In a landmark achievement for Nigeria and the broader West and Central African region, Afrimedical Manufacturing and Supplies Limited has made history by becoming the first syringe manufacturer in the area to be prequalified by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The development signals a major leap forward for Nigeria’s local medical manufacturing industry and its capacity to meet global standards in healthcare delivery.
The WHO prequalified Afriject 0.5ml Auto-Disable (AD) Syringes—manufactured by Afrimedical—after an intensive evaluation process. This is the first time a locally-produced syringe in the region has met the WHO’s rigorous standards for quality, safety, and performance. With this certification, Afrimedical’s products are now eligible for procurement by global health bodies, including United Nations agencies and major international donors.
The announcement was made by the Director General of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC), Prof Mojisola Adeyeye. She described the milestone as a “landmark event” in Nigeria’s public health and industrial development journey. “This is undoubtedly the outcome of meaningful collaboration between Afrimedical and NAFDAC. With this achievement, Afrimedical becomes the first syringe manufacturer in West Africa to be recognised by WHO for compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP),” Prof. Adeyeye said.
The achievement follows a rigorous prequalification process by WHO, in which NAFDAC played a pivotal role. The agency provided comprehensive technical support, facilitated regular inspections, and ensured the company’s operations were aligned with international standards. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) also offered technical guidance to support Afrimedical through the certification process. Afrimedical’s journey to WHO prequalification can be traced back to 2019, when NAFDAC introduced the 5+5 regulatory directive aimed at reducing dependence on imports and promoting local manufacturing. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the dangers of relying heavily on foreign medical supplies, prompting Nigerian authorities to ramp up efforts to boost domestic production capacity.
Despite Nigeria having an installed syringe production capacity of over 2.5 billion annually, many local manufacturers were operating below 20% due to competition from cheaper—sometimes substandard—imports. To address this, NAFDAC launched a quality assessment initiative that confirmed locally-manufactured syringes were comparable to foreign ones, leading to renewed support for indigenous producers. Afrimedical, one of the few fully functional syringe manufacturers in Nigeria as of 2023, took a bold step to pursue WHO prequalification. With NAFDAC’s consistent backing—ranging from technical training to GMP audits—the company upgraded its facilities and processes and obtained ISO 13485 certification, a globally recognised benchmark for quality management systems in medical devices.
Prof. Adeyeye called on other local manufacturers to follow Afrimedical’s example and deepen collaboration with NAFDAC to meet global standards. She also urged procurement agencies to prioritise certified local products in line with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s industrialisation and self-reliance agenda. “This achievement is not just for Afrimedical; it is for Nigeria, West Africa, and the entire continent. It proves that with the right regulatory framework, technical guidance, and government support, African manufacturers can meet and exceed global expectations.”
The General Manager of Afrimedical, Gabi Al-Aridi, thanked the Federal Government and NAFDAC for their support. He noted that the WHO certification will open new global markets for the company, enabling it to contribute to vaccine delivery efforts and other immunisation programs worldwide. This breakthrough not only sets a new benchmark for medical manufacturing in Nigeria but also offers a hopeful outlook for a continent striving for health sovereignty and industrial self-sufficiency.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has sounded the alarm on the deepening global health divide, revealing that people in low-income countries live up to 33 years less than those in high-income nations, largely due to social and economic inequalities, not medical factors.
The disparity was highlighted in the World Report on Social Determinants of Health Equity, released on Tuesday, which underscores how factors like poor housing, limited education, unemployment, gender inequality, and social discrimination have a stronger impact on health than genetics or access to healthcare.
“People in the country with the lowest life expectancy will, on average, live 33 years shorter than those born in the country with the highest life expectancy,” the report states, exposing the harsh reality of global inequality.
Reacting to the findings, WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, stressed that these health gaps are not inevitable.
“Our world is an unequal one. Where we are born, grow, live, work, and age significantly influences our health and well-being,” he said.
“This report illustrates the importance of addressing the interlinked social determinants and provides evidence-based strategies and policy recommendations to help countries improve health outcomes for all.”
The report paints a grim picture of child and maternal health. It reveals that children born in poorer countries are 13 times more likely to die before the age of five compared to those in wealthier nations.
