Strengthening Tobacco Control Enforcement in Nigeria: A Policy and Regulatory Analysis Supporting an Expanded Mandate for NAFDAC

Strengthening Tobacco Control Enforcement in Nigeria: A Policy and Regulatory Analysis Supporting an Expanded Mandate for NAFDAC | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Strengthening Tobacco Control Enforcement in Nigeria: A Policy and Regulatory Analysis Supporting an Expanded Mandate for NAFDAC Saifudden Kamfut Sani, Rametu Momodu, Abbas Bashir Umar, Anees Ya’u Ashiru, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8472245/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 25 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Public Health → Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Nigeria has adopted comprehensive tobacco control legislation, including the National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) 2015 and Tobacco Control Regulations 2019, yet continues to experience high tobacco-related morbidity and a substantial illicit cigarette market. Institutional fragmentation and weak enforcement capacity, compounded by evolving obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, undermine effective implementation. Methods A desk-based qualitative policy and regulatory analysis was conducted using three complementary approaches: (1) comparative legal mapping of Nigeria's tobacco control framework against core WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations; (2) thematic synthesis of WHO guidance, treaty decisions, and peer-reviewed evidence on institutional arrangements for tobacco regulation; and (3) an implementation-readiness assessment of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) across key capacity domains. Results The analysis identified five interrelated structural gaps: fragmented institutional authority; absence of a central product regulator; weak supply-chain and illicit trade control; inadequate protection from tobacco industry interference; and a regulatory vacuum for emerging nicotine products. Nigeria's current ministry-led configuration constrains compliance with WHO FCTC Articles 9, 10, 11, and 15, while NAFDAC already possesses significant laboratory, port-of-entry, and digital traceability capacity developed through pharmaceutical regulation. Conclusion Reconfiguring Nigeria's tobacco control architecture to assign NAFDAC a central technical regulatory mandate, while retaining health policy stewardship within the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH), offers a legally feasible and context-appropriate pathway to strengthen enforcement, meet evolving treaty expectations, and reduce tobacco-related harms. Tobacco control NAFDAC WHO FCTC Illicit trade Regulatory capacity Nigeria Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 INTRODUCTION Tobacco use remains a leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, responsible for more than eight million deaths annually, with a growing share of the burden now concentrated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [ 1 – 3 ]. In these settings, formal adoption of comprehensive tobacco control laws often coexists with limited institutional capacity, inadequate enforcement resources, and sustained tobacco industry interference [ 4 ]. Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, ratified the WHO FCTC in 2005 and subsequently enacted the National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) in 2015 and the Tobacco Control Regulations in 2019, thereby establishing a formal legal framework for smoke-free environments, tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) restrictions, packaging and labelling requirements, and licensing provisions. On paper, this framework aligns closely with core WHO FCTC obligations [ 5 ]. In practice, however, persistent gaps between legislative provisions and enforcement outcomes remain evident: illicit tobacco trade is widespread, emerging nicotine products are proliferating with limited oversight, and supply-chain controls remain underdeveloped [ 6 , 7 ]. A central structural feature of Nigeria's tobacco control architecture is the fragmentation of regulatory and enforcement authority across multiple agencies. The Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) is designated as the Competent Authority under the NTCA, but operational enforcement responsibilities are distributed among law enforcement bodies, environmental health officers, and several supporting institutions [ 5 ]. Ministries are primarily designed for policy formulation and coordination rather than for technical product regulation, laboratory-based evaluation, or nationwide market surveillance, which constrains the country's ability to fulfil WHO FCTC obligations related to product contents, ingredient disclosures, and illicit trade control [ 8 ]. Recent decisions adopted at the Eleventh Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the WHO FCTC and the Fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP4) to the Illicit Trade Protocol have further elevated expectations around operational capacity, including digital track-and-trace systems and oversight of emerging nicotine products. Within this evolving landscape, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) represents a potentially underutilized technical regulator, given its nationwide enforcement presence, laboratory infrastructure, port-of-entry inspection capacity, and experience with product registration and pharmaceutical traceability [ 9 ]. This paper addresses a critical gap in the tobacco control literature for LMICs by focusing on institutional design and regulatory capacity rather than solely on legislative content. Specifically, the study pursues three interrelated objectives: To map Nigeria's current tobacco control governance architecture against core WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations. To assess the functional and operational readiness of NAFDAC to assume an expanded mandate for tobacco and nicotine product regulation. To develop a context-specific, phased reform pathway that aligns Nigeria's enforcement system with global regulatory best practices while accounting for political and institutional constraints. CONCEPTUAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK This analysis is grounded in an Institutional Governance and Regulatory Capacity framework, which posits that effective policy implementation depends not only on the content of the law but also on the design and operational capacity of the institutions tasked with enforcement[10,11]. Drawing on established concepts in public health governance and regulatory science, the framework emphasizes four interlinked dimensions: legal authority, technical competence, enforcement reach, and insulation from industry interference. Three key analytical pillars underpin this framework. First, institutional fragmentation occurs when regulatory and enforcement responsibilities are dispersed across multiple agencies with overlapping or ambiguous mandates, often resulting in inconsistent enforcement, weak accountability, and duplication of effort [11,12]. Second, regulatory authority refers to the statutory power vested in an agency to perform functions such as product registration, market authorization, quality control, and facility inspections. In tobacco control, the absence of a central authority can allow products to enter the market without systematic oversight. Third, enforcement capacity encompasses the technical and physical resources required to compel compliance, including laboratories, information systems, field offices, port presence, and specialised personnel with investigative and prosecutorial skills. The framework suggests that policy effectiveness is maximized when enforcement is centralized or clearly coordinated under a technically competent agency that possesses both the statutory authority to regulate products and the operational capacity for nationwide surveillance and sanctioning[10]. Nigeria's current configuration, in which the FMoH serves as Competent Authority while NAFDAC retains extensive technical capacity but limited tobacco-specific mandate, represents a classic misalignment between legal authority and operational capability. This fragmented institutional design creates significant gaps that are easily exploited by industry interference, ultimately compromising the integrity of national health policies. