Nigeria’s $5 billion health cooperation agreement with the United States has come under renewed scrutiny following revelations by Ghanaian President John Dramani Mahama that his country rejected a similar proposal over concerns about medical records, pathogen data, national sovereignty and regulatory authority.
The controversy has triggered calls for the Federal Government to publish the full terms of Nigeria’s agreement, including provisions governing health data sharing, the handling of biological samples and the financial commitments undertaken by both countries.
Nigeria signed a five-year health cooperation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the United States on December 19, 2025. According to the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, the arrangement is designed to strengthen disease surveillance, improve outbreak response, expand access to primary healthcare and support the country’s health system.
Under the agreement, the United States is expected to provide nearly $2 billion in grants, while Nigeria is projected to mobilise approximately $3 billion in health spending over five years, bringing the total value of the partnership to about $5 billion.
The agreement covers disease surveillance, laboratory systems, pathogen sample collection and management, healthcare workforce support, health data systems and access to essential medical commodities.
However, questions about the agreement’s provisions on health information and biological samples have intensified following comments by Mahama at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on September 25, 2026.
Mahama disclosed that Ghana’s government rejected a proposed United States health compact reportedly worth approximately $109 million over five years after its Ministry of Health reviewed the document and identified provisions it considered unacceptable.
According to the Ghanaian president, the proposed agreement required Ghana to provide information about its pathogen profile, including diseases circulating within the country, and raised concerns about access to citizens’ medical records.
“It also says we should give our medical records. I mean, who takes another country’s medical records?” Mahama said.
He also objected to provisions requiring Ghana to contribute its own funding to the programme and what he described as restrictions on the country’s Food and Drugs Authority inspecting certain medicines and medical products supplied under the arrangement.
Mahama described the proposed conditions as “humiliating” and said Ghana’s Cabinet rejected the compact after reviewing the concerns.
The disclosure has prompted questions about whether Nigeria’s signed agreement contains provisions similar to those Ghana rejected. However, Ghana’s decision does not, by itself, establish that the same disputed conditions appear in Nigeria’s MoU.
Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has called on the Federal Government to release the complete text of the Nigeria-US agreement, including related protocols, annexes, data-sharing arrangements, specimen-sharing provisions and financial commitments.
Atiku argued that Nigerians should be able to examine the terms of an agreement involving billions of dollars in health spending and potentially sensitive medical information.
He also raised questions about how the government intends to meet Nigeria’s financial commitments and what safeguards protect citizens’ health information and the country’s regulatory powers.
The debate has drawn attention to the balance between international health cooperation and the protection of national interests. Health partnerships can support disease detection, emergency responses, laboratory capacity and access to essential services, but arrangements involving sensitive information require clear safeguards and accountability.
Patient medical records and information about disease-causing organisms can raise distinct privacy, public health and national security considerations. Experts have therefore called for transparency around how such information may be collected, stored, transferred, accessed and retained, as well as the legal protections governing its use.
Nigeria’s Data Protection Act 2023 provides a framework for protecting personal data, while the National Health Act contains provisions relating to health information and confidentiality. The precise application of these laws to the agreement’s individual provisions depends on the full terms and the relevant legal arrangements.
As of the latest reports, the complete text of Nigeria’s MoU and its associated annexes had not been made publicly available, leaving outstanding questions about the exact scope of data sharing, specimen handling, regulatory safeguards and financial obligations.
The Federal Government’s publication of the agreement would allow the public and independent experts to assess those provisions directly rather than assume that Nigeria’s deal contains the same terms as Ghana’s rejected proposal.
The central issue is therefore not simply whether Nigeria should cooperate with the United States on healthcare, but whether the terms of that cooperation are transparent, adequately protect Nigerians’ sensitive health information and preserve the country’s lawful regulatory authority.
