors offering telemedicine should be licensed by the MDCN. You have the right to verify credentials.
Nigeria does not yet have comprehensive legislation specifically regulating AI-assisted diagnosis.
If harmed during a telemedicine consultation, you may seek remedies under negligence law and data protection frameworks.
Always ask whether a licensed human clinician reviewed any AI-generated recommendation before your treatment was decided.
The Bottom Line
The doctor in your pocket promises convenience, speed, and expanded access. But without regulation, it also delivers risk: misdiagnosis, algorithmic bias, data exploitation, and vanishing accountability.
The question is not whether telemedicine and AI should exist in Nigerian healthcare. They already do. The question is whether innovation will remain accountable to law, ethics, and human dignity – or whether patients become subjects in a digital experiment governed by commercial convenience and regulatory silence.
•Sanu is a Nigerian lawyer and health law scholar. This column breaks down complex health laws for everyday Nigerians.