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed shift from Nigeria’s current fragmented, ministry-centric tobacco control enforcement structure to a centralized, NAFDAC-centered technical regulatory model, highlighting the alignment of legal authority, technical capacity, and enforcement reach Figure 1: From fragmented enforcement to a NAFDAC-centered regulatory model for tobacco control in Nigeria. METHODS Study design This study is a desk-based qualitative policy and regulatory analysis that treats laws, regulations, institutional mandates, and treaty obligations as the primary units of analysis rather than individual-level health outcomes. It combines comparative legal mapping, thematic policy synthesis, and an implementation-readiness assessment to examine whether Nigeria's current governance architecture can realistically deliver on WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations. Data sources and selection Data were drawn exclusively from secondary sources selected to capture legal, institutional, and normative dimensions of tobacco control. Four main categories of documents were included: 1. Domestic legal and policy instruments: · National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) 2015 · National Tobacco Control Regulations 2019 · NAFDAC Act (Cap N1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004) · Selected national tobacco control policy and enforcement plans where publicly available. 2. International treaties and normative guidance: · WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and associated guidelines. · Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products. · Official decisions and outcome documents from COP11 (FCTC) and MOP4 (Illicit Trade Protocol). 3. Institutional and technical documentation: · WHO implementation reports and technical guidance on tobacco product regulation, supply-chain control, and Article 5.3. · Publicly available documents describing NAFDAC's statutory mandate, organisational structure, laboratory capacity, port-of-entry inspection functions, and digital traceability initiatives (e.g., Mobile Authentication Service and GS1-based pharmaceutical serialisation). 4. Comparative regulatory sources: · Peer-reviewed literature and official regulatory documentation describing tobacco product regulation models in the United States (FDA), Brazil (ANVISA), Kenya, and South Africa. Documents were identified through structured searches of WHO and Nigerian government websites. They targeted searches of PubMed and Google Scholar using combinations of terms such as “Nigeria tobacco control”, “FCTC implementation Nigeria”, “NAFDAC enforcement”, “tobacco track-and-trace”, and “illicit tobacco trade Nigeria”, complemented by snowball sampling from reference lists, consistent with established approaches to legal mapping and health policy implementation reviews [13,14]. Analytical approach The analysis proceeded in three stages. 1. Comparative legal mapping: Provisions related to product regulation, ingredient disclosures, packaging and labelling, and illicit trade were extracted from Nigerian laws and regulations and mapped against WHO FCTC Articles 9, 10, 11, and 15 and relevant Illicit Trade Protocol provisions. The mapping focused on the allocation of regulatory authority, product oversight responsibilities, and enforcement powers across institutions. 2. Thematic policy synthesis: An iterative thematic synthesis of WHO guidance, treaty decisions, and peer-reviewed literature identified recurring themes affecting enforcement effectiveness, including institutional fragmentation, supply-chain control, protection from tobacco industry interference, and regulation of emerging nicotine products. Nigerian findings were interpreted in light of these themes to identify structural drivers of implementation gaps. 3. Implementation-readiness assessment: An implementation-readiness assessment of NAFDAC was undertaken using a structured matrix of capacity domains: nationwide enforcement presence, port-of-entry inspection capability, laboratory and analytical infrastructure, product registration and market surveillance experience, and digital traceability systems. Each domain was qualitatively rated (limited, moderate, or advanced) based on documentary evidence, with particular attention to parallels between pharmaceutical regulation and potential tobacco control functions. No primary data collection, formal scoring validation, or performance metrics were used. This matrix drew on established readiness and capacity assessment approaches used in health systems, which specify multi-domain frameworks to appraise organizational preparedness for new regulatory functions[15,16] Methodological limitations This policy analysis is limited by its exclusive reliance on secondary sources and the absence of primary enforcement data or stakeholder interviews. As a result, it cannot directly quantify enforcement performance or capture informal institutional dynamics such as intra-governmental bargaining and tobacco industry strategies. The implementation-readiness assessment of NAFDAC is based on documented mandates and programs, particularly in pharmaceutical regulation, and does not include new data on human resources, budgetary allocation, or internal organisational culture specific to tobacco control. The findings should therefore be interpreted as a structured institutional and regulatory argument that requires future empirical validation through enforcement metrics, cost-effectiveness analyses, and political economy studies. RESULTS Overview of Nigeria's tobacco control governance Nigeria's tobacco control framework is built primarily on the NTCA 2015 and Tobacco Control Regulations 2019, which collectively address smoke-free environments, TAPS restrictions, packaging and labelling, and licensing of tobacco-related activities. The NTCA serves as the principal mechanism for domestic implementation of WHO FCTC obligations, while the Regulations operationalise key provisions by specifying licensing procedures, health warning requirements, and enforcement protocols [ 6 ]. Legal Framework The foundation of Nigeria's tobacco control effort rests on two primary instruments: the National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) of 2015 and the National Tobacco Control Regulations of 2019 [ 17 ]. The 2015 Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that covers smoke-free environments, the prohibition of tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS), and strict requirements for health warnings, licensing, and product disclosure [ 5 ]. Crucially, the Act serves as the legal mechanism to give effect to Nigeria's international obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). To ensure this Act is functional, the 2019 Regulations operationalise the law by detailing the specific procedures for licensing, the technicalities of health warnings, and the protocols for enforcement [ 8 ]. Institutional Architecture Enforcement responsibility in Nigeria is currently diffused across a complex, multi-agency structure. The Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) is designated as the Competent Authority, responsible for overall policy and licensing decisions, including packaging and labelling approvals [ 5 ]. Policy advice is provided by the National Tobacco Control Committee (NTCC), while operational enforcement is delegated to primary enforcement agencies such as the Police, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and Environmental Health Officers, supported by agencies like the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) [ 8 ]. Although this multi-agency design promotes multi-sectoral involvement, it creates complex accountability structures and coordination challenges. FINDINGS: STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL GAPS IN ENFORCEMENT The analysis identified five interrelated gaps that constrain effective implementation. 