Health
Donor cuts, govt inaction push HIV patients towards death, uncertainty in Rivers, Akwa Ibom (2)
This is the second part of this report. Read the first part here.
Grace* never saw a state budget document, she never read a federal appropriation law or examined a budget implementation report.
She probably did not know that Nigeria’s HIV response was financed largely by international donors, or that governments at both the federal and state levels had, for years, pledged to assume greater responsibility for sustaining the programmes that kept people like her alive.
What she knew was simple: the community health worker who discreetly delivered her antiretroviral medicines stopped coming, the counselling sessions ended, and the confidential support that allowed her to avoid the crushing weight of stigma vanished.
Forced to collect her medication at a public treatment centre, Grace was recognised, felt exposed, and eventually withdrew from care.
Her experience raises the central question at the heart of this investigation.
As international donors began scaling back community HIV programmes, were governments, particularly in Rivers and Akwa Ibom, two of Nigeria’s highest HIV-burden states, prepared to fill the gap?
A PREMIUM TIMES investigation, based on official budget documents, budget implementation reports, government expenditure records and interviews with government officials, programme managers, health advocates and people living with HIV, found little evidence that they were.
Instead, the newspaper found a practice that raises troubling questions about responsibility and accountability.
Year after year, governments at both the state and federal levels approved budgets for HIV response. Each year, much of that money was not released.
The consequence is weakened health systems, interrupted community services, and patients who disappear from care without raising an alarm.
As donor support shrank, the expectation was that governments would step in and take ownership of the response.
However, PREMIUM TIMES did not see evidence that this happened in Rivers and Akwa Ibom. Instead, both states continued to make budgetary provisions for the HIV response while implementation lagged.
Budgets approved, funds withheld
Official budget documents and implementation reports reviewed by PREMIUM TIMES reveal a recurring pattern in both Akwa Ibom and Rivers states: governments consistently budgeted for HIV programmes, but the approved funds often failed to reach the agencies responsible for implementing them.
In Akwa Ibom, the State Agency for the Control of AIDS received capital allocations in every budget cycle reviewed by PREMIUM TIMES.
The agency was allocated capital budgets of N24.05 million in 2023, N10 million in 2024, N33 million in 2025 and N150 million in the 2026 budget.
The allocations covered activities central to HIV response, including the procurement of antiretroviral medicines, HIV rapid test kits, condoms and screening consumables.
On paper, the commitments suggested a government preparing to strengthen HIV services, although the approved funds were less than one per cent of the health sector’s total capital budget in each of the fiscal years reviewed by PREMIUM TIMES.
Conversely, budget performance reports reviewed by PREMIUM TIMES show that despite the budgetary allocations, the agency received no capital releases between 2023 and 2024.
The state has also not published the capital budget implementation report for 2025 or the first half of 2026, making it impossible for the public to independently determine whether subsequent releases were made and, if so, how the money was spent.
When contacted by PREMIUM TIMES, the Commissioner for Health, Ekem Emmanuel, said the agency received some support towards the end of 2025.
However, neither the commissioner nor the officials of the State Agency for the Control of AIDS provided documentary evidence of the amount released, the source of the funds, or the specific programmes financed.
However, the National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA), which conducts annual reviews of each state’s HIV investment through its state counterparts, told PREMIUM TIMES that Akwa Ibom had released only 1 per cent of its total 2024 and 2025 HIV appropriations.
Since the commissioner said funding was provided in 2025, the one per cent reported expenditure suggests that the oil-rich state spent no more than N330,000 out of its N33 million capital budget.
Across the border in Rivers State, PREMIUM TIMES found a similar pattern.
Official budget documents show that the state appropriated N180 million for HIV interventions in 2023 and another N230.66 million in 2024
The allocations covered procurement of HIV rapid test kits and consumables, community HIV counselling and testing, condom distribution and even the development of a state HIV anti-stigma law.
Yet the corresponding budget implementation reports
For 2025 and 2026, the Rivers State government has not published the approved fiscal documents necessary for independent scrutiny of HIV spending.
Repeated requests by PREMIUM TIMES seeking clarification from officials of the State Agency for the Control of AIDS yielded no explanation on whether subsequent releases had been made.
Interestingly, NACA told PREMIUM TIMES that Rivers State had zero release for HIV/AIDS during the period under review.
The findings indicate that while both states continued to budget for HIV response, they did not release the budgeted funds, at a time when international support was becoming increasingly uncertain.
