Eleven years after methanol poisoning from illicit alcohol killed Nigerians in Irele and Odigbo, the identical two Ondo LGAs are burying their useless once more. After virtually 9 years underneath the identical NAFDAC management, the question is now not what the company inherited. It’s what modified.
Virtually 50 Nigerians are useless. 5 are completely blind. Two are partially blind. In a press launch issued on September 18, NAFDAC reported 48 deaths and 182 circumstances following the consumption of regionally ready alcoholic and natural concoctions in Odigbo, Ondo State, with the outbreak extending to neighbouring Irele. NAFDAC examined 15 samples of the suspected concoctions and located excessive concentrations of methanol, a extremely poisonous compound succesful of inflicting blindness and loss of life.
Additional analyses are ongoing. Fifteen folks have been arrested. Those that produced, distributed and bought toxic drinks should reply for what they did. However accountability can not finish with them.
In April 2015, a methanol-poisoning outbreak produced 37 recognized circumstances and 27 deaths in Irele and Odigbo. Domestically brewed gin was implicated. Samples had been examined and 5 contained excessive concentrations of methanol. Investigators known as for enforcement in opposition to illicitly produced alcohol to forestall one other outbreak. A month later, Rivers State suffered one other devastating methanol-poisoning outbreak: 84 circumstances and roughly 70 deaths. Nigeria due to this fact can not say it didn’t know the hazard. We knew the poison. We knew what it may do. And in Ondo, we knew the place it had occurred. Eleven years later, Irele and Odigbo are burying folks once more. That makes this greater than one other enforcement story. It raises a elementary regulatory question: What was achieved with the warning Nigeria acquired in 2015? Professor Mojisola Adeyeye grew to become Director-Basic of NAFDAC on November 30, 2017. She has led the company for nearly 9 years. In defending her document, Professor Adeyeye has pointed to the state through which she inherited NAFDAC, saying firms as soon as had to offer automobiles for inspections and that “no single director had a laptop computer purchased by NAFDAC,” whereas ICT had been “put within the deep freezer.” However after virtually 9 years in cost, laptops and automobiles can’t be the measure of whether or not NAFDAC has been fastened. The measure have to be what Nigerians expertise out there: whether or not pretend, substandard and harmful merchandise are being avoided customers. After virtually 9 years, the central question can now not be what she inherited. It’s what modified.
At a September 2026 media engagement, Professor Adeyeye was requested about requires her resignation amid public concern over pretend, adulterated and substandard merchandise. She laughed earlier than responding, which was extremely inappropriate within the circumstances. This was not a trivial question. Nigerians had been expressing concern in regards to the security of merchandise they devour and convey into their properties.
In opposition to that backdrop, laughter risked showing dismissive of the seriousness of these issues. And the response was speedy. Throughout social media, Nigerians started posting images and movies of merchandise they mentioned that they had purchased believing them to be real: meals, drinks, toothpaste, yogurt and different on a regular basis shopper items. Some in contrast suspected counterfeits with originals. Others displayed questionable packaging or merchandise they believed had been adulterated. The scale of the response uncovered one thing a regulator can not ignore: a critical disaster of public confidence.
Nigerians had been successfully saying, ‘Take a look at what we’re feeding our households.’
The drawback extends far past social media complaints. NAFDAC itself has put the prevalence of pretend and substandard medicines at round 13 to fifteen per cent. In June 2026, the company mentioned cosmetics, meals and drinks accounted for greater than half of the counterfeit merchandise it had confiscated. Two months later, the Federal Ministry of Well being and Social Welfare cited trade estimates that roughly 40 per cent of spirits and wines in Nigeria are illicit or unrecorded. This isn’t a marginal drawback. It factors to a bootleg market working at monumental scale.
Nigeria’s financial actuality makes the issue extra harmful. For customers underneath extreme monetary stress, worth issues. Cheaper merchandise are enticing as a result of they’re reasonably priced. On the similar time, illicit producers can evade taxes, registration, testing, high quality management, and compliance prices borne by respectable producers, permitting them to compete aggressively on worth.
