Coercive Vaccination Policy in Nigeria: Legal Perspectives

Abstract

Background: In December 2021, the Nigerian federal government declared a compulsory COVID-19 immunisation for all employees of government. This declaration by the government has been viewed by some Nigerians as a contravention of the fundamental rights of Nigerian citizens. Aim: This study was aimed at identifying the human rights concerns surrounding vaccination mandates from the perspective of legal practitioners in Nigeria. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional study that used a semi-structured self-administered questionnaire to interview legal practitioners practicing in Uyo, Nigeria. The survey focused on identifying human right concerns surrounding vaccination mandates.  Results: One hundred and five legal practitioners participated in the study. Data analysis revealed that 79 (75.2%) of our respondents agreed that vaccination mandates to prevent an epidemic is well within the powers of the state, while 97 (92.4%) asserted that the Nigerian constitution gives the state authority to enact health laws including quarantine and vaccination laws to protect its citizens. According to 59% (n=62) of our respondents, the only exception to a mandatory vaccination is an offer of apparent or reasonably certain proof to the state’s board of health that the vaccination would seriously impair health or probably cause death. Conclusion: In the opinion of majority of the legal practitioners interviewed, the Nigerian constitution gives the state the power to implement measures established by legislation to protect the health of her citizens. Thus, coercive vaccination policies by the state to protect the public from an epidemic outbreak of a disease which threatens the safety of citizens may be legally binding on the citizens.