Accountability beyond the budget books
The implications extend far beyond accounting records, as every unreleased allocation represents programmes that could not be implemented, outreach campaigns that never occurred, patients who were not traced after missing appointments and communities not reached with HIV testing and prevention services.
Uduak Nyaetok, the executive director of Milestone Initiative for Human Rights and Empowerment, an NGO that provides HIV response in the Niger Delta, told PREMIUM TIMES that HIV treatment does not begin with antiretroviral medicines.
Ms Nyaetok said it begins with prevention, especially by identifying people who do not know they are infected.
She noted that, “After testing, a good HIV response depends on counsellors who encourage frightened patients to start treatment.
“It relies on community workers who return to homes after appointments are missed and support groups that help people overcome stigma strong enough to keep them away from clinics.”
According to Ms Nyaetok, the withdrawal of donor-funded community services disrupted that chain of care.
Although some donor-supported HIV prevention activities, particularly case finding, have gradually resumed since June, she said the interruption exposed the consequences of governments failing to assume greater ownership of the HIV response.
“When the support was withdrawn, those who followed up on treatment were no longer there, and the viral suppression of the patients dropped. When they engage in risky behaviour, infections will definitely be high, and evidence abounds in data of new infections published.”
NACA agrees with her position. In response to a PREMIUM TIMES media enquiry, the AIDs agency said, “Programme data indicates that interventions implemented by the United States government-funded structures, particularly at the community level, experienced setbacks in coverage for case finding, pre-exposure prophylaxis uptake, and condom distribution.”
Ms Nyaetok argued that state governments must increase investment in community-based HIV services, especially in rural communities where many residents live far from health facilities.
For people like Grace*, the loss of community-based support was not simply the withdrawal of a donor-funded programme. It meant the disappearance of the very services that enabled them to remain in treatment, protect their privacy and live with dignity.
Federal spending tells similar story
The questions of accountability and responsibility are not confined to state governments. A PREMIUM TIMES review of federal financing trends between 2021 and 2026 also reveals a widening disconnect between budget approvals and actual spending.
In 2025, as uncertainty over international HIV funding intensified, the federal government approved N18.27 billion as capital expenditure for NACA, more than double the amount approved in 2024.
The increase suggested a recognition that domestic financing needed to grow as donor support became less certain.
Yet government expenditure records published on Govspend.ng, a portal that tracks and analyses federal government spending, showed that only 31.2 per cent of the approved capital allocation was cash-backed.
The following year, domestic investment weakened even further. Although the 2026 budget approved N13.97 billion as capital expenditure for NACA, government spending records show that only N36.68 million (0.3 per cent) of the approved allocation had been spent between January and May.
NACA told PREMIUM TIMES that the capital release had improved by June and that by mid-year, the agency had received 3.8 per cent of the approved allocation.
Even more disturbing was how the money was used between January and May. Of the amount expended, only N16.13 million went directly towards HIV response programmes, but only in Lagos State out of the 36 states of the federation.
By June, the agency said the total expenditure on the HIV response in Lagos had risen to N210 million. NACA, however, explained that the expenses were for two different constituency projects.
The remaining expenditure covered items such as cleaning services and staff welfare. N7.4 million was for the “Part payment for second quarter of cleaning service for NACA main building for November 2025 to January 2026,” while N13.12 million spent in April was for the supply of 364 bags of rice (25kg) and 152 cartons of vegetable oil for NACA staff.
Those figures raise difficult questions about Nigeria’s preparedness to sustain HIV services as international partners gradually reduce direct programme implementation.
The disconnect further threatens one of the foundations of global HIV control. The UNAIDS 95-95-95 targets require that 95 per cent of people living with HIV know their status, 95 per cent of those diagnosed receive sustained treatment, and 95 per cent of those receiving treatment achieve viral suppression. But meeting those targets requires far more than purchasing medicines.
“It demands sustained investment in community testing, patient follow-up, laboratory systems, adherence counselling and community support,” Ms Nyaetok said.
She said this is the very intervention that has suffered most from shrinking donor assistance.
For Grace’s* family, those gaps not filled by domestic financing led to a painful experience. They are pained that when the support system vanished, nobody replaced it quickly enough.
However, NACA told PREMIUM TIMES that they are on top of the response effort by improving on the National Domestic Resource Mobilisation and Sustainability Strategy (2021-2025), which sets out key objectives and innovative approaches to address the domestic resource gap for HIV prevention and treatment interventions.
It noted that the federal government had launched the HIV Trust Fund of Nigeria under the Nigeria Business Coalition Against AIDS, with N10.7 million mobilised in 2024.