Additionally, while global maternal mortality dropped by 40 per cent between 2000 and 2023, 94 per cent of maternal deaths still occur in low- and lower-middle-income countries.
Even in high-income nations, inequalities persist. The report notes that Indigenous women are up to three times more likely to die during childbirth than non-Indigenous women, pointing to the influence of social exclusion and systemic discrimination.
The 2025 report also revisits goals set in WHO’s 2008 landmark publication on social determinants of health, which had set targets to close life expectancy gaps by 2040.
However, nearly two decades later, the WHO warns that these goals may not be met as disparities continue to grow both within and across nations.
The global health body noted that 3.8 billion people still lack access to basic social protections like paid child or sick leave.
Furthermore, it warned that the combined pressures of climate change and rising global debt could push up to 135 million people into extreme poverty over the next five years, further deepening health inequities.
WHO is calling for urgent, coordinated action from governments, civil society, the private sector, and researchers to tackle these systemic issues.
“Breaking the cycle of inequality demands bold political commitment and inclusive policies that prioritise equity, protect the vulnerable, and ensure that no one is left behind,” the report concludes.
Despite Nigeria’s certification as free of wild poliovirus, polio vaccinations remain critical to protect children from a mutated strain still in circulation, Dr. Bonos Mohammed of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has said. Mohammed, the WHO Coordinator in Anambra State, made the clarification during a stakeholders’ meeting on the upcoming National Immunisation Plus Days (NIPDs) campaign. The event was organised by the Anambra State Primary Health Care Development Agency (ASPHCDA), in collaboration with the state Ministry of Health and development partners.
He noted that the continued vaccination drive is aimed at preventing outbreaks of Circulating Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus (cVDPV), which remains a threat due to population movement and low immunity in some areas. While Nigeria has been declared free of wild poliovirus types 1, 2, and 3, Mohammed said sustained vigilance is necessary to maintain that status and prevent resurgence. “Only two countries, Pakistan and Afghanistan still report cases of wild poliovirus. However, through trade and travel, we still intermingle with these countries, putting Nigerian children at high risk,” he said.
Mohammed explained that although Nigeria has not recorded any imported cases of wild poliovirus, the country is currently battling outbreaks of circulating vaccine-derived poliovirus (cVDPV), particularly in areas with low immunisation coverage. He noted that the oral polio vaccine (OPV) contains a weakened virus that can be shed by vaccinated children. In well-immunised communities, this poses no threat. However, in places where many children remain unvaccinated, the virus can circulate, mutate, and eventually regain the ability to cause paralysis—leading to cVDPV outbreaks. “This is what we call Vaccine-Derived Poliovirus (VDPV. Children with low or no immunity are at risk of infection and paralysis if exposed to this mutated virus),” he said.
He warned that such cases were already affecting parts of Nigeria. Mohammed stressed that the only way to stop the spread was to ensure every child was vaccinated. “If all children are immunised, the virus cannot spread or cause harm because of strong community immunity. This is why we are not yet done with polio in Nigeria,” he added.
While no cases of cVDPV had been recorded in Anambra State so far, Mohammed warned that the risk remained due to movement across regions. “The northern parts of Nigeria still report cVDPV cases. Though Anambra is yet to record any, the threat of spread through trade and travel persists,” he said.
Mrs Chisom Uchem, Executive Secretary of ASPHCDA, announced that the NIPDs campaign in Anambra would run from May 3 to May 6. She added that a mop-up would take place from May 7 to May 8, followed by a final evaluation from May 9 to May 11 to assess the campaign’s effectiveness.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has raised an alarm that diseases previously brought under control through vaccination could resurface, following significant cuts to global health funding.
In a statement to mark the start of World Immunisation Week, WHO revealed that vaccines have saved an estimated 150 million lives over the past 50 years.
However, the organisation warned that this hard-earned progress is now under serious threat.
World Immunisation Week, celebrated annually from April 24 to 30, aims to highlight the critical importance of vaccines. This year’s theme is: “Immunisation for All is Humanly Possible.”
