In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

181 CHAPTER 13 FACTORSMILITATINGAGAINSTEFFECTIVEFOODANDDRUG REGULATION In our fight to safeguard public health in Nigeria, we encountered many challenges, but we were undeterred in our determination to rid Nigeria of the menace of counterfeit medicines and other substandard regulated products. The factors militating against effective food and dr ug regulation include corruption and conflict of interest, insecure and unfriendly environment, inadequate legislation, sophistication in copying technology, smuggling and various forms of evasion techniques, discriminatory regulations by exporting countries, ignorance and poor public awareness. Others include lack of political will, unfavourable government policies, political instability, inadequate co-operation among government agencies, chaotic drug distribution, scarcity of essential medication, irrational use of drugs and poor databases on health-related issues. Corruption and Conflict of Interest Principal among the factors that encourage drug faking worldwide is corruption and conflict of interest. Corruption is a driving force for poor regulation. In its guidelines for combating counterfeiting, the World Health Organisation (WHO) notes that the “efficiency of personnel is adversely affected by corruption and conflict of interest resulting in laws not being enforced and criminals not being arrested, prosecuted and convicted for crimes”.55 Due to the prevalence of corruption in Nigeria, most stakeholders appeared to be contributing directly or indirectly to the dumping of fake products in the country. Some NAFDAC staff were not spared of this cankerworm. They engaged in practices such as the collection of unreasonably large quantities of samples for analysis, deliberately delaying registration processes and devising many other schemes which undermined and frustrated the products’ registration process, in order to extort money from manufacturers and their agents. On the part of the importers, dumping was the order of the day, as long as they could pay their way through the regulatory authorities. Some local producers did not pay much attention to their Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) and the quality of their products. Distributors were 182 The War Against Counterfeit Medicine also involved in these corrupt practices, with some of them re-labelling drugs and other regulated products with the intention of extending their shelf life. Drug counterfeiters were prepared to pay anything to get their medicines registered or cleared at the ports. NAFDAC staff were constantly exposed to the temptations of bribery. Too many people tried to use my relationship with them to get me compromised in the process of taking tough decisions. Sometimes, it was difficult for me because most of the drug counterfeiters come from the south-eastern part of Nigeria, where I am from. But, I was able to remain unwavering in all of my regulatory responsibilities. In fact, after a few months of uncompromising enforcement of rules, people became used to the unbending nature of the new regime and therefore left us alone to do the work without fear or favour. For instance, in 2001, two companies had a dispute over a trade name that was to determine which of them would have the right to register a product with NAFDAC. A schoolmate at the university and with whose family I had a good relationship deceived one of the companies into parting with a substantial sum of money. During the Christmas holiday of the same year, he came to my home in the company of a man I did not know, but who turned out to be an official of one of the feuding companies. Unknown to me, this was a ploy by my university friend to demonstrate the strength of our relationship to his companion. Consequently, he extorted N2 million (US$17,391) from this company, purportedly as a bribe to make me take his side in their trade name dispute. The feuding parties attended a meeting to find ways of resolving the dispute by a panel formed by NAFDAC. After the panel, which I chaired, had examined the issues, we arrived at a decision that did not favour the company that had paid money to the ‘friend’ to win our support. They got angry after the meeting and openly expressed their disappointment and shock. Their behaviour puzzled me, and I warned them not to shout in my office. They actually thought that I had received their bribe and confidently expected the decision to be in their favour. I found out about this when they complained to my husband, that after sending money to me through a friend, I still did not decide the case in their favour. My husband told them that it was impossible for his wife to accept such money and advised them...

Share