1. Fragmented institutional authority Enforcement responsibilities are distributed across numerous agencies with overlapping or ambiguous mandates, and no single authority holds a comprehensive remit from production to retail. This fragmentation leads to reactive, inconsistent enforcement across states and weak accountability, as FMoH relies on agencies that often lack specialised training in tobacco law implementation[ 5 , 18 ]. 2. Absence of a central product regulator Under the NTCA, NAFDAC is explicitly excluded from key tobacco product oversight functions, including product registration and market authorisation. In practice, this means new products and manufacturers can enter the market without systematic pre-market evaluation, and no single authority is empowered to receive and assess ingredient disclosures or mandate facility inspections, limiting Nigeria's ability to meet FCTC Articles 9 and 10. 3. Weak supply-chain and illicit trade control Nigeria has not yet implemented a national track-and-trace system required under the Illicit Trade Protocol, and licensing regimes for distributors and retailers remain inconsistent. These weaknesses contribute to a substantial illicit cigarette market; estimates suggest that around a quarter of cigarettes consumed in Nigeria in 2016 were illicit, with continued losses in tax revenue and undermining of health policy goals [ 7 ]. 4. Inadequate protection from industry interference (Article 5.3) Implementation of WHO FCTC Article 5.3 remains limited, with unregulated interactions between government actors and the tobacco industry and widespread use of industry-sponsored corporate social responsibility activities. Transparency rules governing such interactions are weak, and conflict-of-interest mechanisms for policymakers are underdeveloped, increasing the risk that institutional fragmentation will be exploited to delay or dilute enforcement. 5. Regulatory vacuum for emerging nicotine products Emerging nicotine products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches are expanding rapidly in Nigerian urban markets but are not clearly covered by existing regulations. These products often enter the market without chemical or device safety oversight and are marketed online and to youth with minimal restriction, while the current architecture lacks the specialised technical capacity to test e-liquids, devices, or emissions [ 12 , 19 ]. ALIGNMENT WITH WHO FCTC OBLIGATIONS Table 1 summarizes the alignment between key WHO FCTC obligations and Nigeria's current institutional capacities, highlighting areas where NAFDAC's existing assets could be leveraged. Table 1 Alignment between WHO FCTC obligations and Nigeria's institutional capacities FCTC obligation (Article) Functional requirement Current institutional assignment Evidence of gap Existing NAFDAC assets Article 9 – Regulation of contents Routine chemical testing; product standards; pre-market evaluation FMoH (policy); no designated technical regulator [ 5 ] No national programme for testing tobacco contents; absence of pre-market registration [ 6 ] Accredited laboratories; experience with pharmaceutical analysis Article 10 – Regulation of disclosures Receipt and evaluation of ingredient submissions; secure data systems FMoH (policy); no evaluation mechanism [ 18 ] No central authority mandated to assess disclosure requirements [ 20 ] Systems for regulated product registration and documentation Article 11 – Packaging and labelling Approval of health warnings; border and retail monitoring FMoH (policy); multiple agencies for enforcement[ 5 ] Limited systematic monitoring of imported and domestically sold products[ 21 ] Port inspection mandate; experience enforcing labelling Article 15 – Illicit trade & supply-chain control Licensing, inspections, track-and-trace, data exchange Multiple agencies (Customs, Police, FMoH)[ 5 ] No national digital track-and-trace system; weak licensing[ 4 ] Mobile Authentication Service; GS1-compliant serialization Emerging nicotine products Device and liquid testing; marketing restrictions No designated authority[ 19 ] Regulatory vacuum and rapid market growth[ 5 ] Laboratory capacity for device and chemical analysis INTERNATIONAL REGULATORY MODELS AND LESSONS FOR NIGERIA A review of selected international experiences underscores the importance of centralizing technical tobacco regulation in specialized agencies. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exercises comprehensive authority over tobacco products under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, including pre-market authorization, product standards, and enforcement actions, supported by substantial laboratory and field capacity [ 22 , 23 ]. In Brazil, the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) plays an analogous role, combining product registration, testing, and market enforcement in a large middle-income setting [ 24 , 25 ]. Hybrid models in South Africa and Kenya illustrate alternatives in which health ministries retain policy leadership but share or delegate technical functions to specialised agencies, such as revenue authorities or medicines regulators[ 26 ] [ 27 ]. These experiences suggest that, where ministries lack technical infrastructure, effective implementation depends on formalised collaboration with agencies that possess laboratory capacity, regulatory expertise, and enforcement reach. Table 2 summarizes selected international tobacco regulatory models and highlights their institutional configurations, lead technical agencies, and relevance to Nigeria’s tobacco control context. Table 2 Selected international tobacco regulatory models and relevance for Nigeria Country Institutional model Lead technical agency Key regulatory instruments Relevance for Nigeria United States Centralised technical regulator FDA – Center for Tobacco Products Pre-market authorisation; product standards; enforcement[ 22 , 28 ] Demonstrates feasibility of centralising technical tobacco regulation within a health products agency Brazil Centralised technical regulator ANVISA Product registration; laboratory testing; marketing restrictions[ 24 ] Offers a middle-income analogue for a NAFDAC-led model South Africa Hybrid Department of Health + SARS Health regulations + tax and anti-illicit trade measures[ 26 ] Highlights need for structured collaboration between health and revenue authorities Kenya Hybrid Tobacco Control Board + Pharmacy and Poisons Board Health policy + technical oversight of regulated products[ 27 ] Suggests a model for formal cooperation between FMoH and a technical agency Nigeria Fragmented FMoH as Competent Authority; multiple enforcement agencies Policy leadership with diffuse enforcement mandates[ 5 , 18 ] Indicates limitations of ministry-centric configuration and value of consolidating functions in NAFDAC NAFDAC'S IMPLEMENTATION READINESS Table 3 presents an implementation-readiness matrix assessing NAFDAC’s current capacity across key regulatory domains relevant to tobacco and nicotine product control. The implementation-readiness assessment indicates that NAFDAC holds several comparative advantages that could be leveraged for tobacco