WHO highlighted the success vaccines have had in Africa’s “meningitis belt,” where mass immunisation campaigns have effectively ended meningitis A outbreaks. Similarly, yellow fever cases and deaths have dropped significantly due to routine vaccinations and emergency vaccine stockpiles. But WHO cautioned that these achievements are now at risk.
“Funding cuts to global health have put these hard-won gains in jeopardy. If we do not act now, diseases we thought were gone could come back and claim many lives,” WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned.
The organisation also shared worrying trends: in 2023, global measles cases surged to 10.3 million—a 20 percent increase compared to 2022. Yellow fever is also making a comeback, with outbreaks recorded across Africa and the Americas in early 2025.
WHO attributed the setbacks to several factors, including misinformation about vaccines, growing populations, conflicts and natural disasters, and declining financial support from donors.
A recent WHO review of vaccination efforts in 108 countries revealed that nearly half are struggling with serious challenges in their immunisation campaigns due to shrinking donor contributions, leading to vaccine shortages.
The Executive Director of UNICEF, Catherine Russell, said that, “The global funding crisis is severely limiting our ability to vaccinate over 15 million vulnerable children in fragile and conflict-affected countries against measles.”
She added, “Vaccines save about 4.2 million lives every year by protecting people against 14 different diseases. Almost half of these lives are saved in Africa. Despite these incredible results, falling investment now risks bringing back diseases we thought we had under control.”
Experts say vaccines are one of the smartest ways to spend money on health.
According to WHO, “Every $1 spent on vaccines returns an estimated $54 through better health and stronger economies.”
WHO, UNICEF, and their partners are urging parents, communities, and political leaders to keep supporting vaccination programmes and to make sure vaccines are funded well into the future.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has raised the alarm that one in three countries is not on track to meet the global target of reducing newborn deaths by 2030.
In a statement marking World Health Day on April 7, 2025, WHO also revealed that nearly 300,000 women die annually from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth, while over two million babies die within their first month of life—and another two million are stillborn.
“These are not just numbers. These are lives lost, often because of preventable causes,” WHO said. “It means one mother or baby dies every seven seconds.”
The agency also warned that four out of five countries risk missing targets for reducing maternal deaths unless urgent actions are taken.
The crisis is most severe in low-income countries, where access to quality healthcare is still a major hurdle.
“We must do better for women and children,” said WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
“These deaths can be prevented if countries invest in stronger health systems, skilled health workers, and ensure all mothers and babies receive the care they need.”
WHO emphasized that quality care before, during, and after pregnancy—including access to family planning, regular antenatal check-ups, skilled birth attendance, and postpartum care—can significantly reduce maternal and newborn deaths.
To address the crisis, WHO has launched a year-long global campaign titled ‘Healthy Beginnings, Hopeful Futures’, aimed at drawing urgent attention to the need for better maternal and newborn care.
The organisation is calling on governments, civil society, healthcare providers, and communities to take collective action to save lives.
“We want policies and systems that support women at every stage, before, during, and after pregnancy,” WHO said. “This means addressing not only childbirth-related care, but also mental health, noncommunicable diseases, and access to family planning.”
WHO’s Director for Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health and Ageing, Dr. Anshu Banerjee added:
“Improving maternal and newborn health is not just a health issue—it’s a matter of human rights and social justice. Every woman and baby deserves a healthy start in life.”
WHO urged countries to invest in health services that directly benefit women and babies, stressing that it’s time for collective global action.
“Together, we can close the gap and ensure that no woman or baby dies needlessly,” it said.
Let me know if you’d like to add regional statistics or include voices from local health workers or affected mothers for a deeper human-interest angle.
Sir: On his inauguration on January 20, one of the most controversial directives by President Donald Trump came just days into his presidency: the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal from World Health Organisation, WHO, a body in which it had been a founding member since 1948. This move was not entirely unexpected, as Trump had previously attempted to exit WHO in 2020 before his decision was overturned by President Joe Biden in 2021.