NACA added “The Government of Nigeria recognises that the integration of HIV treatment and related health intervention into State Health insurance Schemes will ensure sustainability of funding for HIV treatment and prevention services. To facilitate this, NACA, the National Health Insurance Authority along with partners, developed the National Blueprint for Integration of HIV into State Health Insurance Schemes in 2020.
“Nigeria has moved towards sustainable domestic financing by leveraging financial protection schemes such as the Basic Health Care Provision Fund, State Health Insurance Schemes, and Private Health Insurance to avert out-of-pocket payments for PLHIV beneficiaries at the point of care.
“HIV testing is now included in benefit packages at the national and subnational levels, thus paving the way for the inclusion of ARV treatment in the near future. The benefits also cover baseline and treatment monitoring investigations and management of opportunistic infections. Efforts are ongoing to target the enrolment of PLHIV into financial protection schemes at the state level.”
NACA said that to address the funding gap, the federal government injected $200 million (about N260 billion) into the federal budget in 2025. However, as shown earlier, PREMIUM TIMES found that only N5.7 billion was spent by NACA.
Smaller epidemics, stronger investments
Perhaps one of the most thought-provoking findings of PREMIUM TIMES’ investigation is the contrast between Nigeria’s highest HIV-burden states and some of its lowest.
Rivers has the largest population of people living with HIV in Nigeria, while Akwa Ibom consistently ranks among the states with the highest burden. Conventional public health planning would suggest that both should rank among the country’s strongest domestic investors in HIV programmes.
However, financial records tell a different story. While Rivers and Akwa Ibom struggled to convert budget promises into actual spending, several states with significantly lower HIV burdens continued making measurable domestic investments.
In Kwara State, where an estimated 20,259 people are living with HIV, about one-eighth of Akwa Ibom’s burden, the government spent N608.63 million on HIV interventions in 2024, according to a budget implementation report reviewed by PREMIUM TIMES.
Between January and September 2025, the state released another N132.16 million as counterpart funding for Global Fund-supported HIV and malaria programmes.
Its 2026 budget goes even further, earmarking N8.29 billion for Global Fund-supported health interventions, including HIV, as part of efforts to strengthen domestic financing.
The contrast extends beyond Kwara. Zamfara, one of Nigeria’s lowest HIV-burden states, spent N3.42 million directly on HIV programmes in 2025, despite having an estimated 13,253 people living with HIV.
Yobe, which has the country’s lowest HIV burden, also recorded direct spending of N500,000 on HIV interventions in 2025.
The comparison is not intended to suggest that those states have solved their HIV financing challenges. However, it illustrates that domestic investment is possible even where the epidemic is far smaller.
That reality makes the experience in Rivers and Akwa Ibom more difficult to explain. Both states rank among Nigeria’s most economically strategic sub-national governments, benefiting from substantial oil revenues and historically receiving some of the country’s largest allocations from the Federation Account.
Akwa Ibom currently ranks as the country’s fourth-largest Federation Account Allocation Committee (FAAC) recipient. As PREMIUM TIMES reported earlier this year, Governor Umo Eno’s administration generated N2.53 trillion in revenue within its first 32 months in office.
Although Rivers State has not published its fiscal books since 2025, the oil-rich State ranks second among FAAC revenue earners in the country.
Regardless, interviews with health workers, advocates and people living with HIV show that as donor-funded programmes contracted, domestic financing failed to expand at the pace required to protect the gains made over two decades.
For people living with HIV, the difference between a budget approved in a government document and money released into the health system is measured in whether a counsellor notices when a patient misses an appointment, whether a community worker quietly delivers medicines to someone too afraid to be seen at an HIV clinic, whether a support group remains open for an adolescent struggling with stigma, or whether a newly infected person is diagnosed before unknowingly transmitting the virus to someone else.
Those are the investments that sustained Nigeria’s HIV response for years. They are also the investments that many patients and advocates told PREMIUM TIMES have steadily faded just as governments were expected to assume ownership of the response.
With the global target of ending AIDS as a public health threat by 2030 approaching, NACA insists that Nigeria is well-positioned to achieve the targets by 2030, but gives an important warning: “The risks that could hinder the attainment of the goals are related to funding instability from government and donor partners.”
Editor’s Note: * The names marked with asterisks have been changed to protect the privacy and identities of vulnerable individuals featured in this report.
This reporting was supported by the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID).