control, albeit with important resource and governance conditions Table 3 Implementation-readiness matrix for NAFDAC Capacity domain Current status Evidence/examples Additional requirements for tobacco control Laboratory and analytical capacity Advanced Accredited laboratories; chemical analysis for pharmaceuticals[ 5 , 18 ] Development of tobacco-specific methods (including ENDS); staff training; quality assurance aligned with WHO guidance Port-of-entry and field presence Moderate to advanced Port inspections; zonal offices; previous product seizures[ 29 ] Dedicated tobacco inspection teams; integration with Customs risk-profiling and data systems Nationwide enforcement reach Moderate Presence in multiple states; experience with product registration enforcement [ 8 ] Expansion of field staff and inspection coverage to retail outlets and informal markets Digital traceability Emerging Mobile Authentication Service; GS1 serialisation for selected medicines [ 18 , 30 ] Adaptation of traceability systems to tobacco products; legal backing for mandatory serialization Legal enforcement powers Advanced Statutory authority to register, seize, and sanction across regulated product categories[ 31 ] Explicit extension of mandate to tobacco and nicotine products via NTCA amendment and subsidiary regulations Figure 2 provides a visual comparison of implementation-readiness across technical and enforcement domains, demonstrating NAFDAC’s stronger operational capacity relative to the Federal Ministry of Health. DISCUSSION Institutional design and enforcement effectiveness The findings suggest that Nigeria's principal tobacco control constraint lies in institutional design rather than legislative absence, as robust statutory provisions coexist with limited capacity to perform technically demanding functions such as product regulation and supply-chain control [ 31 , 32 ]. Designating the FMoH as Competent Authority has created a structural mismatch, since ministries are oriented toward policy stewardship rather than laboratory-based evaluation and nationwide enforcement, and these gaps are unlikely to be resolved through coordination mechanisms alone. Concentrating technical regulatory functions in a specialised agency such as NAFDAC could address several of these gaps by aligning statutory authority with operational capacity, reducing transaction costs in enforcement, and limiting opportunities for industry to exploit institutional fragmentation [ 31 ]. At the same time, health policy leadership and strategic oversight would remain within FMoH, preserving its role in setting normative direction, taxation policy, and broader health system integration. Implications of evolving treaty obligations COP11 and MOP4 have shifted expectations from formal legal compliance to demonstrable operational capacity, particularly in relation to digital track-and-trace systems and oversight of emerging nicotine products[ 12 ]International experience shows that well-designed tobacco track-and-trace systems can reduce illicit trade, improve tax collection, and contribute to lower smoking prevalence [ 33 ]. The Illicit Trade Protocol requires a technically competent authority to manage licensing, inspections, and supply-chain monitoring, functions that extend beyond the remit of a policy-focused ministry and draw directly on NAFDAC's existing strengths in traceability for pharmaceuticals and other regulated products [ 33 , 34 ]. Failure to adapt institutional arrangements risks leaving Nigeria increasingly misaligned with global standards and foregoing potential health and fiscal benefits from better control of illicit trade and new nicotine products[ 35 ]. Conversely, a carefully sequenced expansion of NAFDAC's mandate could position Nigeria as a regional leader in tobacco regulation. Political feasibility and implementation risks Expanding NAFDAC's tobacco mandate is politically sensitive and faces several risks. Institutional overburdening is a concern, as NAFDAC already oversees a broad portfolio of food, drugs, and chemicals, and additional responsibilities may dilute core functions without commensurate resources. Political resistance and "turf wars" may arise from agencies that perceive a loss of authority, including the FMoH and enforcement bodies currently involved in tobacco control [ 26 ]. Furthermore, capital and recurrent costs associated with laboratory upgrades, staff training, and traceability infrastructure are likely to be substantial. Mitigation strategies include establishing a ring-fenced Tobacco Control Directorate within NAFDAC with dedicated resources, formalising inter-agency coordination through a National Tobacco Enforcement Task Force, and funding implementation through the Tobacco Control Fund and new digital licensing revenues. Strong Article 5.3 safeguards, including transparency requirements for all industry interactions and conflict-of-interest vetting, are also essential to minimise the risk of industry capture [ 4 ]. Persistent tobacco industry interference, often facilitated by weak implementation of WHO FCTC Article 5.3 and institutional fragmentation, has been shown to delay or dilute tobacco control policies in many LMICs[ 36 ]. Implications for other LMICs Many LMICs have enacted comprehensive tobacco control laws while retaining fragmented or ministry-centric enforcement arrangements [ 4 ]. The Nigerian case underscores the value of systematically assessing whether a technically competent authority exists or can be developed, and of aligning legal mandates, resource allocation, and accountability mechanisms with WHO FCTC obligations. While institutional configurations will vary, the core principle of matching regulatory functions with specialized capacity is widely transferable. RECOMMENDED REFORM PATHWAY Proposed reform pathway and implementation timeline A phased reform pathway can help manage political and implementation risks while moving towards a more coherent regulatory architecture. Table 4 outlines a phased reform pathway and implementation timeline for expanding NAFDAC’s technical regulatory mandate for tobacco and nicotine products in Nigeria. Table 4 Proposed reform pathway and implementation timeline Phase Timeframe Action required Lead actor Expected outcome Phase 1 0–6 months Designate NAFDAC as co-Competent Authority for tobacco and nicotine products under existing NTCA provisions FMoH Immediate extension of operational authority for product regulation and enforcement Phase 2 6–18 months Develop and roll out regulations for track-and-trace, product registration, and testing protocols for combustible and emerging products NAFDAC Improved supply-chain control and product oversight Phase 3 18–36 months Amend NTCA to statutorily recognise NAFDAC as primary technical regulator for tobacco and nicotine products National Assembly Consolidated and durable central technical mandate Phase 4 Ongoing Establish ring-fenced NAFDAC Tobacco Control Directorate; secure sustainable funding; implement Article 5.3 safeguards Ministry of Finance, FMoH, NAFDAC Long-term institutional sustainability and protection from industry interference Implementation Considerations Implementation should follow a Phased Rollout, prioritizing the national Track-and-Trace System and emerging nicotine products by leveraging NAFDAC's existing traceability expertise. Coordination should be formalised through a National Tobacco Enforcement Task Force, chaired by NAFDAC and including Customs, NDLEA, and the Police. For sustainability, the NAFDAC Tobacco Control Directorate must be funded through the Tobacco Control Fund and new digital licensing revenues. Finally, Strict Safeguards are essential; mandatory transparency for all industry interactions and conflict-of-interest vetting for policymakers are required to protect policy integrity from tobacco industry interference. For