To the jubilation of his supporters and the dismay of critics, Trump successfully pushed through the withdrawal in early 2025. In February, he followed up with additional measures, including cutting funding to certain organizations like the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
The leadership of WHO bemoaned the decision for obvious reasons. According to financing data, the U.S. contributed an estimated $988 million between January and November 2024, marking approximately 14% of WHO’s $6.9 billion budget. The organization further noted that U.S. funding provides the backbone for many of its large-scale emergency operations aimed at combating diseases globally.
Citing an example, WHO stated, “U.S. funding covers 95% of the WHO’s tuberculosis program in Europe, along with 60% of the agency’s TB efforts in Africa, the Western Pacific, and headquarters in Geneva.”
As events continued to unfold, the African Union (AU) also expressed deep concern over the development. In a statement, AU Commission Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat emphasized the crucial role the U.S. has played in shaping global health standards over the past seven decades. He noted that the U.S. was a key supporter in establishing the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (Africa CDC), which works closely with WHO to tackle global health challenges, including those on the African continent.
What readily comes to mind in the wake of the raging debate on the US exit from WHO is the book Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa, written in 2009 by Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo,. It earnestly challenged the traditional approach to foreign aid in Africa.
Moyo argues that foreign aid has failed to lift Africa out of poverty and has instead created a culture of dependency, corruption, and stagnation. She claims that aid has undermined Africa’s incentive to develop its own economic and political systems. In this case, it has stunted the development of Africa’s health sector.
It is a universal truth that no nation can survive in isolation, but countries should be able to provide themselves with basic survival needs. The concern raised by the AU may well validate Moyo’s hypothesis because, despite having a continent-wide centre for disease control, Africa remains dependent on aid from foreign entities like WHO.
In 2001, the Abuja Declaration was signed by African leaders with the promise to increase budgetary allocation for health, eradicate HIV/AIDS, and strengthen the health sector through improved infrastructure, human resources, and access to essential medicines.
Two decades later, we are crying over a single nation’s withdrawal from WHO because we have failed to fulfil the promises we made to ourselves. What happens if other “powerful” countries decide to quit? Will our already poor health indices worsen? This should be a wake-up call.
All hope is not lost, as some progress has been made. In Nigeria, there was a breakthrough in November 2024. Doctors at Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH), in collaboration with the Sickle Cell Foundation, successfully carried out a bone marrow transplant on two patients. This procedure, once thought impossible in Nigeria, was described as “a significant step forward in the treatment of sickle cell disease—the first of its kind in West Africa.”
Also, in February 2025, Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital (UDUTH) joined the ranks of medical facilities that have successfully performed kidney transplants.
Nigeria can capitalize on these and refine these developments, attracting patients from other regions for treatment. This influx will generate revenue and possibly elevate us to a level where we no longer rely on funding from external organizations.
Nigeria and other African nations can build on their existing resources to generate revenue while investing further in research to discover cures or treatments for diseases that we have traditionally relied on palliatives for.
Despite the recent policy shift in United States government funding for the World Health Organization (WHO), the organization’s Acting Regional Director for Africa, Chikwe Ihekweazu, has reiterated WHO’s commitment to supporting Nigeria in tackling critical health challenges.
Speaking on the broader challenges facing healthcare systems in Africa, Ihekweazu acknowledged the severe workforce shortages and inadequate infrastructure but stressed that solutions must go beyond these issues.
Ihekweazu, who spoke in Abuja on Friday during a roundtable at the United Nations (UN) House, emphasized the need for governments to take greater responsibility for healthcare financing and reforms, while WHO continues to provide guidance and technical assistance.
“We have a young, vibrant population. The challenge is how the public sector absorbs healthcare workers being trained to serve our people.
“That’s exactly where WHO helps, by supporting reform processes in areas such as health financing, regulation, and primary healthcare,” the RD said.
Addressing the financial strain on global health donors, he described the situation as an opportunity for African nations to take ownership of their healthcare systems.
“Through every crisis, there are opportunities. It is time for countries on the continent to rise and take more responsibility for the health of their people,” he stressed.
What happens to global health now that the biggest player has left the game? That’s the question Africa must grapple with as the newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to withdraw the United States’ membership in the World Health Organisation (WHO) on his first day in office. The stakes are enormous, not just for global health but particularly for Africa, where the WHO has been a lifeline in combating diseases, strengthening health systems and responding to emergencies. CHINYERE OKOROAFOR reports.
