Health
Donor cuts, govt inaction push HIV patients towards death, uncertainty in Rivers, Akwa Ibom (I)
Grace* spent years protecting two things: her health and a secret she never wanted exposed.
Every few months, a community health worker discreetly delivered her antiretroviral medicines to her home in Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. The arrangement allowed the bank worker to remain healthy without risking the questions that might follow if neighbours, customers, colleagues or fellow worshippers saw her entering an HIV treatment clinic.
That routine ended in February 2025.
Following international funding cuts that forced community drug delivery programmes to shut down, Grace had only one option: collect her medication herself from a treatment facility.
Someone recognised her walking into the HIV clinic, and within days, whispers spread through her church and neighbourhood.
According to her family, the stigma that followed was devastating. Ashamed and fearful of further humiliation, Grace stopped returning to the clinic for treatment.
By April this year, she was dead.
Her relatives believe her death was not simply the result of HIV, but of the collapse of the support system that had quietly kept her alive for years.
“If that support had remained,” her sister, Mary*, told PREMIUM TIMES, “she would still have been taking her drugs.”
Grace’s experience, PREMIUM TIMES found, mirrors those of many other people living with HIV in Akwa Ibom and Rivers states whose lives were thrown into uncertainty after international donor-funded community HIV programmes were scaled back in early 2025.
PREMIUM TIMES reported in January 2025 that the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, halted HIV Funding for Nigeria and other developing countries.
Across both states, patients, peer counsellors and community advocates described a response system that suddenly lost many of the people who had ensured patients remained on treatment, received psychosocial support and overcame the stigma that still surrounds HIV.
For Mercy*, another person living with HIV in Akwa Ibom, the withdrawal of donor-supported workers disrupted services and also created fear.
“The first thing that came to my mind was uncertainty,” she said. “Everything happened suddenly. Nobody prepared us.”
When she arrived at her treatment facility after the funding cuts, many of the familiar faces who had guided patients through counselling, documentation and treatment were gone.
“You asked questions, and they told you, Your people are not here.”
Those ‘people’, she explained, were the adherence counsellors, laboratory personnel, peer supporters and other workers funded through donor-supported programmes who guided patients through documentation, counselling and treatment.
Without them, many patients were left confused about how to navigate the clinics.”They knew us, followed up when we missed appointments and treated us with compassion,” Mercy said.
She fears that replacing donor funding with government ownership alone will not be enough unless authorities invest in trained personnel and patient-centred services.
“Medication alone is not enough. People also need encouragement. They need someone who genuinely cares whether they survive,” she said.
The withdrawal of donor support also ended programmes that many patients described as the backbone of HIV care outside hospitals.
Home-based care stopped, community HIV testing reduced, support groups that helped people cope with stigma were no longer available, and routine follow-up for patients who missed clinic appointments ceased.
When the support system collapsed
For Johnson*, a former community referral officer in Rivers State and a person living with HIV, the disappearance of home-based drug delivery remains one of the greatest losses in HIV response.
Every day after work, he travelled across communities delivering antiretroviral medicines to patients who could not safely visit treatment centres because of work schedules, lack of transport fare or fear of being recognised.
The programme ensured they never missed treatment. However, that support no longer exists. “Many of those people are no longer coming to the facilities, and we don’t know where some of them are anymore,” Johnson said.
According to him, patients who repeatedly miss appointments are eventually classified as “lost to follow-up”, a development that worries health workers and people living with HIV because interrupted treatment can lead to viral rebound, illness, increased transmission and, ultimately, preventable deaths.
Elizabeth Udo, Akwa Ibom State Coordinator of the Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria (NEPWHAN), said the organisation has witnessed similar experiences across the state since donor-funded community HIV programmes began to shrink.
“We have lost people,” she told PREMIUM TIMES.
“They did not die because HIV treatment stopped completely. Many died because the support systems that helped them remain healthy disappeared.”
According to Ms Udo, community-based HIV care extended far beyond delivering medicines.
Donor-funded programmes supported home visits, appointment reminders, adherence counselling, support groups, adolescent education, stigma-reduction campaigns and interventions for survivors of gender-based violence. They also helped patients manage side effects from medications and other chronic health conditions.
“We used to receive support for care and support programmes, adolescent education, stigma reduction, home visits and community meetings,” she said. “Today, all of those activities have stopped.”
She warned that the consequences may take years to emerge fully.