Nigeria, aligning technical regulation with NAFDAC represents the most feasible strategy to close the gap between international commitments and national public health outcomes. If only a single reform is politically feasible in the short term, the most impactful step is likely to be the formal designation of NAFDAC as co-Competent Authority for tobacco and nicotine products, coupled with rapid development of technical regulations for product registration and track-and-trace. CONCLUSION Nigeria stands at a crossroads where strong tobacco control legislation is undermined by fragmented enforcement arrangements and unclear division of regulatory responsibilities. The analysis indicates that expanding NAFDAC's mandate to serve as the central technical regulator for tobacco and nicotine products represents a legally feasible and operationally coherent strategy to close existing enforcement gaps. By aligning institutional design with WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations, Nigeria can strengthen its response to illicit trade, better regulate emerging nicotine products, and enhance protection against tobacco industry interference, with potential benefits for both public health and fiscal policy. LIMITATIONS This study is based solely on secondary sources and does not incorporate new empirical data on enforcement performance, human resources, or budgetary allocations, nor does it capture the full complexity of political dynamics surrounding institutional reform. The implementation-readiness assessment of NAFDAC is qualitative and illustrative rather than a formal capacity audit, and recommended reforms may encounter unforeseen political or economic constraints. Nevertheless, the findings provide a structured institutional and regulatory analysis that can inform policy debate, guide administrative reform, and support Nigeria's efforts to align its tobacco control architecture with evolving WHO FCTC implementation expectations. Abbreviations ANVISA - Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (National Health Surveillance Agency, Brazil) COP - Conference of the Parties COP11 - Eleventh Session of the Conference of the Parties (WHO FCTC) ENDS - Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems FCCPC - Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission FCTC - Framework Convention on Tobacco Control FDA - Food and Drug Administration (United States) FMoH - Federal Ministry of Health GS1 - Global Standards One (international supply chain standards organization) LMIC - Low- and Middle-Income Country LMICs - Low- and Middle-Income Countries MAS - Mobile Authentication Service MOP - Meeting of the Parties MOP4 - Fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties (Illicit Trade Protocol) NAFDAC - National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control NCS - Nigeria Customs Service NDLEA - National Drug Law Enforcement Agency NSCDC - Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps NTCA - National Tobacco Control Act NTCC - National Tobacco Control Committee SARS - South African Revenue Service SON - Standards Organisation of Nigeria TAPS - Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship WHO - World Health Organization WHO FCTC - World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Consent for publication Not Applicable Availability of data and materials The datasets obtained during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests Two authors are employees of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of NAFDAC. NAFDAC had no role in the study design, data analysis, interpretation of findings, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Funding This study didn’t receive any funding Authors' contributions Conceptualization: S.K.S ; Methodology: S.K.S., A.B.U.; Investigation: R.M., S.K.S.; Formal Analysis: S.K.S., A.B.U.,R.M.,A.Y.A.,I.G.I; Writing – Original Draft: S.K.S., A.B.U.,R.M.,A.Y.A.,I.G.I.; Writing – Review & Editing: S.K.S., A.B.U.,R.M.,A.Y.A.,I.G.I.; Supervision: R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the final manuscript. References Sakthisankaran SM, Sakthipriya D, Swamivelmanickam M. Health Risks Associated with Tobacco Consumption in Humans: An Overview. Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 22]; Available from: https://consensus.app/papers/health-risks-associated-with-tobacco-consumption-in-sakthisankaran-sakthipriya/09cfb23dd0185662859b2f56a2bfa0fd/ World Health Organization. Tobacco [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco WHO. Preventing noncommunicable diseases [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.who.int/multi-media/details/tobacco-kills-8-million-people-every-year Bandara S, Phiri MM, Magati P, Drope J, Adams A, Hunt M, et al. Contextual factors impacting WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control implementation in Africa—a scoping review. Health Promot Int. 2024 Dec 1;39(6):daae155. Egbe CO, Bialous SA, Glantz S. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Implementation in Nigeria: Lessons for Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 July 17;21(8):1122–30. Needs assessment mission: a smoke-free Nigeria under the National Tobacco Control Act [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/newsroom/news/item/31-10-2017-needs-assessment-mission-a-smoke-free-nigeria-under-the-national-tobacco-control-act Tobacco Control Data Initiative Nigeria. Illicit Trade | TCDI Nigeria [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://nigeria.tobaccocontroldata.org/en/home/illicit-trade/ Oladepo O, Oluwasanu M, Abiona O. Analysis of tobacco control policies in Nigeria: historical development and application of multi-sectoral action. BMC Public Health. 2018 Aug 15;18(1):959. World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Global tobacco control conference concludes with decisions on environment, liability [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 22]. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/newsroom/news/item/22-11-2025-global-tobacco-control-conference-concludes-with-decisions-on-environment-liability Hughes A, Gleeson D, Legge D, Lin V. Governance and policy capacity in health development and implementation in Australia. Policy Soc. 2015 Sept 1;34(3–4):229–45. Saikat S, Seifeldin R, Zhang Y, Nweje M, Shivji S, Schmets G, et al. Governance for public health across health and allied sectors: a scoping review. bmjph [Internet]. 2025 Nov 4 [cited 2025 Dec 28];3(2). Available from: https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/3/2/e003542 World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2023 [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023[cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://health.govmu.org/health/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WHO-Report-on-the-Global-Tobacco-Epidemic-2023.pdf World Health Organization. IHR benchmark: legal instruments [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://ihrbenchmark.who.int/document/1-legal-instruments Erasmus E, Orgill M, Schneider H, Gilson L. Mapping the existing body of health policy implementation research in lower income settings: what is covered and what are the gaps? Health Policy Plan. 2014 Oct 1;29(suppl_3):iii35–50. Brookings Institution. Figure of the week: Findings from the Brookings Health Governance Capacity report [Internet]. Brookings. