A group of agricultural scientists, environmental experts, and civil society organizations has leveled a serious accusation against Nigeria's National Biosafety Management Agency. They charge the federal regulator with operating without the transparency required by law, specifically in its handling of genetically modified organisms. The allegations center on the agency's failure to make critical data and decision-making processes accessible to the public and independent researchers.
Established by an Act of the National Assembly, the NBMA holds the sole legal authority to regulate all activities involving GMOs within Nigeria. Its mandate includes rigorous risk assessment, approval of applications, and ongoing monitoring of any released products. The agency's decisions directly impact the nation's food security, environmental safety, and agricultural trade. However, critics argue the body is not fulfilling its statutory duty to operate in an open and accountable manner.
The core of the complaint involves the approval process for genetically modified crops. Experts point to a pattern where the NBMA grants permits for the commercial release or confined field trials of new GMO varieties without publishing the full scientific dossiers used in its evaluations. This includes the detailed environmental and health risk assessments that form the basis for any approval. Without this information, independent scientists cannot scrutinize the agency's conclusions or verify the safety claims made by biotechnology companies.
Furthermore, the agency is accused of failing to maintain a publicly accessible, up-to-date register of all approved GMOs and their specific conditions of use. Such a registry is a standard transparency tool in biosafety management worldwide. Its absence makes it difficult for farmers, consumers, and researchers to know which modified crops are legally in the Nigerian market, where they are being grown, and what traits they possess. This information gap creates uncertainty in the agricultural supply chain and for export partners.
The lack of transparency extends to the monitoring of GMOs after they enter the environment or food system. The NBMA is legally required to oversee the post-release management of these products to ensure they do not cause unintended harm. Critics allege there is no visible, systematic program for this monitoring, nor are the results of any such surveillance made public. This raises questions about the agency's capacity to enforce the conditions of its own approvals and to respond swiftly to any emerging ecological or health concerns.
These allegations come at a pivotal moment for Nigeria's agricultural policy. The federal government has actively promoted the adoption of biotechnology as a tool to boost crop yields, enhance nutrition, and reduce pesticide use. Several genetically modified crops, including pest-resistant cowpea and drought-tolerant maize, have received NBMA approval in recent years. The agency's credibility is therefore essential for public acceptance of this technology and for maintaining international confidence in Nigeria's biosafety standards.
The opacity also impacts Nigeria's trade relationships, particularly within the African Continental Free Trade Area. Neighboring countries with strict or cautious GMO policies require clear, verifiable documentation on the genetic makeup and regulatory status of agricultural imports. A national biosafety regulator perceived as non-transparent could complicate cross-border commerce and cast doubt on the safety certifications of Nigerian produce, potentially leading to market access barriers.
The coalition of experts making these accusations has not yet detailed its next formal steps, but the issue is poised to move beyond technical debate. Calls are growing for the National Assembly to exercise its oversight function and scrutinize the NBMA's compliance with the transparency provisions of its enabling Act. The coming weeks will test whether the agency addresses these concerns through proactive disclosure or faces increased legislative and public pressure to reform its operations.