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nearly 11 years after the adoption of the Paris Agreement, world leaders are preparing for another round of climate negotiations amid growing concerns that global commitments are not translating into action quickly enough to address the climate crisis.
The 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), scheduled for 9 to 20 November in Antalya, Türkiye, will bring together governments, climate scientists, development institutions, businesses and civil society organisations to negotiate the next steps in the global response to climate change.
The summit comes at a critical time, as countries face increasing pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, accelerate investment in clean energy and protect communities already experiencing the effects of rising temperatures.
Yet some of the most difficult questions in international climate negotiations remain unresolved.
Who should pay for climate action? How quickly should countries move away from fossil fuels? And how can developing economies pursue economic growth while reducing emissions and protecting vulnerable populations?
These questions are particularly important for Nigeria and other African countries, where the consequences of climate change are becoming increasingly visible through flooding, drought, extreme heat and pressure on agricultural production.
Beyond the environmental consequences, the negotiations have implications for electricity access, public health, food security, employment and the ability of developing countries to attract investment in cleaner technologies.
COP31 is not expected to produce a single agreement comparable to the Paris Agreement. Instead, much of the work will centre on implementing existing commitments, resolving disagreements carried over from previous conferences and establishing clearer pathways for financing climate action.
The central test will be whether countries can move beyond repeated declarations and agree on practical measures that deliver measurable results.
An unusual leadership arrangement
One distinctive feature of COP31 is the arrangement between Türkiye and Australia, which will share responsibilities for organising and leading the conference.
Türkiye will host the summit, with its Minister of Environment, Urbanisation and Climate Change, Murat Kurum, serving as COP president. Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, will serve as president of negotiations.
The arrangement followed a compromise after both countries pursued competing bids to host the conference.
Under the agreement, Türkiye will oversee the presidency and action agenda, while Australia will lead the formal negotiations.
The partnership is significant because the two countries approach climate policy from different economic positions.
Türkiye is an emerging economy seeking to expand industrial development and energy security, while Australia is a developed economy with substantial fossil fuel production and exports.
Their leadership will therefore be tested by the same disagreements that have complicated previous climate summits, particularly those concerning fossil fuels, climate finance and the responsibilities of developed and developing countries.
The Turkish presidency has placed implementation, electrification, green industrial development and resilient infrastructure among its priorities.
One of its flagship initiatives is the 35-by-35 Global Electrification Pledge, which seeks to increase electricity’s share of global final energy consumption to 35 per cent by 2035, from just over 20 per cent.
The initiative is intended to encourage greater use of electricity in transport, buildings and industry, supported by cleaner power generation, modern electricity grids and energy storage.
However, the pledge forms part of the presidency’s voluntary action agenda rather than a binding agreement negotiated by all countries.
This distinction matters because announcements made by summit organisers do not automatically become obligations under the UN climate process.
The World Leaders Climate Action Summit, scheduled for 11 and 12 November, will provide an early indication of the political support available for these priorities.
The finance question remains unresolved
Climate finance is likely to be among the most contentious issues in Antalya.
Developing countries have long argued that they cannot be expected to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts without substantial financial support from wealthier nations, which bear greater historical responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. This principle is reflected in Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, which requires developed countries to provide financial resources to support developing countries’ mitigation and adaptation efforts.
At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, in 2024, countries agreed that developed nations should take the lead in mobilising at least $300 billion annually in climate finance for developing countries by 2035. The agreement also called for efforts to scale up finance from all public and private sources to at least $1.3 trillion annually by the same year.
The two figures are not interchangeable. The $300 billion target is the new collective finance goal led by developed countries, while the wider $1.3 trillion ambition is expected to draw on a broader range of sources, including private investment.
For developing countries, the concern is whether the money will be available on affordable terms and reach the communities and sectors most exposed to climate risks.
A major disagreement concerns the responsibility of developed countries to provide financial resources under the Paris Agreement.
Developing countries want discussions to address these obligations, particularly the provision of public finance. Some wealthier countries favour a broader approach that includes improving access to finance and expanding the range of contributors.
For Nigeria, the funding needs are substantial.
The country requires investment in renewable energy, electricity infrastructure, climate-resilient agriculture, flood management and early-warning systems. Many of these interventions will depend on concessional finance and public investment, rather than private capital alone.
The question at COP31 will be whether countries can make progress on the scale, quality and accessibility of climate finance, rather than simply restating funding ambitions.
Fossil fuels and the just transition
The future of fossil fuels will also remain a difficult issue.