The stress is obvious in how extraordinary Nigerians describe their buying choices. “Issues are very laborious. Persons are their pockets and shopping for what their cash can afford,” one dealer not too long ago defined. One other shopper mentioned his household now compares costs, visits totally different markets and buys smaller portions as a result of their revenue has not elevated. A Lagos resident described the calculation merely: “Earlier than I decide something, I test the value and calculate what I can afford.”
However that is the place financial hardship collides with weak regulation. When pretend, adulterated and substandard merchandise are simply accessible in the identical markets the place financially stretched Nigerians are looking for cheaper options, the hazard multiplies.
A shopper could suspect that one thing is unusually low cost, however when the selection is between shopping for what’s reasonably priced or going with out, the perspective can rapidly grow to be “I’ve no choice” .That is what I can afford.”
That’s the harmful equation. Financial hardship pushes customers in the direction of cheaper options, whereas insufficient enforcement permits unsafe merchandise to fulfill them there. Nigerians with the least cash to spare can due to this fact grow to be essentially the most uncovered to pretend and harmful merchandise.
Regulation can not shield solely customers who can afford to purchase on the safer finish of the market. A Nigerian shopping for what she or he can afford is entitled to anticipate that it’s going to not poison them. Beneath all of this stays one elementary question: Can Nigerians belief the merchandise they purchase?
NAFDAC says that between Might and July 2026 it eliminated 7,210 pretend, substandard and different non-compliant merchandise whereas visiting 6,233 services throughout Nigeria. The company additionally says it has seized or destroyed pretend and substandard merchandise value greater than N1.5tn since 2023. These are giant numbers, however they aren’t robotically proof of satisfactory regulation.
For a rustic of greater than 200 million folks and one of Africa’s largest shopper markets, the related question is whether or not the dimensions, depth, frequency and consistency of enforcement are enough for the market NAFDAC is accountable for regulating. Visiting services throughout each state demonstrates geographic attain. It doesn’t, by itself, set up that enforcement is equally deep or efficient throughout markets, areas and product classes.
And this issues economically. Each enforcement hole creates a bonus for the illicit operator and an obstacle for the respectable enterprise. A compliant producer or importer pays for registration, testing, high quality management, accredited services, workers, taxes, documentation and regulatory compliance. The illicit producer can keep away from a lot of that burden. If enforcement is insufficient or uneven, the result’s perverse: the corporate that obeys the principles carries the monetary burden of regulation, whereas the operator that breaks them features a value benefit. Official companies lose gross sales. The authorities loses income. Manufacturers lose shopper confidence. Funding and jobs are put in danger.
Pretend and substandard merchandise are due to this fact greater than a public-health drawback. They’re an financial drawback. That is why counting seizures isn’t sufficient. The actual check is whether or not enforcement is broad, constant and preventive sufficient to make non-compliance tougher and extra expensive than compliance. After virtually 9 years underneath the identical Director-Basic, that may be a honest measure in opposition to which to look at NAFDAC’s efficiency.
On September 18, President Bola Tinubu mentioned the federal government wouldn’t tolerate mass deaths arising from “official negligence”. He was addressing a completely separate tragedy involving deaths in NSCDC custody in Niger State, not NAFDAC or Ondo. However the precept applies: the place proof establishes that official negligence contributed to deaths, there have to be accountability.
No one ought to declare NAFDAC negligent with out proof. However when a identified menace returns 11 years later and kills dozens of Nigerians in the identical two LGAs, respectable questions have to be requested. And these weren’t eleven quiet years between two remoted tragedies: the menace of illicit, adulterated and harmful merchandise endured all through.
So, what occurred after the 2015 warning? What surveillance and enforcement adopted? What was identified about illicit manufacturing in Irele and Odigbo? May extra moderately have been achieved earlier than folks started dying once more?
Then there may be NAFDAC’s response. On September 18, NAFDAC described its response as “swift and complete”. However Ondo State’s Commissioner for Well being says the preliminary cluster of deaths was identified by September 3. A press launch issued after 48 persons are useless can not, by itself, set up that the response was “swift and complete”. The public deserves the info.
Eleven years ought to have been sufficient time to study. Virtually 9 years underneath the identical NAFDAC management ought to have been sufficient time to behave. The illicit, pretend and uncontrolled market stays rampant. Nigerians are nonetheless dying. The question now could be, who have to be held accountable?
Omisholuyi, a group watch analyst, writes from Okitipupa, Ondo State