“When people stop coming for treatment, which will suppress their viral load, they don’t disappear from the epidemic. They actually disappear from the health system and may keep spreading the virus, thus increasing the number of people infected,” she said.
For Victoria*, a youth advocate living with HIV in Rivers State, the greatest casualty was not medicine but hope. She recalled how support groups once brought together dozens of young people living with HIV every month.
They discussed treatment, relationships, stigma, careers and mental health.
Peer mentors themselves living with HIV reassured newly diagnosed patients that the virus was no longer a death sentence.
“If I can live with HIV and still work in this hospital, you can also live your life,” Victoria said they often told frightened adolescents.
Those meetings stopped after donor funding was withdrawn. Members tried contributing money to sustain the meetings. It did not last. “Many of those who contributed had also lost the stipends they earned working as peer mentors,” she said.
Attendance dropped. “So did the hope those meetings gave many young people,” she added.
Peter*, another person living with HIV in Rivers State, said the uncertainty surrounding HIV funding has also fuelled stigma.
He recalled hearing people mock those living with HIV after reports emerged that the US was reviewing parts of its international health assistance. “Now that your drugs have been stopped, let’s see how all of you will survive.”
Although years of advocacy had strengthened him personally, he worries about newly diagnosed patients who are still struggling to accept their status.
“I have outgrown stigma, but many people haven’t,” he said.
Peter recalled accompanying another patient to a treatment facility where someone from his neighbourhood, unaware that he was also living with HIV, warned him not to sit in the waiting area reserved for HIV patients.
For many patients, he said, such encounters reinforce the fear that discourages people from testing for HIV or remaining in treatment.
Warnings went unheeded
While patients and advocates struggled to cope with the consequences of shrinking donor support, community organisations say they repeatedly warned the Rivers State Government that the transition away from donor funding required urgent planning.
A Rivers State coordinator of NEPWHAN, who requested anonymity for fear of victimisation, told PREMIUM TIMES that the network, alongside other community-based organisations, repeatedly appealed to the state government to be proactive, following the gradual withdrawal of international donor support, but received little response.
“My collaboration with the government has not been very strong,” she told PREMIUM TIMES. “We have written letters. We have sought meetings. We have continued to ask: now that donor partners are leaving, what is the state’s plan? Unfortunately, we have not seen the urgency this situation requires.”
According to her, donor-supported organisations such as the Institute of Human Virology Nigeria had funded hundreds of personnel working across treatment facilities in Rivers State for years.
She said many were not doctors or nurses but adherence counsellors, peer mentors, case managers, community trackers and laboratory support staff who formed the backbone of HIV care.
“They were the people following up patients, counselling them, ensuring they collected their medicines and giving them hope,” the Rivers State NEPWHAN coordinator said.
When donor support was reduced, many of those workers lost their jobs.
She said more than 300 workers engaged through donor-supported programmes had been affected, including 185 field personnel who worked directly with people living with HIV in communities.
Their departure, she said, has left overstretched government health workers struggling to fill the gap.
“People now go to facilities and spend the whole day waiting. Sometimes there is nobody to attend to them immediately. Even taking viral load samples has become difficult,” she said.
She stressed that the problem was not the commitment of government-employed health workers but the shortage of personnel.
Beyond clinical care, she said the funding cuts have also pushed many people living with HIV deeper into poverty.
Many of the peer counsellors and community workers who lost their stipends relied on the income not only to support their families but also to feed properly and maintain their own health.
“There are many people in our network who struggle even to pay transport fares to the clinic. Government needs to step in now because this is no longer just a donor issue. It is about protecting the health of Rivers people.”
She warned that if state governments fail to replace the services once funded by development partners, years of progress in HIV treatment and prevention could be reversed.
Beyond lives lost, the neglect continues to cause new infections. According to the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare’s State of the Health of the Nation report 2025, Nigeria recorded 102,025 new HIV infections across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory.
Of those new infections, Rivers State came second with 6,287, while Akwa Ibom State came fourth with 5,413.
The figures are particularly worrying given the existing HIV burden in both states.
A recent report by the National Agency for the Control of AIDS (NACA), previously reported by PREMIUM TIMES, showed that Rivers has the highest number of people living with HIV in Nigeria, followed by Benue, while Akwa Ibom ranks third.
