The Nigerian Senate and House of Representatives have advanced legislation that would impose a ₦300,000 fine or a six-month jail term—or both—on hospitals that refuse or delay emergency medical treatment. The measures seek to enforce strict response timelines and strengthen accountability for healthcare facilities across the country.
Legislative Standards for Emergency Response
The Senate passed the bill for a second reading on November 4, 2026. The proposed legislation, titled A Bill for an Act to Amend the National Health Act, 2014 to Provide for Emergency Medical Treatment Standards and Referral Protocols in Healthcare Facilities; and for Related Matters, 2026,
aims to codify requirements for patient care. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health (Secondary and Tertiary) for further legislative scrutiny and a public hearing, with a directive to report back within four weeks.
Under the provisions, healthcare facilities must adhere to the following timelines:
- Triage and assessment: Must commence within 15 minutes of a patient’s arrival. If a medical doctor is unavailable, a trained and certified nurse is permitted to conduct the initial assessment.
- Stabilisation: Basic measures, including oxygen therapy, intravenous fluids, and pain relief, must start within 30 minutes of arrival.
- Bed assignment: For patients requiring admission, a bed must be assigned within two hours, subject to availability.
- Referrals: If a facility cannot handle a case, the transfer process must be initiated within two hours of arrival or immediately after clinical stabilisation. This includes a requirement to dispatch an ambulance or arrange alternative transport within 30 minutes of the referral decision.
Senate Proposes Stricter Enforcement Mechanisms for Emergency Care
The bill introduces stricter enforcement mechanisms than the existing National Health Act, 2014, which stipulates a fine of ₦100,000 or up to six months imprisonment for refusing emergency treatment. Senator Abdulaziz Yar’Adua stated that the proposed amendment was consistent with international practices, citing standards in Ghana, South Africa, Kenya, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Senate Whip, Senator Mohammed Monguno (APC, Borno North), argued that the legislation would address avoidable deaths arising from road accidents, maternal emergencies and other medical conditions requiring urgent attention.
In the House of Representatives, the bill is sponsored by Akin Rotimi. Rotimi emphasized that the amendment distinguishes genuine resource limitations from negligence and wilful abandonment of patients. No Nigerian should have to negotiate for survival at the point of a medical emergency, Rotimi said. He added that the bill seeks to ensure that the right to emergency treatment is not merely declared in laws but reflected in the actual delivery of healthcare. He urged members to support the bill in the interest of safeguarding the lives and wellbeing of Nigerians.
Addressing Systemic Healthcare Challenges
The legislation mandates that the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria and the Nursing and Midwifery Council of Nigeria jointly develop a national emergency care curriculum. Healthcare workers involved in emergency services would be required to undergo retraining and certification at intervals not exceeding 18 months.
The proposal has drawn attention to historical incidents, such as the September 2009 shooting of journalist Bayo Ohu, who was reportedly denied treatment at a Lagos hospital due to the absence of a police report. More recently, public outcry followed the death of the singer Toluwanisings, who reportedly died after being turned away by four separate hospitals. These cases have spurred intense debate, with some citizens arguing on social media that six months is a small penalty, while others expressed hope that the bill will be passed and properly implemented.
However, the proposal has also raised questions among healthcare stakeholders regarding the responsibility of workers when hospitals lack adequate staffing, essential equipment, and other resources. Supporters and critics alike remain focused on whether the legislation can successfully bridge the gap between policy and practice in a system where patients often face financial barriers and administrative bottlenecks.