At COP28 in Dubai in 2023, countries agreed for the first time in a final climate decision to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner. The agreement also called for tripling global renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of energy-efficiency improvements by 2030.
The decision marked a significant shift in climate negotiations. However, countries have continued to disagree over how to implement it, and the commitment has yet to translate into an agreed global roadmap for moving away from coal, oil and gas.
At COP30 in Belém, Brazil, in 2025, countries failed to secure a formal roadmap for the transition away from fossil fuels. The omission exposed the continuing divide between nations seeking faster action and those whose economies depend heavily on fossil fuel production.
The issue is particularly sensitive for Nigeria, where oil and gas remain important sources of government revenue and foreign exchange. At the same time, millions of people lack reliable electricity, while gas flaring, pollution and energy poverty continue to affect communities.
A transition that ignores these realities risks deepening existing inequalities. But maintaining dependence on fossil fuels without a credible plan for cleaner energy also exposes the country to economic and environmental risks as the global energy system changes.
This is where the just transition mechanism agreed at COP30 becomes important. Countries are expected to discuss its structure and implementation at COP31.
The mechanism is intended to strengthen international cooperation, technical assistance and capacity-building to help countries and workers navigate the shift to lower-carbon economies.
For Nigeria, a meaningful just transition must go beyond replacing one energy source with another. It should address the affordability and reliability of electricity, the future of workers in fossil fuel-dependent industries, the development of local clean-energy businesses and the needs of communities affected by environmental degradation.
Adaptation cannot wait
While emissions reduction receives considerable attention at climate summits, adaptation is equally urgent for countries already experiencing the effects of climate change.
Flooding, prolonged dry spells and rising temperatures are affecting livelihoods and infrastructure across Africa. In Nigeria, recurring floods have displaced communities, damaged homes and farms, disrupted transport and increased pressure on public services.
The effects extend beyond physical damage.
Extreme heat can affect workers’ productivity and health, while disruptions to agricultural production can worsen food insecurity. Poorer households often have fewer resources to recover from these shocks.
At COP30, countries agreed on 59 indicators to help measure progress towards the Global Goal on Adaptation. The indicators are intended to assess how countries are strengthening resilience in areas such as water, food systems, health and infrastructure.
However, agreeing on indicators does not automatically provide the resources needed to implement adaptation plans. Developing countries continue to demand more predictable funding, particularly for projects that may not attract private investment.
COP30 also called for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035. Questions remain over how the commitment will be measured and delivered.
Nigeria’s climate ambitions
Nigeria will arrive in Antalya with an updated climate commitment that sets out a more specific emissions-reduction pathway.
Under its third Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0), submitted in 2025, Nigeria targets an absolute emissions reduction of 168.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2030 and 184.9 million tonnes by 2035, using 2018 as its base year. These targets represent reductions of about 29 and 32 per cent, respectively, against the country’s 2018 net emissions. Nigeria also maintains its ambition to achieve net-zero emissions by 2060.
The plan includes commitments for the energy, industrial, agriculture, land-use and waste sectors. For the oil and gas industry, it targets zero routine gas flaring by 2030, alongside reductions in fugitive emissions from leaks and venting.
But the challenge is turning these commitments into functioning projects and measurable results.
Achieving these targets will require sustained investment in renewable energy, stronger electricity infrastructure, effective regulation and better coordination among government agencies and private investors.
This is particularly relevant to COP31’s proposed 35-by-35 electrification target.
A narrowing window for climate action
COP31 also comes as the international community prepares for the second Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement, the process through which countries assess collective progress towards the treaty’s goals.
The first stocktake, concluded in 2023, found that global efforts were insufficient to keep the world on track to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Its outcome called for faster action on renewable energy, energy efficiency, deforestation and the transition away from fossil fuels.
The latest United Nations Environment Programme Emissions Gap Report reinforces the urgency. It warns that global temperatures are expected to exceed the 1.5-degree threshold, even as it argues that the scale and duration of that overshoot can still be limited through faster emissions cuts.
The report estimates that current national climate pledges, if fully implemented, would reduce emissions by only 11 to 15 per cent by 2035 compared with 2025 levels. A pathway designed to return global temperatures to 1.5 degrees by the end of the century would require emissions to fall by 45 per cent by 2035.
The United States’ absence from the official government delegation will also be notable.
The country formally withdrew from the Paris Agreement in January 2026, presenting another challenge to international cooperation at a time when stronger action from major emitters is needed.
