By Emmanuel Onwuka
At just 16 years old, Abubakar Salau was receiving treatment for snuff addiction at the psychiatry ward of Karu General Hospital, as reported in a publication by the World Health Organization (WHO).
“I used to mix liquid glue with old tobacco to make my snuff. Whenever I sniffed it, the feeling was surreal,” he says. “Snuff destroyed my life though. I lost so much weight, dropped out of school and hurt members of my family. When I recover fully, I plan to educate teenagers like myself on the dangers of tobacco,” he claims.
Abubakar’s experience was not an isolated case. The WHO publication reported that at least five patients visited Karu General Hospital’s psychiatry ward every day for treatment of complications related to tobacco and drug use.
A study published in PLOS ONE in March 2022 estimated that smoking was responsible for approximately 29,000 deaths annually in Nigeria. The researchers also estimated that the economic burden attributable to tobacco in 2019 was ₦634 billion. The calculation included direct medical costs and indirect costs, such as lost productivity and the costs borne by informal caregivers.
When someone develops a tobacco-related illness, the financial consequences do not fall only on the patient. Family members may have to pay for treatment, provide care or lose income while supporting a sick relative. Employers and the wider economy can also bear the cost of lost productivity.
Preventing tobacco-related harm therefore requires more than telling people that smoking is dangerous. It requires sustained public education, effective laws, monitoring and enforcement, as well as reliable information to guide policy.
All these activities cost money. Nigeria has a substantial economic reason to take this responsibility seriously.
A fund on paper is not enough
Nigeria’s National Tobacco Control Act 2015 established the Tobacco Control Fund under Section 8. The fund is intended to support tobacco control activities through sources that include government appropriations, fines for violations of tobacco laws and contributions from relevant development bodies.
The country subsequently introduced the National Tobacco Control Regulations in 2019, providing a framework for implementing the Act.
The current challenge with the Tobacco Control Fund is the operationalisation of the account. The account has already been established, and funds have been paid into it. Why, then, has making the account fully operational become a challenge? This raises concerns about the reasons for the delay and whether it could be a deliberate attempt to undermine tobacco control efforts in Nigeria.
Public education campaigns require planning and distribution. Compliance monitoring requires trained personnel, transport and reporting systems. Research requires data collection and analysis. Enforcement requires institutions that can investigate violations and take appropriate action.
The cost of waiting for the next grant
External support has contributed to tobacco control in Nigeria through capacity building, research, advocacy and technical assistance. International partners have helped strengthen the ability of governments and civil society organisations to develop and implement tobacco control measures.
That contribution matters, particularly where public health programmes compete for limited government resources. The problem arises when a continuing public responsibility depends on funding that is temporary or uncertain.
A grant may support a training programme, a research project or a public awareness campaign for a defined period. When that grant ends, the knowledge and relationships developed through the project may remain, but continuing the activities still requires money. If there is no domestic funding arrangement to take over, authorities and organisations may find it difficult to maintain the same level of work. This is a risk of donor dependence.
Can tobacco taxation help?
One possible source of additional domestic resources is tobacco taxation.
Nigerian economists have argued that tobacco taxation can help the government raise revenue while reducing the consumption of products that cause preventable illness. In a February 2019 article published by BusinessDay, Adedeji Adeniran and Joseph Ishaku of the Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa explained that revenue from tobacco taxation could contribute to financing public education, enforcement and other tobacco control measures.
Research from across Africa shows that tobacco taxation can reduce smoking and increase government revenue. According to a case study published by Tobacconomics and indexed by the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, South Africa increased real, inflation-adjusted cigarette excise taxes by an average of 13% annually between 1994 and 2004. Real retail cigarette prices rose by an average of 8% annually, while per-capita cigarette consumption fell by more than 5% annually.
Over the same period, adult smoking prevalence fell from 31% to 24%, and real government revenue from tobacco taxes increased by an average of 9% annually.
The Gambia offers a particularly relevant example for Nigeria’s debate about domestic financing. In an article published on April 12, 2021, the World Health Organization reported that The Gambia began a plan to increase cigarette prices in 2012, with WHO support. The government subsequently pursued further tobacco tax increases.
By 2018, revenue generated from tobacco taxation was nearly three times its 2011 level, while cigarette imports had declined by more than 60%.
These findings illustrate how tobacco taxation can serve two public purposes: making tobacco less affordable and generating revenue for government.
The states cannot be left out
The funding question also matters beyond Abuja. State governments are responsible for decisions that shape the everyday environments in which Nigerians work, trade, travel and socialise. State-level public education, monitoring of smoke-free requirements and coordination with relevant enforcement agencies all require resources and clear institutional responsibilities.
A national fund alone cannot substitute for state-level implementation. Nor should states assume that federal institutions or external partners will finance every activity needed within their jurisdictions.
Federal and state governments should identify their respective responsibilities, include realistic tobacco control provisions in their budgets and report publicly on implementation. Where states are developing new initiatives, their proposed activities should be accompanied by costed plans rather than unfunded promises.
The Way Forward
The immediate priority should be to resolve the operational challenges preventing the Tobacco Control Fund from functioning effectively. If the account has already been established and funds paid into it, the Federal Government should explain why the fund is not fully operational, identify the administrative, legal or financial bottlenecks responsible for the delay, and publish a clear timeline for resolving them.
The Federal Government should move tobacco control financing from uncertain annual allocations to a predictable, accountable funding arrangement backed by domestic resources. Tobacco taxation should form part of this strategy, not simply as a means of raising revenue, but as a public health measure that discourages tobacco consumption while creating fiscal space for prevention.
State governments should also provide budget lines for tobacco control programmes within their jurisdictions. A country that has legislated against tobacco-related harm must also be prepared to finance the implementation of its laws. Donor support should strengthen these efforts, not determine whether they continue.