Donor support shrank, govt ownership failed to grow
The experiences of Grace, Mercy, Johnson, and Victoria and dozens of others interviewed by PREMIUM TIMES, point to a crisis that extends beyond individual hardship.
Interviews with people living with HIV, peer counsellors, community advocates, health workers and officials in Rivers and Akwa Ibom, supported by an analysis of budget documents, financial records and state HIV laws, indicate that the reduction in international donor support exposed longstanding weaknesses in the HIV response of both states.
For years, much of Nigeria’s HIV programme has relied on international partners, particularly the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and the Global Fund, to finance critical services ranging from HIV testing and laboratory support to adherence counselling, community drug distribution, home-based care and psychosocial support.
That dependence became more apparent in early 2025, when the US reviewed and terminated thousands of foreign assistance contracts funded by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department as part of a restructuring of overseas assistance.
Although support for life-saving antiretroviral medicines was later restored, many community-based HIV interventions that kept patients connected to treatment did not immediately return.
Health experts say those services were never intended to replace government responsibility. Rather, they were designed to complement state health systems while governments gradually assumed greater ownership of the HIV response.
A response built on donor dependence
For more than two decades, Nigeria’s HIV response has been one of Africa’s biggest public health success stories.
Millions of people who would otherwise have died now live healthy lives because they have uninterrupted access to life-saving antiretroviral therapy. Mother-to-child transmission has declined, viral suppression has improved, and HIV-related deaths have fallen.
Behind those gains is a reality that is less talked about, which is the fact that Nigeria’s HIV programme has depended overwhelmingly on international donors.
An analysis by NACA, titled ‘National AIDS Spending Assessment in Nigeria (2019-2021)’, shows that external partners financed 95.97 per cent of the country’s HIV response in 2021. By comparison, public funding from the federal and state governments accounted for just four per cent, while domestic corporations and non-profit organisations contributed 0.03 per cent.
According to NACA, since 2005, Nigeria has attracted more than $6 billion for HIV programmes, with four out of every $5 coming from external partners, principally PEPFAR and the Global Fund.
Private sector contribution has remained marginal, accounting for less than two per cent of total financing. That financing architecture transformed Nigeria’s HIV response.
PEPFAR emerged as the single largest financier of HIV care and treatment in Nigeria, spending $181 million on treatment services alone in 2021. During the same period, the Global Fund financed substantial portions of HIV care, laboratory services, programme management, health systems strengthening and HIV testing.
Donor funding extended far beyond the procurement of medicines. It paid for adherence counsellors who encouraged patients to remain on treatment, peer mentors who supported newly diagnosed clients, community workers who traced people who missed clinic appointments, laboratory personnel, data officers, home-based drug delivery teams, community testing campaigns and psychosocial support groups.
Those were the same services that Grace relied upon to receive her medication discreetly, and the same interventions that Joy, Johnson, Victoria and Peter told PREMIUM TIMES had disappeared after donor-supported programmes were scaled back.
Recognising the risk of this dependence, the federal government, through NACA, has in recent years pursued what it describes as an HIV Sustainability Agenda, a transition strategy aimed at shifting ownership of HIV programmes from international partners to Nigerian governments.
The strategy envisions state and federal governments gradually taking responsibility for financing and managing HIV programmes while development partners provide technical support rather than directly implementing services.
NACA says the objective is a ‘new business model’ in which the government assumes dominant responsibility for managing and financing the national HIV response.
PREMIUM TIMES also reported that in June, the Nigerian government unveiled a new HIV plan, outlining a transition from donor-supported interventions to a domestically financed and government-led response to HIV/AIDS.
That transition has become increasingly urgent, especially as the World Health Organisation has targeted to end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030. UNAIDS estimates that the world remains significantly short of the funding needed to achieve global HIV targets.
For Nigeria, the challenge became more immediate in early 2025 after the US restructured its foreign assistance programmes, leading to the termination of thousands of USAID- and State Department-funded contracts worldwide.
PREMIUM TIMES reported in March last year that the US government ended 83 per cent of USAID programmes and cancelled 5,200 contracts, which included HIV intervention programmes and contracts.
Although waivers later ensured the continuation of life-saving antiretroviral medicines through PEPFAR, many community-based interventions, including outreach testing, peer support, community drug distribution, adherence counselling and patient follow-up, were disrupted.
The funding uncertainty exposed a question Nigeria had postponed for years: what happens when donors step back before governments are ready to take over?
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).
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