Ultimately, the significance of COP31 will not be measured by the number of speeches, announcements or pledges made in Antalya. It will depend on whether countries can resolve outstanding disagreements, strengthen support for vulnerable nations and establish practical pathways for delivering commitments already on the table.
For Nigeria, the summit should be more than an opportunity to restate its climate ambitions. It is a chance to push for accessible finance, strengthen the case for investment in clean energy and ensure that the transition supports jobs, electricity access and livelihoods.
This report is published as part of the COP31 Reporting Fellowship of the Centre for Journalism Innovation and Development
Discover more from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Health
Plateau Mega Medical Outreach Treats 17,603 Patients, Performs 724 Surgeries Across Three Zones
The Plateau State Government says its free Mega Medical Outreach has attended to 17,603 patients and performed 724 surgical operations across the three senatorial zones, significantly exceeding its initial target of 6,000 beneficiaries.
The Commissioner for Health, Dr Nicholas Baamlong, disclosed this on Saturday, November 7, 2026, while briefing journalists on the conclusion of the general phase of the exercise organised by Governor Caleb Mutfwang.
According to Baamlong, the outreach, which ran from October 19 to November 6, covered selected public health facilities across the Central, Southern and Northern Senatorial Zones, providing free consultations, laboratory investigations, eye care, dental services and major and minor surgical procedures successfully carried out with no deaths.
The figures released by the Ministry of Health show that the programme attended to 4,294 patients in the Central Zone, 5,625 in the Southern Zone and 7,684 in the Northern Zone.
Across the three zones, the government recorded 5,033 eye consultations, distributed 3,588 pairs of eyeglasses and performed 390 cataract surgeries. A total of 4,857 laboratory investigations and 1,334 dental consultations were also conducted.
The outreach further recorded 724 surgical operations, comprising 151 major and 573 minor surgeries. The procedures included myomectomies, hysterectomies, prostatectomies, thyroidectomies, caesarean sections and orthopaedic interventions.
The ministry also disclosed that 457 people were enrolled in the Plateau State Contributory Healthcare Management Agency (PLASCHEMA) during the exercise.
Baamlong said the 17,603 beneficiaries represented approximately 193 per cent above the initial target, describing the turnout as evidence of the demand for accessible and affordable healthcare services in the state.
However, the commissioner acknowledged that the outreach should not be treated as an isolated intervention, stressing the need to strengthen healthcare delivery across primary, secondary and tertiary health facilities.
He disclosed that Governor Mutfwang intends to institutionalise the programme as a regular intervention rather than a one-off exercise, dismissing suggestions that it was organised primarily because of the approaching election.
According to him, the programme had been planned earlier in the year but was delayed by the coordination, planning and engagement required with development partners, including German partners.
He explained that while emergency interventions, outbreak responses and ambulance services remain part of the ministry’s activities, the medical outreach is another component of the government’s broader healthcare strategy.
The commissioner said the long-term objective should be to strengthen existing health institutions to the point where elaborate medical outreaches would no longer be necessary, while ensuring that residents have regular access to essential healthcare services.
The programme is, however, not yet entirely concluded, as the government announced another three-week phase of specialised medical interventions at Plateau State Specialist Hospital, Jos, Jos University Teaching Hospital (JUTH) and Potters Specialist Hospital, Jos.
The next phase is expected to cover advanced orthopaedic, neurological, neurosurgical, urological and ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgeries for patients requiring more complex medical procedures.
The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Health, Mr Samuel Aliyu Tsoho, said the intervention cost millions of naira, while appreciating the governor, medical personnel and other stakeholders who participated in the exercise.
He particularly acknowledged health workers who travelled to rural communities and remained at designated facilities to provide services throughout the outreach.
While the government has presented the figures as a major achievement, the planned institutionalisation of the programme raises an important question about the sustainability of free medical interventions and the capacity of existing public health facilities to provide affordable services beyond periodic government-sponsored outreaches.
For thousands of residents who benefited from the exercise, the intervention provided access to treatments and surgeries that might otherwise have been financially difficult to afford. The challenge now is to translate the intervention into lasting improvements in healthcare access, infrastructure and service delivery across Plateau State.
-
News23 hours agoTroops Arrest Suspected Gunrunner, Neutralise Two Terrorists in Plateau
-
News2 days ago
Makinde Visits COCIN Headquarters in Jos, Urges Christians to Shape Nigeria’s Political Future
-
News3 days ago
Presidency seeks AI safeguards ahead of 2027 elections – Technology Times
-
News4 days ago
NISER, IWMI Seek Urgent Reforms To Fix Nigeria’s Agricultural System
