There is something revealing about the latest public audition for the Director-General's office at the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control.
Olatunde Isaac has gone directly to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu with a message that sounds, at first glance, like exactly what Nigerians should want from a public servant.
He says he has spent nearly a decade at NAFDAC.
He says he has fought counterfeit and substandard medicines and unsafe food products.
He says he received a NAFDAC Director-General's Merit Award.
And now he is asking President Tinubu to make him Director-General.
His promise is even more ambitious: give him the mandate and institutional backing and, within six months, he says he will target a 60 percent reduction in counterfeit and substandard medicines and unsafe regulated products.
That is a bold promise.
But Nigerians should ask a very simple question:
Is this really only about fighting fake drugs—or are we watching another contest for control of NAFDAC unfold in public?
That question becomes particularly relevant because the current NAFDAC Director-General, Professor Mojisola Adeyeye, has just alleged that people who want to become DG have been working behind the scenes to create pressure against her.
Adeyeye made the allegation while responding to calls for her resignation amid concerns about counterfeit products in the Nigerian market. According to TheCable, she said some people seeking the DG position had been instigating unrest and had previously attempted to undermine her administration.
That does not prove Isaac is one of those people.
But it makes the timing impossible to ignore.
The man behind the application is not an outsider
Olatunde Isaac is not some random social-media activist demanding a government appointment.
There is a real professional record behind the name.
Academic publications identify Olalekan Isaac Olatunde as having worked in NAFDAC's Imported Food Unit under the Registration and Regulatory Affairs Directorate. His research has focused on food labelling and regulatory compliance.
Another study bearing his name examined herbal medicine labelling compliance in Lagos and found that only 6.7 percent of the sampled products were fully compliant with the relevant regulations.
So let's be fair:
The man has credentials.
He has worked within the regulatory system.
He has written about regulatory problems.
He has received recognition from NAFDAC.
He therefore has every right to aspire to the leadership of the agency.
But competence should not end the conversation.
It should begin it.
Then comes the extraordinary 60 percent promise
The most politically interesting part of Isaac's appeal is not that he wants the job.
It is the certainty with which he promises results.
He says he will achieve at least a 60 percent reduction in counterfeit and substandard medicines and unsafe regulated products within six months.
That is the sort of statement that sounds wonderful on social media.
But a serious regulatory agency is not a football team where a new coach can promise to win 60 percent more matches.
What exactly constitutes a 60 percent reduction?
How is the baseline measured?
How many counterfeit products are currently circulating?
What proportion is detected?
What proportion enters through borders?
What proportion is manufactured locally?
What proportion comes through informal markets?
How much of the problem is pharmaceutical?
How much is food?
How much is cosmetics?
How much is online commerce?
And what independent mechanism would verify the claimed reduction?
These are not hostile questions.
They are the questions that someone asking to become DG of a national regulatory institution should welcome.
And here is where the timing gets interesting
The public campaign for the job comes at a particularly sensitive moment for NAFDAC.
Professor Mojisola Adeyeye is currently under pressure over the circulation of counterfeit and substandard products.
But she has also pointed to a very different record.
She says she inherited about ₦3.2 billion in liabilities when she assumed office in 2017 and that significant portions of NAFDAC's laboratory infrastructure were not functioning. She has argued that the agency subsequently moved from a very low regulatory maturity position to WHO maturity level 3 in 2022.
NAFDAC has also pointed to international regulatory milestones, including its participation in international regulatory bodies and standards organisations.
The agency has not been perfect.
No serious person should claim that.
Counterfeit drugs still exist.
Unsafe products still enter the Nigerian market.
Regulatory enforcement still has gaps.
Consumers still encounter products that should not be there.
Those failures deserve scrutiny.
But that scrutiny should be about systems and evidence, not merely about who wants the chair.
The current DG has made a serious allegation
This is the part that should not be buried.
Adeyeye has publicly alleged that some people interested in becoming the next NAFDAC DG have worked behind the scenes to create problems for her administration.
She specifically referred to the 2022 period, when she said staff were encouraged to embark on industrial action to damage the agency's image.
Again, there is no evidence in the sources reviewed establishing that Olatunde Isaac participated in that alleged effort.
That distinction matters.
But if people are now openly campaigning for the position while the incumbent is publicly talking about attempts to destabilise her tenure, Nigerians have a legitimate right to ask:
Who is lobbying for this position, through whom, and why now?
That is not persecution.
It is accountability.
And then there is the problem of identity politics
This is where the debate around Isaac becomes more uncomfortable.