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/figure-of-the-week-findings-from-the-brookings-health-governance-capacity-report/ Mauco KL, Scott RE, Mars M. Validation of an e-health readiness assessment framework for developing countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 June 23;20:575. Federal Ministry of Health Nigeria. National Tobacco Control enforcement plan [Internet]. Abuja: FMoH; 2024 . [cited 2025 Dec 22]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Final-NTC-Enforcement-Plan-18-aug-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com Udokanma EE, Ogamba I, Ilo C. A health policy analysis of the implementation of the National Tobacco Control Act in Nigeria. Health Policy Plan. 2021 May 1;36(4):484–92. Isip U, Calvert J. Analyzing big tobacco’s global youth marketing strategies and factors influencing smoking initiation by Nigeria youths using the theory of triadic influence. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2025 Dec 28];20. Available from: https://consensus.app/papers/analyzing-big-tobacco-%E2%80%99-s-global-youth-marketing-isip-calvert/1951b4ba80e850d59592f049d9e20425/ Hiilamo H, Crosbie E, Glantz SA. The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: the role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion. Tobacco Control. 2014 Jan 1;23(1):e2–e2. Owopetu O, Oladeinde O, Esan JO, Iacobelli M, Agaku I, Adebiyi A. Cigarette health warning label compliance in Nigeria: A multi-city observational study. Tobacco Prevention & Cessation [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Dec 28];9. Available from: https://consensus.app/papers/cigarette-health-warning-label-compliance-in-nigeria-a-owopetu-oladeinde/a2b5c7de18b15a94aa631535e16857c0/ Kessler RC, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, Benjet C, Bromet EJ, Cardoso G, et al. Trauma and PTSD in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2017;8(sup5):1353383. US Food and Drug Administration. About the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/about-center-tobacco-products-ctp Portes LH, Machado CV, Turci SRB, Figueiredo VC, Cavalcante TM, Silva VL da CE. Tobacco Control Policies in Brazil: a 30-year assessment. Cien Saude Colet. 2018 June;23(6):1837–48. Pan American Health Organization.Tobacco Use. Tobacco use [Internet]. Washington (DC): PAHO; [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.paho.org/en/enlace/tobacco-use Zatoński M, Bertscher A, Gallagher AWA, Matthes BK. Unpacking complexities surrounding tobacco control policy formulation and tobacco industry interference in South Africa: a qualitative study. Health Policy Plan. 2025 May 9;40(5):531–47. World Health Organization. Kenya national tobacco control strategic plan 2019–2023 [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; [cited 2025 Dec 28]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/fctcapps/sites/default/files/2023-12/390_Kenya%20National%20TC%20Strategic%20Plan%202019_2023.pdf Zeller M. FDA regulation of tobacco products [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.fdli.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/9-945-Zeller.pdf Owopetu OF, Oladeinde O, Esan JO, Iacobelli M, Agaku I, Adebiyi AO. Cigarette health warning label compliance in Nigeria: A multi-city observational study. Tob Prev Cessation. 2023 May 18;9(May):1–7. National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. Mobile Authentication Service (MAS) – NAFDAC [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://nafdac.gov.ng/our-services/pharmacovigilance-post-market-surveillance/mobile-authentication-service-mas/ Egbe CO, Bialous SA, Glantz S. Role of stakeholders in Nigeria’s tobacco control journey after the FCTC: lessons for tobacco control advocacy in low-income and middle-income countries. Tobacco Control. 2019 July 1;28(4):386–93. Tauras JA. Tobacco control in low-income and middle-income countries: findings from WHO FCTC investment cases. Tob Control. 2024 May;33(Suppl 1):s1–2. Ross H, Blecher E. Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products Need Not Hinder Tobacco Tax Policy Reforms and Increases. Dutta S, editor. Confronting illicit tobacco trade: a global review of country experiences . Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2019. Technical Report of the World Bank Group Global Tobacco Control Program. Dutta S, editor. Confronting illicit tobacco trade: a global review of country experiences . Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2019. Technical Report of the World Bank Group Global Tobacco Control Program. Lee Y, Kim S, Kim MK, Kawachi I, Oh J. Association between Tobacco Industry Interference Index (TIII) and MPOWER measures and adult daily smoking prevalence rate in 30 countries. Global Health. 2024 Jan 3;20:6. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 25 Apr, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Public Health → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 23 Mar, 2026 Reviews received at journal 03 Mar, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 23 Feb, 2026 Reviews received at journal 23 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Feb, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Feb, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Feb, 2026 Editor invited by journal 01 Jan, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 31 Dec, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 31 Dec, 2025 First submitted to journal 29 Dec, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8472245","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":593337572,"identity":"02b95df2-ebb5-4e2e-9d4b-fa898354ca0a","order_by":0,"name":"Saifudden Kamfut Sani","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Saifudden","middleName":"Kamfut","lastName":"Sani","suffix":""},{"id":593337574,"identity":"bbb471de-7693-4259-8b32-5de72ec1ccdf","order_by":1,"name":"Rametu Momodu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rametu","middleName":"","lastName":"Momodu","suffix":""},{"id":593337577,"identity":"dc1a2fee-5295-47d9-992e-b81aa4748714","order_by":2,"name":"Abbas Bashir Umar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ahmadu Bello University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Abbas","middleName":"Bashir","lastName":"Umar","suffix":""},{"id":593337579,"identity":"b1708925-6f64-4cd4-9cfa-46a2103c42a2","order_by":3,"name":"Anees Ya’u Ashiru","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ahmadu Bello University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Anees","middleName":"Ya’u","lastName":"Ashiru","suffix":""},{"id":593337580,"identity":"83cff859-ee85-4a98-ac47-dac5e65fa0e1","order_by":4,"name":"Imran Gambo Ibrahim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Merit pharmaceuticals limited","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Imran","middleName":"Gambo","lastName":"Ibrahim","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-12-29 10:53:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8472245/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8472245/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-27589-6","type":"published","date":"2026-04-25T15:59:54+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":102977046,"identity":"8135096b-6889-42da-9c84-912a2a468538","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 07:56:38","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":975856,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFrom fragmented enforcement to a NAFDAC-centered regulatory model for tobacco control in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8472245/v1/9301b30b507edfe4ae086df8.png"},{"id":102977020,"identity":"ffb5a4af-3859-4694-91e7-2b0e84451fbf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 07:56:28","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":133959,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparative implementation-readiness of NAFDAC and the Federal Ministry of Health for tobacco and nicotine product regulation in Nigeria\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8472245/v1/395fa155f3324b789fd1e785.png"},{"id":107929114,"identity":"921e178f-d946-4e26-a8bf-618080857402","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-27 16:13:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1456344,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8472245/v1/49aa452e-91fe-41e9-8281-fe2a473a0dbf.