<p><!-- BEGIN THEIA POST SLIDER --></p>
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 2.0.98.1 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad4" id="quads-ad4" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>

<p> ;</p><div class="NB1eYHuF" style="clear:both;float:left;width:100%;margin:0 0 20px 0;"><script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<!-- TV -->

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="4399361195"

 data-ad-format="auto"

 data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script></div>
<p>By Yusuf Danjuma Yunusa</p><div class="CuF9CNeA" style="clear:both;float:left;width:100%;margin:0 0 20px 0;"><script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<!-- TV -->

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="4399361195"

 data-ad-format="auto"

 data-full-width-responsive="true"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script></div>
<p>The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has called on the Federal Government to immediately clarify the terms of a $5 billion health cooperation agreement recently signed with the United States, citing “materially different” and potentially unconstitutional framings of the deal.</p>
<p>In a statement issued on Sunday, the party’s spokesperson, Bolaji Abdullahi, expressed alarm over what it described as conflicting portrayals of the five-year bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), signed in December.</p>
<p>While the Nigerian government has presented the agreement as an inclusive framework to strengthen health security and boost domestic financing, U.S. official statements framed it as focusing strongly on supporting Christian faith-based healthcare providers.</p><div class="ol7puy2f" style="clear:both;float:left;width:100%;margin:0 0 20px 0;"><script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block; text-align:center;"

 data-ad-layout="in-article"

 data-ad-format="fluid"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="6550225277"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script></div>
<p>The ADC highlighted that the U.S. version introduces “identity-based elements” absent from Nigeria’s account, suggesting funds could be directed primarily to health institutions linked to one religion—a move the party says violates constitutional guarantees against discrimination.</p>
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 2.0.98.1 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad1" id="quads-ad1" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>

<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 2.0.98.1 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad4" id="quads-ad4" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>

<p>“The U.S. characterisation indicates that spending under the MoU should be targeted at health institutions backed by a particular religion only,” Abdullahi stated. “This raises serious constitutional and national cohesion concerns.”</p>
<p>Under the agreement, the U.S. intends to commit nearly $2.1 billion over five years, while Nigeria is to increase its domestic health spending by about $3 billion in the same period. The deal covers HIV, tuberculosis, malaria, maternal and child health, and polio interventions.</p>
<p>The ADC also pointed to a clause allowing the U.S. President or Secretary of State to pause or terminate programmes deemed against national interest—a condition reportedly omitted from Nigeria’s public explanation of the MoU.</p>
<p>“Why is the Nigerian government committing more resources under an arrangement that appears discriminatory and grants unilateral termination powers to a foreign government?” Abdullahi questioned.</p>
<p>Citing Sections 42(1), 15, and 17 of the 1999 Constitution, which prohibit discrimination and obligate the state to promote national integration, the ADC insisted that any agreement introducing identity-based distinctions in public service provision is fundamentally flawed.</p>
<p>The party has demanded that the Federal Government clearly state which version reflects the actual terms and explain the significant discrepancies between the two accounts.</p>
<p><!-- END THEIA POST SLIDER -->
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 2.0.98.1 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad5" id="quads-ad5" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>
</p>
<script async src="https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js"></script>

<ins class="adsbygoogle"

 style="display:block"

 data-ad-format="autorelaxed"

 data-ad-client="ca-pub-4403533287178375"

 data-ad-slot="1004305389"></ins>

<script>

 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

</script>
<!-- WP QUADS Content Ad Plugin v. 2.0.98.1 -->
<div class="quads-location quads-ad3" id="quads-ad3" style="float:none;margin:0px;">

</div>