The decision by the United States President, Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organisation (WHO) on his first day in office is rooted in long-standing grievances with the global health body.
The move, formalised through an Executive Order, represents a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign and health policy, with potentially far-reaching consequences for global health systems and U.S. interests alike.
The Trump administration has repeatedly criticised the WHO for its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly during its early stages.
Trump alleged that the organisation failed to act decisively in containing the outbreak in Wuhan, China, and accused it of being overly influenced by Chinese authorities.
These allegations were first made during his initial presidency in 2020, when he attempted a similar withdrawal, citing the WHO’s alleged failure to hold China accountable for its role in the global spread of COVID-19.
In July 2020, Trump formally notified the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres of his plan to pull the U.S. out of the WHO.
He also suspended funding to the organisation, claiming it had “colluded” with China to downplay the severity of the coronavirus outbreak in its early stages.
According to Trump, the WHO supported China in misleading the world about the origins of the virus, which he alleged may have emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan.
Trump’s successor, President Joe Biden, reversed this decision on his first day in office in January 2021. Biden not only restored U.S. membership in the WHO but also reinstated funding and pledged support for the organisation’s initiatives, such as combating COVID-19 and strengthening health systems globally. The reinstatement marked a renewed commitment to global health cooperation after Trump’s controversial withdrawal attempt.
However, Trump has made it clear that, if given a second term, he would pursue his agenda to “take on the corruption” at the WHO. During a campaign rally in September, Trump criticised the organisation and other public health institutions, accusing them of being influenced by corporate power and dominated by China.
The WHO, on its part, has consistently denied Trump’s allegations of collusion with China. It has also emphasised its ongoing efforts to press Beijing to share more data to determine whether COVID-19 originated from human contact with infected animals or as a result of research on similar viruses in a Chinese laboratory.
The organisation has maintained that its mission is to coordinate global health efforts and has pushed for transparency in understanding the origins of the pandemic.
In his recent executive order, Trump reiterated these concerns, describing the WHO as ineffective and biased.
He accused the organisation of mismanagement, particularly during critical global health emergencies, and criticised its vulnerability to political influence from member states such as China. During the announcement, he stated, “World Health (Organisation) ripped us off,” highlighting his administration’s belief that the U.S. has been unfairly burdened as the organisation’s largest financial contributor.
A major point of contention for the U.S. has been its financial contributions to the WHO. Historically, the U.S. has been the organisation’s largest donor, accounting for roughly 18 per cent of its budget.
However, the Trump administration has described these contributions as disproportionately high compared to those of other member states, particularly China. Trump and his advisers have argued that the U.S. has not received adequate value for its investments, with the president labeling the payments as “onerous” and unfair.
The administration also criticised the WHO for its perceived failure to implement necessary reforms. Despite repeated calls for transparency, efficiency, and improved governance within the organisation, Trump argued that little had been done to address these issues. His decision to withdraw reflects frustration with what he described as the WHO’s unwillingness or inability to adapt to evolving global health challenges.
Experts’ view on implications of the withdrawal
The United States’ decision to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO) has sparked alarm among global health experts, who say the move will harm both international health efforts and America’s own interests.
The withdrawal goes beyond a financial dispute, reflecting a deeper skepticism within the Trump administration about multilateral organisations and global health initiatives.
Experts warn that this decision could isolate the U.S. from key international health networks vital for fighting diseases and responding to pandemics.
A professor of global health law at Georgetown University, Dr. Lawrence Gostin called the move “a deep wound to the WHO, to health globally, but an even more grievous wound to the U.S. national interest.”
He argued that it would leave U.S. agencies such as the Centre for Desease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) “flying blind,” unable to effectively respond to global health challenges. His remarks highlight concerns about how this withdrawal weakens the U.S.’s role in global health leadership.
The U.S. has been the largest contributor to the WHO, providing between $160 million and $815 million annually to support essential programmes.
These include efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, which are critical to improving health outcomes worldwide.
Experts worry that pulling this funding could reverse years of progress in global health, particularly in developing regions like Africa, where the WHO plays a crucial role in disease control and emergency response.