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Strengthening Tobacco Control Enforcement in Nigeria: A Policy and Regulatory Analysis Supporting an Expanded Mandate for NAFDAC","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eTobacco use remains a leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, responsible for more than eight million deaths annually, with a growing share of the burden now concentrated in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. In these settings, formal adoption of comprehensive tobacco control laws often coexists with limited institutional capacity, inadequate enforcement resources, and sustained tobacco industry interference [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Nigeria, Africa's most populous country, ratified the WHO FCTC in 2005 and subsequently enacted the National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) in 2015 and the Tobacco Control Regulations in 2019, thereby establishing a formal legal framework for smoke-free environments, tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship (TAPS) restrictions, packaging and labelling requirements, and licensing provisions. On paper, this framework aligns closely with core WHO FCTC obligations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. In practice, however, persistent gaps between legislative provisions and enforcement outcomes remain evident: illicit tobacco trade is widespread, emerging nicotine products are proliferating with limited oversight, and supply-chain controls remain underdeveloped [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA central structural feature of Nigeria's tobacco control architecture is the fragmentation of regulatory and enforcement authority across multiple agencies. The Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) is designated as the Competent Authority under the NTCA, but operational enforcement responsibilities are distributed among law enforcement bodies, environmental health officers, and several supporting institutions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Ministries are primarily designed for policy formulation and coordination rather than for technical product regulation, laboratory-based evaluation, or nationwide market surveillance, which constrains the country's ability to fulfil WHO FCTC obligations related to product contents, ingredient disclosures, and illicit trade control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent decisions adopted at the Eleventh Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP11) to the WHO FCTC and the Fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties (MOP4) to the Illicit Trade Protocol have further elevated expectations around operational capacity, including digital track-and-trace systems and oversight of emerging nicotine products. Within this evolving landscape, the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) represents a potentially underutilized technical regulator, given its nationwide enforcement presence, laboratory infrastructure, port-of-entry inspection capacity, and experience with product registration and pharmaceutical traceability [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper addresses a critical gap in the tobacco control literature for LMICs by focusing on institutional design and regulatory capacity rather than solely on legislative content. Specifically, the study pursues three interrelated objectives:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo map Nigeria's current tobacco control governance architecture against core WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo assess the functional and operational readiness of NAFDAC to assume an expanded mandate for tobacco and nicotine product regulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo develop a context-specific, phased reform pathway that aligns Nigeria's enforcement system with global regulatory best practices while accounting for political and institutional constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"CONCEPTUAL AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis analysis is grounded in an Institutional Governance and Regulatory Capacity framework, which posits that effective policy implementation depends not only on the content of the law but also on the design and operational capacity of the institutions tasked with enforcement[10,11]. Drawing on established concepts in public health governance and regulatory science, the framework emphasizes four interlinked dimensions: legal authority, technical competence, enforcement reach, and insulation from industry interference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThree key analytical pillars underpin this framework. First, institutional fragmentation occurs when regulatory and enforcement responsibilities are dispersed across multiple agencies with overlapping or ambiguous mandates, often resulting in inconsistent enforcement, weak accountability, and duplication of effort [11,12]. Second, regulatory authority refers to the statutory power vested in an agency to perform functions such as product registration, market authorization, quality control, and facility inspections. In tobacco control, the absence of a central authority can allow products to enter the market without systematic oversight. Third, enforcement capacity encompasses the technical and physical resources required to compel compliance, including laboratories, information systems, field offices, port presence, and specialised personnel with investigative and prosecutorial skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe framework suggests that policy effectiveness is maximized when enforcement is centralized or clearly coordinated under a technically competent agency that possesses both the statutory authority to regulate products and the operational capacity for nationwide surveillance and sanctioning[10]. Nigeria\u0026apos;s current configuration, in which the FMoH serves as Competent Authority while NAFDAC retains extensive technical capacity but limited tobacco-specific mandate, represents a classic misalignment between legal authority and operational capability. This fragmented institutional design creates significant gaps that are easily exploited by industry interference, ultimately compromising the integrity of national health policies.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure 1 illustrates the proposed shift from Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s current fragmented, ministry-centric tobacco control enforcement structure to a centralized, NAFDAC-centered technical regulatory model, highlighting the alignment of legal authority, technical capacity, and enforcement reach\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1:\u003c/strong\u003e From fragmented enforcement to a NAFDAC-centered regulatory model for tobacco control in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study is a desk-based qualitative policy and regulatory analysis that treats laws, regulations, institutional mandates, and treaty obligations as the primary units of analysis rather than individual-level health outcomes. It combines comparative legal mapping, thematic policy synthesis, and an implementation-readiness assessment to examine whether Nigeria\u0026apos;s current governance architecture can realistically deliver on WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData sources and selection\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData were drawn exclusively from secondary sources selected to capture legal, institutional, and normative dimensions of tobacco control. Four main categories of documents were included:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Domestic legal and policy instruments:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) 2015\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; National Tobacco Control Regulations 2019\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; NAFDAC Act (Cap N1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Selected national tobacco control policy and enforcement plans where publicly available.