The lawmaker representing Oshodi/Isolo II Federal Constituency in Lagos State, Ganiyu Johnson, told LEKE BAIYEWU and other journalists why he sponsored the controversial bill seeking to impose a five-year post-medical school service on graduates
Your bill on the health sector recently passed second reading and it has generated criticisms especially from professionals in the health sector. Why do you want medical graduates barred from leaving Nigeria until after five years of service?
The bill is not preventing anybody from travelling (out of the country). I started by raising a motion on the same issue – medical brain drain. In that motion, I prayed for three things; that the welfare of medical personnel should be reviewed. That was the first one. The second one was that we should also look into the health facilities that we have. We should improve on our health facilities, maintain and upgrade our primary healthcare centres to general hospitals, and maintain and upgrade our general hospitals to specialist hospitals, in addition to maintaining and upgrading our specialist hospitals to research institutes. The last prayer was that the government should collaborate with the private sector, such as insurance companies. I mentioned insurance companies because we have so many unclaimed premiums with insurance companies. If we collaborate with them, they will be able to fund the project, by creating an enabling environment for the doctors and improving their welfare.
What do you think will change?
After that motion, we noticed a further decline of capital flight (in the health sector) and mass relocation of our doctors abroad. So, I looked at the Act establishing the licensing of our medical doctors. I noticed that after their housemanship – because once you graduate from school, you go for housemanship for one year and then National Youth Service Corps programme, which is also one year. The reason why they do housemanship before their NYSC programme is for them to be able to practice as a medical doctor. They are issued a license after the housemanship. I looked at that and said it would be a thing of great interest for our society. Our population is over 200 million and as I speak, we have about 10,000 doctors. That is a crisis already. So, how do we mitigate this crisis? It is by slowing down and carrying out a kind of stopgap. Let us increase the number of years before they get their final licence. It is not that one is trying to restrict them, the five years I am talking about include the housemanship and the NYSC (service year). So, technically we are talking about three years. And those three years are a way of promoting professionalism, because you can as well register for your residency. In the medical line, after your NYSC programme, if you are engaged in a hospital, you can enrol for your residency, which takes an average of five to six years. With your residency, you are a specialist at the end of the programme. So, it is a way of encouraging and promoting our doctors to be specialists instead of just general medical practitioners. If you will gain three years while you are here doing your residency, by the time you complete the three years, you can as well complete your residency and leave (the country). One, it is a win-win for the nation and the medical doctors. That is the purpose and the background of my bill.
Are you concerned about the controversy the bill has generated, because it is seen as a move that will deprive medical professionals of their fundamental right of movement as well as education for those who want to get more training elsewhere?
I am not. What I am saying is that in the country, we already have a crisis. How do we mitigate this crisis? I only suggested a way out. I am not saying this is the final solution. Fortunately, it has just passed the second reading. There is still an opportunity for everybody and all the stakeholders to come to the public hearing and have robust debates on the issue. Nobody is saying they should not travel; all I am saying is that we have a population of over 200 million and if care is not taken, maybe the babalawo (traditionalists) will be the ones to treat our people. It is not a funny situation but the medical doctors are only looking at it from their point of view. I am looking at it holistically. I am looking at the nation. What are the challenges we are facing? Just recently, the World Health Organisation placed us (Nigeria and other countries) on red alert and the United Kingdom has restricted them from coming. Yes, there are other places they can go to, but if they should abide by WHO’s resolution, then, what are we talking about?
Does it mean you are happy with the action taken by the UK?
First of all, my bill has answered the question. I said I don’t want our medical personnel to go out (of the country) until after a certain period because we know that we have a crisis. If the WHO is telling us that we have a crisis and they cannot continue to deplete the number of our doctors, they are only helping us. They are supporting my position. It is not me. I did not write them.
Is your proposal limited to medical graduates from public schools or it will cover those from private schools where the fees are higher and the parents are already protesting?
Like I said, it has just passed the second reading. There is room for a robust debate during the public hearing. When it comes to getting a license as a professional, it does not matter which school you go to. We must get that clear. It does not matter whether you go to Oxford or Cambridge or University of Lagos. If you have to obtain your license, you are all one. The institution is to train you and guide you towards that profession but by the time you are sitting your professional examination, it is a different ball game; you will all come together. It is the same exam you will sit, whether from private or public school.
There was a bill in the chamber a few years ago which sought to restrict civil and public servants to Nigerian hospitals to discourage medical tourism, which members of the House unanimously opposed. Is it not a double standard that you are now sponsoring this bill when the one that seemed to be targeted at the elite was rejected?
Well, in 2019, I don’t know the basis for that. But first of all, I am not the Speaker of the House of Representatives, I am just a member of the House; one out of 360. Usually, once there is a bill like that, there is always a robust debate in the House. Whatever is the outcome of that debate will be binding. In 2019, I may not be in the position to tell you this is the reason why it was shut down. But today, the point I am making is that we have a crisis in the health sector, unless you don’t agree that we do. It is as a result of this crisis that I am sponsoring the bill. I am just being passionate about the situation and that is why I am forging ahead with the bill. Two, it is not a law yet because it has to pass through so many processes. We still have the public hearing and the third reading. The concurrence of the Senate will also be needed before it goes to Mr President for assent, before it comes back here. So, it is a long process. If people believe they are not too comfortable with it, at the public hearing, there will be a request for memoranda from people. I am passionate about addressing the problem. By the time we improve and upgrade our health facilities, why would people go abroad for treatment when we can get things done here? One, we will save our foreign exchange. Two, we will create more jobs for our medical personnel. Three, it will encourage us to even improve further on our health facilities. So, I am in support of it.
Why is your bill not seeking to address issues pertaining to welfare and remuneration of medical professionals, knowing full well that this is a major motivation for their migration to other countries?
When you talk about welfare, it is everything. I said in the motion that the government should improve their welfare. It includes their salaries and allowances, even to the extent of trying to give them loans to own their own houses – mortgage. It is all under welfare. It is also about creating an enabling environment at their workplaces and working conditions to improve the facilities where they are going to operate.