More troublingly, the U.S. withdrawal risks severing access to essential global health data and collaborative networks that are crucial for monitoring outbreaks and coordinating responses.
This lack of access could leave the U.S. vulnerable to future health crises. “By isolating itself from the WHO, the U.S. will be blind to the early warning systems that help track and contain emerging threats,” warned Dr. Tom Frieden, former director of the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Experts also caution that this decision creates an opportunity for other countries, particularly China, to fill the void left by the U.S. in the WHO.
Dr. Gostin added: “China’s growing influence within the WHO could reshape global health policies in ways that may not align with U.S. priorities.”
In a chat with the National President, Association of Medical Laboratory Scientists of Nigeria (AMLSN), and an expert in Infectious Disease/Public Health, Dr. Casmir Ifeanyi said the executive order came when the WHO’s leadership is most needed to address global health challenges.
He said: “It’s surprising that this will be the first gift to the world. I consider it a negative gift because a disease in one part of the world is a disease everywhere. We now live in a much globalised village. If there’s a public health compromise in Congo, expect it to hit the U.S. in less than 48 hours.” This interconnectedness underscores the need for sustained funding and collaboration to address pandemics and other health crises.
Furthermore, Trump’s motivation for the executive order aligns with his administration’s broader foreign policy approach, which emphasises “America First” priorities. Part of this strategy involves replacing multilateral agreements and partnerships with bilateral arrangements that the U.S. perceives as more favorable to its interests.
The order includes provisions to review, rescind, and replace the 2024 U.S. Global Health Security Strategy, signaling an intention to chart a new course for U.S. involvement in global health.
WHO response to the withdrawal
The WHO expressed its regret over the United States’ decision to withdraw from the organization.
In a statement, the WHO emphasised its critical role in global health and underscored the importance of the U.S.’s contributions over the years.
“WHO plays a crucial role in protecting the health and security of the world’s people, including Americans,” the statement read. “We address the root causes of disease, build stronger health systems, and detect, prevent, and respond to health emergencies, including disease outbreaks, often in dangerous places where others cannot go.”
The organisation highlighted that the United States has been a key player in its history. The U.S. was a founding member of the WHO in 1948 and has since played a vital role in shaping the organisation’s policies and programmes through active participation in the World Health Assembly and the Executive Board, alongside 193 other member states.
“For over seven decades, WHO and the USA have saved countless lives and protected Americans and all people from health threats. Together, we ended smallpox, and together we have brought polio to the brink of eradication,” the statement continued. “American institutions have contributed to and benefited from membership of WHO.”
The WHO also pointed out that, with the collaboration of the U.S. and other member states, it has implemented significant reforms over the past seven years. These reforms aim to improve accountability, cost-effectiveness, and the organisation’s impact in countries worldwide.
The statement ended on a hopeful note: “We hope the United States will reconsider, and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe.”
What does WHO do?
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is a specialised health agency of the United Nations (UN) that plays a central role in addressing global health challenges.
The WHO itself on its X page recently highlighted the importance of its work, stating that for every $1 invested, the organisation delivers $35 in benefits, saving lives and strengthening health systems around the world.
Established in 1948, its mandate is to coordinate international efforts to combat health threats, provide technical assistance to countries, and promote public health worldwide.
The WHO is often at the forefront of the global response to major health crises, such as outbreaks of diseases like Mpox, Ebola, and polio.
It provides guidance and technical expertise to countries, particularly those with limited resources, to help manage and contain such outbreaks.
Additionally, the organisation is instrumental in distributing vaccines, medical supplies, and treatments to vulnerable populations.
Beyond emergency response, the WHO sets global health standards and guidelines. These range from recommendations on handling specific diseases to protocols for managing broader health issues such as mental health, nutrition, and chronic conditions like cancer. By doing so, the WHO helps ensure consistency and best practices in healthcare systems across the globe.
One of its key responsibilities is monitoring the effectiveness and safety of vaccines and treatments. This includes evaluating new medical technologies and ensuring they are accessible to populations in need. For instance, the WHO played a significant role in coordinating vaccine distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring equitable access to life-saving doses worldwide.
