Beyond raids: Nigeria must stop the trade in fake drugs, adulterated food

A Nigerian buying medicine for a sick child should not have to wonder whether the tablets contain the ingredients printed on the packet. Neither should a family shopping for dinner fear that the food on its table has been deliberately contaminated. Yet counterfeit medicines, unregistered products and unsafe food practices have made these reasonable expectations increasingly uncertain. The challenge is no longer simply to seize offending goods. It is to prevent them from reaching consumers in the first place.

The scale of the pharmaceutical problem is difficult to dismiss. During enforcement operations in February 2025, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) targeted major open drug markets in Lagos, Aba and Onitsha. At a briefing at the Presidential Villa in Abuja on February 26, 2025, its Director-General, Professor Mojisola Adeyeye, said the agency had seized 87 truckloads of banned, expired, substandard and falsified medical products. She also described medicines stored in unsuitable conditions, including places exposed to excessive heat.

These findings matter because medicine is not an ordinary commodity. A patient who takes a falsified antibiotic or an ineffective treatment for hypertension may lose the critical time needed to recover. Poor-quality medicines can contribute to treatment failure and, in the case of antimicrobials, drug resistance. The resulting burden falls on patients, families and an already stretched healthcare system.

Professor Adeyeye made the stakes clear during an inspection of confiscated pharmaceuticals in Lagos on February 22, 2025. As reported by The Punch, she said NAFDAC was protecting lives rather than disrupting legitimate trade. That distinction is important. Honest traders and manufacturers also suffer when criminals undermine public confidence in their products.

Concerns extend beyond pharmacies. Reports of adulterated edible oils, contaminated foodstuffs and the misuse of chemicals in food preservation deserve sustained attention. Consumers also circulate claims that watermelons are injected with colouring substances to make their flesh appear redder, or that chemicals are used to force fruit to ripen. Such claims should not be repeated as proven facts without laboratory evidence, a documented investigation and an identifiable source. But neither should genuine complaints be ignored. Regulatory agencies should investigate credible reports, publish findings and distinguish verified dangers from rumours.

This distinction is essential. Sensational warnings can frighten consumers without helping them make safer choices. They can also damage the livelihoods of innocent farmers and traders. The public needs evidence-based guidance about which substances or practices are hazardous, how exposure occurs and what practical precautions to take. When investigations find no basis for an allegation, regulators should say so just as clearly as they announce seizures.

Nigeria has laws and agencies responsible for food and medicine safety. NAFDAC cannot, however, police every market stall, warehouse, vehicle and border crossing on its own. The persistence of unsafe products reflects gaps in surveillance, distribution controls and accountability. It is therefore necessary to move beyond dramatic raids towards three sustained priorities.

First, strengthen surveillance and laboratory testing. Enforcement must become more regular, intelligence-led and geographically extensive. NAFDAC needs adequately equipped laboratories, trained inspectors and reliable arrangements for testing suspicious medicines and food products. State and local authorities should support market inspections, while public health institutions and consumer associations provide channels for reporting concerns. Testing should be risk-based, focusing on products and locations where credible evidence indicates the greatest danger.

Equally important is public disclosure. After major seizures, citizens should be told what was tested, what the tests established, what products were recalled and what happened to the cases. Not every seized product is necessarily counterfeit; some may be unregistered, expired or improperly stored. Regulators should preserve those distinctions. Clear reporting will improve confidence and prevent sweeping claims from replacing verifiable facts.

Second, make products traceable throughout the supply chain. A counterfeit product does not appear by magic on a retailer’s shelf. It moves through importers, warehouses, wholesalers, transporters and sellers. Regulators should be able to identify where suspected goods originated, who handled them and where they were distributed. Better licensing records, batch identification, verifiable product information and digital tracking can make concealment more difficult.

Manufacturers and distributors must also accept responsibility. Legitimate businesses should keep accurate records, report suspicious consignments and cooperate with recalls. Market associations can help identify unlicensed operators rather than protecting them. Consumers, meanwhile, should be shown how to use official verification channels where available and encouraged to purchase medicines from properly licensed outlets. Traceability will work only when the records are trustworthy and inspections follow the evidence.

Third, ensure credible prosecution and meaningful penalties. Confiscation alone cannot dismantle a profitable criminal network. Investigators must follow cases beyond the shopkeeper to the financiers, importers and distributors who knowingly sustain the trade. Evidence should be properly collected and preserved so that prosecutions can withstand judicial scrutiny. The police, prosecutors, courts and regulators need closer cooperation, while witnesses and whistleblowers require appropriate protection.

The National Assembly should review whether existing penalties and enforcement procedures provide sufficient deterrence, particularly where deliberate wrongdoing causes serious injury or death. But calls for ever harsher punishment will achieve little if offenders rarely face a completed investigation or a successful prosecution. The more urgent test is whether the law is applied consistently, fairly and without interference. Public reporting on arrests, charges, convictions and recovered proceeds would make that record visible.

There is also a role for citizens, professional bodies, community leaders and the media. Public education should explain how to report suspicious products without spreading unverified allegations. Journalists should follow enforcement stories beyond the initial raid, asking whether samples were tested, suspects charged and harmful products withdrawn. Health professionals can alert regulators to suspected treatment failures and unusual product reactions. Such cooperation turns scattered complaints into useful intelligence.

The economic consequences deserve attention too. Counterfeiters undermine legitimate investment, weaken confidence in Nigerian brands and impose additional costs on families who may have to pay twice for treatment. Unsafe food practices threaten public health and the reputation of responsible producers. Protecting consumers is therefore not an obstacle to commerce; it is a condition for a healthy market.

Nigeria does not need another cycle of public outrage followed by silence. It needs an enforcement system that detects risks early, traces dangerous goods to their source and brings culpable actors to justice. NAFDAC has demonstrated that large-scale operations are possible. The next measure of success should be fewer unsafe products on sale, clearer information for consumers and more cases concluded in court. The safety of what Nigerians eat and the medicines they take must not depend on luck.

Dr. Abubakar MFR, a Chartered Accountant, resides in Abuja.