Online political arguments have increasingly turned questions of food regulation, cultural ownership and Nigerian identity into ethnic contests.
If Isaac has previously made statements that can fairly be characterised as ethnically divisive, those statements should be examined individually, with dates and original quotations—not simply labelled “bigotry” because someone dislikes his politics.
That is the standard that should apply to everybody.
A man asking to lead NAFDAC should be judged by the same principle.
Can he regulate without ethnic, political or commercial prejudice?
That is more important than whether he is Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, Christian, Muslim, APC, PDP, Labour or anything else.
NAFDAC is not a cultural ministry.
It is not the Ministry of Yoruba Affairs.
It is not the Ministry of Igbo Food.
It is not the Ministry of Hausa Medicine.
It is a national regulator.
A bottle of contaminated drink does not ask the ethnicity of the person who drinks it.
A counterfeit antibiotic does not ask whether its victim voted for Tinubu.
A dangerous cosmetic does not care whether the consumer is from Lagos, Kano, Enugu or Rivers.
The regulator therefore cannot afford ethnic thinking.
There is also a bigger question about TheCable
It would be tempting to jump from the appearance of stories about NAFDAC and the current pressure on Adeyeye to declare that TheCable is part of an organised campaign to install Isaac.
But that claim requires evidence.
What we can establish is that TheCable has recently reported extensively on NAFDAC—including the pressure on Adeyeye, counterfeit products, the agency's finances and her response to resignation calls.
That is not, by itself, evidence of a coordinated campaign.
A newspaper covering controversy surrounding an institution is not proof that it is secretly lobbying for a particular candidate.
If there is evidence that TheCable is actively campaigning for Isaac, that evidence should be produced: editorial endorsements, coordinated sourcing, undisclosed relationships, financial links, repeated promotion, or direct communications.
Without that evidence, the responsible conclusion is simply:
There is a political contest around NAFDAC, and the public should watch it closely.
The real test for Isaac is simple
If Olatunde Isaac genuinely believes he is the right man for NAFDAC, Nigerians should not be afraid of his ambition.
They should welcome it.
But they should also test it.
Publish the 60 percent methodology.
Define the baseline.
Explain how the target will be measured.
Explain how much additional funding will be required.
Explain how customs, police, manufacturers, state regulators and online marketplaces will be integrated.
Explain how NAFDAC laboratories will be upgraded.
Explain how whistleblowers will be protected.
Explain how political interference will be prevented.
Explain how enforcement will be made transparent.
And most importantly:
Explain how Nigerians will know that the promised 60 percent reduction actually happened.
That is what a serious technocrat should be prepared to answer.
NAFDAC needs competence—but it also needs independence
The greatest danger is not that Isaac wants the job.
The greatest danger would be replacing one political controversy with another.
NAFDAC regulates powerful interests.
Pharmaceutical companies.
Food manufacturers.
Alcohol producers.
Cosmetic companies.
Importers.
Distributors.
Traditional medicine producers.
And increasingly, online sellers.
The DG therefore needs more than qualifications.
The person sitting in that office must be strong enough to tell a billionaire manufacturer no.
Strong enough to tell a politician no.
Strong enough to tell a powerful importer no.
Strong enough to tell an ethnic pressure group no.
And strong enough to tell his own friends no.
That is the real job.
So, Mr President, don't appoint a campaigner—appoint a regulator
If President Tinubu is considering the next NAFDAC DG, the question should not be:
Who is campaigning the loudest?
It should be:
Who can independently protect Nigerians?
If Isaac is that person, let him prove it.
If Adeyeye is still that person, let her record be tested honestly.
If there is another candidate who is better qualified, bring that person forward.
But Nigerians should not wake up one morning and discover that the country's food and drug regulator has become another prize in an elite appointment contest.
The stakes are too high.
Because NAFDAC is not merely another government agency.
Its decisions can determine whether a medicine reaches a patient's bloodstream, whether a child consumes contaminated food, whether a cosmetic contains dangerous ingredients, or whether a counterfeit product remains on the market.
That is why Olatunde Isaac's ambition deserves scrutiny—not because he is ambitious, but because anyone asking to control an institution with that much power must be prepared to have his own record examined under the same microscope he wants NAFDAC to use on everybody else.
And if there is a documented record of ethnic or political activism that raises questions about his neutrality, Nigerians deserve to see the evidence and judge it for themselves.
NAFDAC should have a DG who regulates Nigeria—not one who represents a faction of Nigeria.
Comments
Post a Comment