While the WHO provides essential advice and recommendations, it does not have the authority to enforce actions by member countries. Instead, it relies on collaboration and consensus among its 194 member states to implement health initiatives and respond to crises.
The WHO has been instrumental in Africa’s fight against major health challenges. From combating infectious diseases to improving maternal and child health, the organisation plays a key role in providing funding, technical expertise, and coordination. For many African countries, especially low-income ones, the WHO is not just a partner; it is a critical support system.
Without funding, the WHO’s ability to operate effectively in the region could be severely weakened.
WHO’s programmes that Africa benefits from
The WHO has supported several specific programs in Africa beyond HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and polio. One significant initiative is malaria control, where the WHO has coordinated efforts such as distribution of insecticide-treated bed nets, spraying indoor insecticides, and providing antimalarial drugs. U.S. funding has also facilitated the development of new malaria vaccines.
In maternal and child health, WHO’s programmes focus on improving prenatal and postnatal care, increasing access to skilled birth attendants, and enhancing vaccination coverage. U.S. contributions have been pivotal in supporting family planning and newborn health services through the Global Health Initiative.
WHO has played a crucial role in Ebola preparedness and response, especially during the 2014–2016 outbreaks in West Africa and subsequent epidemics. U.S. funding enabled rapid medical responses, including deploying treatment teams, establishing treatment centers, and providing vaccines.
In terms of health systems strengthening, the WHO has supported the development of healthcare infrastructure, training healthcare workers, and improving disease surveillance across Africa. U.S. funding has been essential in enhancing the capacity of health systems to manage public health emergencies.
WHO’s immunisation programmes have significantly increased vaccination coverage across the continent, with U.S. funds supporting campaigns to vaccinate against measles, rotavirus, hepatitis B, and meningitis. These programmes have been crucial in preventing outbreaks and saving lives.
Nutrition programs funded by the U.S. have helped address malnutrition, focusing on maternal and child nutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and promoting breastfeeding. These efforts have played a key role in reducing stunting and wasting.
Finally, WHO has provided mental health support by increasing awareness, reducing stigma, and improving access to services, especially in conflict-affected regions. U.S. funding has been critical in expanding mental health services in areas with high levels of poverty and displacement.
Implications for Africa
Trump’s decision also threatens the operations of the African Centre for Disease Control (CDC), which has largely relied on U.S. funding to build capacity and manage health crises on the Continent.
Dr Ifeanyi pointed out that “the African CDC had largely depended again on funding coming from the United States.”
He questioned why the 54 African countries have not been able to fully fund the centre themselves, stressing that the U.S. withdrawal should serve as a wake-up call for regional collaboration and self-reliance.
Without adequate funding, the African CDC could struggle to respond effectively to health emergencies. He warned that “nations of the world, continents, need to respond positively to this exit of the United States from funding the WHO,” emphasising that Africa, in particular, needs to strengthen its financial commitments to public health.
Dr Ifeanyi urged global leaders to re-engage the United States in reconsidering its withdrawal from WHO funding, adding that “the entire world will need to look again at this executive order and, probably through the United Nations, begin to re engage with the United States to rethink this particular policy.”
With diseases knowing no boundaries, Dr Ifeanyi called for renewed international cooperation to fill the funding gap and strengthen global health systems. “Nobody is spared because diseases do not know boundaries,” he said, urging immediate and collective action to mitigate the impact of this decision.
He also called for a proactive response from other nations and regional bodies, saying, “It’s important that nations of the world, continents, begin to respond positively to this exit of the United States.”
He emphasised the critical role of the WHO as “the backbone of healthcare provisioning, of the health system, or public health containment globally.”
Without doubt, the consequences for Africa could be profound, especially as the continent continues its efforts to combat major diseases such as polio, malaria, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
These initiatives have heavily relied on U.S. funding, which makes up a significant portion of the WHO’s budget. The withdrawal of this support would leave a major gap, potentially undoing years of progress and severely hindering the continent’s ability to address public health challenges.
For instance, Africa was declared free of wild poliovirus in 2020, marking a monumental achievement in global health. However, the fight against polio is not over, and continuous funding is necessary to ensure the virus does not resurface.
