“The battle over “who rules the healers” is not an abstract debate. It is a fight about whether you will receive timely, safe, and accessible care when you need it most.”
Imagine this…
You wake up with a fever in a rural village. You walk 10 kilometres to the nearest health centre.
The Community Health Extension Worker (CHEW) on duty has been saving lives here for years. She treats malaria. She manages minor ailments. She knows when to refer complicated cases. She is the reason your neighbour’s child survived last rainy season.
But if certain lawmakers have their way, the CHEW may soon be barred from picking up a prescription pad.
Not because she lacks skill. But because a battle in Abuja over who rules the healers has reached your village.
The Battle Lines Are Drawn
This week, the Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU) —representing pharmacists, laboratory scientists, nurses, and others—issued an urgent warning to the National Assembly.
Two Bills are at the centre of the storm: the Medical and Dental Practitioners Bill 2026 (HB 2695) and the MLSCN Amendment Bill 2026 (HB 2701).
JOHESU describes the two Bills as “the most coordinated legislative attack ever attempted against the autonomy of Nigeria’s healthcare professions.”
The union warns that the two Bills would:
Bar CHEWs from prescribing medicines, crippling primary healthcare in rural areas;
Make the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) a “super-regulator” over all other health professions;
Weaken the Pharmacy Council’s ability to regulate drug safety;
Create what JOHESU calls an “apartheid-like structure” where doctors dominate every other profession.
The Doctors’ Perspective
Before any doctor stops reading, let me be clear: this column is not an attack on your profession.
Doctors carry responsibility for lives every day. When a patient dies or suffers harm, it is often the doctor’s name on the file; the doctor’s license at risk; the doctor facing the family in court.
From this perspective, doctors ask a fair question: If we are held accountable for patient outcomes, should we not have a say in who prescribes, who diagnoses, and how care is coordinated?
Some doctors also worry about standards. A CHEW, however dedicated, does not undergo the same years of training as a medical doctor. Allowing non-doctors to prescribe, they argue, could expose patients to risk.
The MDCN has previously argued in court that clinical laboratory practice should fall under medical oversight—not to diminish lab scientists, but because they believe integrated supervision protects patients.
These are legitimate concerns. They deserve to be heard.
What The Courts Have Already Said
This is not the first time these questions have been debated. The courts have weighed in:
2007 Federal High Court, Lagos: Affirmed the Pharmacy Council’s powers to regulate pharmacy practice, both in public and private sectors.
2016 National Industrial Court: Declared medical laboratory science as an independent profession that cannot be subordinated to another discipline in areas of its competence.
2018: When the MDCN sought to challenge this, the Federal High Court struck out the case for lack of evidence.
Both sides read these rulings differently…
JOHESU sees them as affirming professional independence.
Doctors would likely note that the courts have not answered every question now before the National Assembly, and that legislation remains a proper avenue for resolving policy disagreements.
Why This Matters To You
If you live in a city with multiple hospitals nearby, you might wonder: Does this fight affect me?
Yes.
If CHEWs cannot prescribe in rural clinics, patients will travel longer distances for basic care—or go without.
If pharmacy regulation is weakened, counterfeit drugs may enter the supply chain.
If laboratory scientists are subordinated to doctors who do not fully understand their field, diagnostic accuracy may suffer.
If nurses and other professionals lose autonomy, they may leave the system entirely—worsening the brain drain that already plagues our health sector.
The battle over “who rules the healers” is not an abstract debate. It is a fight about whether you will receive timely, safe, and accessible care when you need it most.
What Lawmakers Must Consider
The National Assembly faces difficult questions:
How do you protect patient safety without creating professional dictatorship?
How do you ensure accountability without destroying autonomy?
How do you balance the legitimate concerns of doctors with the equally legitimate rights of other professions?
What happens to primary healthcare in rural areas if CHEWs cannot prescribe?
Who benefits from these changes? Who loses?
JOHESU argues that healthcare is “inherently multidisciplinary”; it relies on collaboration among distinct professions, each with its own body of knowledge, skills, and legal framework designed to protect the public.
The union warns that imposing medical dominance over all other professions “will spell doom for the system.”
A Final Thought
Healthcare is not a competition. It is a collaboration.
The doctor who diagnoses. The pharmacist who dispenses. The laboratory scientist who tests. The nurse who cares. The community health extension worker who reaches the unreachable.
Each profession has its place. Each has its training. Each has its legal mandate.
When one profession seeks to dominate the others, the system breaks. And when the system breaks, patients suffer.
As JOHESU puts it: “The healthcare sector thrives on interdependence and collaborative teamwork.”
Let us hope our lawmakers remember that—and listen to all sides—before they cast their votes.
Know Your Rights — Simply Put
What Is at Stake
Why It Matters
CHEW prescribing rights
Rural communities may lose access to basic medicines
Pharmacy regulation
Weakened oversight could increase counterfeit drugs
Lab Science autonomy
Diagnostic accuracy depends on independent regulation
Multidisciplinary care
Patients need all professionals working together.
