02/10/2026
Nigeria’s new alcohol policy
On August 27 2026, the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare launched Nigeria Alcohol Policy and Multisectoral Implementation Plan (2026-2030), after many years of clamour by researchers, public health professionals and civil society groups.
Combining public health and market development
The policy oddly combines public health measures with those that encourage market growth, which are likely to lessen the effect of the former. Thus, while it contains some effective measures (e.g., drink-driving countermeasures, alcohol free zones around schools, hospitals and parks, health warning, screening and brief intervention), the three most effective and cost-effective alcohol policy measures focusing on taxation/pricing, marketing and physical availability are either absent or under-utilized.
The policy lacks a minimum unit price while aiming to ‘maintain excise duties’, which are unadjusted for inflation. It does introduce a vague category of ‘health-based taxes on high-alcohol products’, but allocates a paltry 2% of excise revenue to prevention, treatment and enforcement. A vast range of alcohol marketing activities (e.g., outdoor, sports, broadcast and digital) are left unaddressed while hours of sales and outlet density are left entirely to the state without a national benchmark.
Flagrant conflict of interest
The policy, which identifies industry interference as a threat and commits to implement measures ‘that prevent undue influence over public health policy’, does not disguise the conflict of interests in its own production. For one, it lists several prominent industry groups (e.g., Nigerian Breweries, Diageo) as contributors, contrary to the WHO Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-2030 with which it claims conformance. Conversely, only a few civil society groups were invited to contribute to the policy, some of which were front groups for the alcohol industry.
The policy also creates a platform for dialogue between industry groups and government ministries and invites ‘CSR funding from compliant alcohol producers’ to fund public health interventions such as rehabilitation and public education, despite evidence showing that CSR activities operate as reputation management strategies for harmful product industries and may even be used to block effective public health policies.
From policy to implementation
Attention has now turn to policy implementation. This may prove to be tougher than the process of developing the policy itself. At least that is what can be learned from the sachet alcohol ban that is driven by the National Food and Drugs Administration and Control (NAFDAC), who also holds a major stake in the Policy. The sachet alcohol ban, which has been dogged by fierce opposition from its conception to ongoing enforcement, shows that accountability, effective monitoring and strong political commitment will be needed to implement the policy.