U.S. contributions have been pivotal in maintaining vaccination campaigns and surveillance systems. Without these funds, efforts to keep polio at bay could face serious setbacks, leaving Africa including Nigeria vulnerable to resurgence.
Similarly, WHO’s programmes for HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis treatment, which have saved countless lives, depend heavily on U.S. financial support. A withdrawal would disrupt access to life-saving medications and prevention programmes, leading to devastating consequences for millions of Africans living with these diseases.
The United States’ withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria’s health sector and global health security, experts warn. With the U.S. now set to disengage from the WHO, Nigeria stands to face potential setbacks in its healthcare initiatives, as the U.S. has been a key player in global health funding and policy shaping. The withdrawal could affect international health collaborations, disease control efforts, and access to critical resources and support.
This is the second time the U.S. has initiated the process of leaving the WHO under President Donald Trump, who had criticised the organisation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Although President Joe Biden reversed the decision during his tenure, the new executive order signals ongoing uncertainty that may disrupt global health efforts, with countries like Nigeria potentially bearing the brunt of these changes.
Dr Daniel Adakole, a public health expert, described the decision as a major setback for global health efforts, particularly for low- and middle-income countries like Nigeria. “The WHO is one of the largest facilitators of health programmes in Nigeria, from polio eradication to disease surveillance systems. The US withdrawal means reduced funding, which could destabilise critical interventions, especially in rural and underserved areas,” Adakole said.
Nigeria has been a major beneficiary of WHO-supported programmes, including its fight against polio, malaria, and HIV/AIDS. Dr Mercy Takpa, a peadiatrician, highlighted how U.S. funding had bolstered immunisation programmes. “The WHO, with U.S. support, played a pivotal role in helping Nigeria to eradicate wild polio in 2020. A reduction in funding might slow down ongoing efforts to maintain polio-free certification, address vaccine-preventable diseases, and achieve universal health coverage,” Takpa said.
According to her, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), heavily supported by U.S. contributions to WHO, is already facing funding uncertainties. “This could lead to a resurgence of diseases that we have worked hard to control,” she said.
Dr Mojisola Akanji, a virologist, said that the decision came at a time when global health systems were still grappling with the aftermath of COVID-19. “Without the US, WHO’s ability to coordinate international pandemic preparedness will be diminished. For Nigeria, this means delayed access to critical resources like vaccines, technical expertise, and early warning systems for emerging diseases,” Akanji said.
Stakeholders in maternal and child health have also expressed concern. Mrs Lydia Dimka, a retired nurse, and an advocate for maternal health, said that WHO’s programmes addressing maternal mortality and child immunisation were vital for Nigeria. “Every year, WHO supports initiatives that save thousands of lives. If funding is cut, maternal and child health indicators will worsen, especially in the North-East and North-West, where health access is already limited,” Dimka said.
Mr Danladi Kutara, an economist, called on African nations to strengthen regional health initiatives to mitigate the potential fallout. Kutara urged Nigeria and the African Union to seek alternative funding sources. “This is a wake-up call for African nations to take greater ownership of health programmes. While the WHO remains a key partner, we must work towards reducing dependence on foreign contributions,” he said.
Meanwhile, WHO expressed regret over the decision by the US to withdraw, highlighting the crucial role WHO plays in global health, including protecting Americans by addressing diseases and responding to health emergencies. The organisation said that as a founding member since 1948, the US had significantly contributed to and benefited from WHO efforts, such as eradicating smallpox and nearly eradicating polio. It expressed its commitment to ongoing reforms to enhance accountability and impact, urging the US to reconsider and maintain the partnership for the health and well-being of people worldwide.
Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organisation (WHO) on Tuesday, said the organisation regretted the decision of the United States to withdraw from it.
Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order withdrawing the U.S. from the World Health Organisation (WHO).
The statement read: “the World Health Organisation regrets the announcement that the United States of America intends to withdraw from the Organization.
“The organisation hopes that Washington will change its decision.
“We hope the United States will reconsider and we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue to maintain the partnership between the USA and WHO, for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions of people around the globe.’’