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;International treaties and normative guidance:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and associated guidelines.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Official decisions and outcome documents from COP11 (FCTC) and MOP4 (Illicit Trade Protocol).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Institutional and technical documentation:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; WHO implementation reports and technical guidance on tobacco product regulation, supply-chain control, and Article 5.3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Publicly available documents describing NAFDAC\u0026apos;s statutory mandate, organisational structure, laboratory capacity, port-of-entry inspection functions, and digital traceability initiatives (e.g., Mobile Authentication Service and GS1-based pharmaceutical serialisation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Comparative regulatory sources:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026middot; Peer-reviewed literature and official regulatory documentation describing tobacco product regulation models in the United States (FDA), Brazil (ANVISA), Kenya, and South Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDocuments were identified through structured searches of WHO and Nigerian government websites. They targeted searches of PubMed and Google Scholar using combinations of terms such as \u0026ldquo;Nigeria tobacco control\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;FCTC implementation Nigeria\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;NAFDAC enforcement\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;tobacco track-and-trace\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;illicit tobacco trade Nigeria\u0026rdquo;, complemented by snowball sampling from reference lists, consistent with established approaches to legal mapping and health policy implementation reviews\u0026nbsp;[13,14].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalytical approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysis proceeded in three stages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1. Comparative legal mapping:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Provisions related to product regulation, ingredient disclosures, packaging and labelling, and illicit trade were extracted from Nigerian laws and regulations and mapped against WHO FCTC Articles 9, 10, 11, and 15 and relevant Illicit Trade Protocol provisions. The mapping focused on the allocation of regulatory authority, product oversight responsibilities, and enforcement powers across institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2. Thematic policy synthesis:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;An iterative thematic synthesis of WHO guidance, treaty decisions, and peer-reviewed literature identified recurring themes affecting enforcement effectiveness, including institutional fragmentation, supply-chain control, protection from tobacco industry interference, and regulation of emerging nicotine products. Nigerian findings were interpreted in light of these themes to identify structural drivers of implementation gaps.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3. Implementation-readiness assessment:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAn implementation-readiness assessment of NAFDAC was undertaken using a structured matrix of capacity domains: nationwide enforcement presence, port-of-entry inspection capability, laboratory and analytical infrastructure, product registration and market surveillance experience, and digital traceability systems. Each domain was qualitatively rated (limited, moderate, or advanced) based on documentary evidence, with particular attention to parallels between pharmaceutical regulation and potential tobacco control functions. No primary data collection, formal scoring validation, or performance metrics were used. This matrix drew on established readiness and capacity assessment approaches used in health systems, which specify multi-domain frameworks to appraise organizational preparedness for new regulatory functions[15,16]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethodological limitations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis policy analysis is limited by its exclusive reliance on secondary sources and the absence of primary enforcement data or stakeholder interviews. As a result, it cannot directly quantify enforcement performance or capture informal institutional dynamics such as intra-governmental bargaining and tobacco industry strategies. The implementation-readiness assessment of NAFDAC is based on documented mandates and programs, particularly in pharmaceutical regulation, and does not include new data on human resources, budgetary allocation, or internal organisational culture specific to tobacco control. The findings should therefore be interpreted as a structured institutional and regulatory argument that requires future empirical validation through enforcement metrics, cost-effectiveness analyses, and political economy studies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOverview of Nigeria's tobacco control governance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNigeria's tobacco control framework is built primarily on the NTCA 2015 and Tobacco Control Regulations 2019, which collectively address smoke-free environments, TAPS restrictions, packaging and labelling, and licensing of tobacco-related activities. The NTCA serves as the principal mechanism for domestic implementation of WHO FCTC obligations, while the Regulations operationalise key provisions by specifying licensing procedures, health warning requirements, and enforcement protocols [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLegal Framework\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe foundation of Nigeria's tobacco control effort rests on two primary instruments: the National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) of 2015 and the National Tobacco Control Regulations of 2019 [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. The 2015 Act is a comprehensive piece of legislation that covers smoke-free environments, the prohibition of tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship (TAPS), and strict requirements for health warnings, licensing, and product disclosure [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Crucially, the Act serves as the legal mechanism to give effect to Nigeria's international obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). To ensure this Act is functional, the 2019 Regulations operationalise the law by detailing the specific procedures for licensing, the technicalities of health warnings, and the protocols for enforcement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInstitutional Architecture\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnforcement responsibility in Nigeria is currently diffused across a complex, multi-agency structure. The Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) is designated as the Competent Authority, responsible for overall policy and licensing decisions, including packaging and labelling approvals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Policy advice is provided by the National Tobacco Control Committee (NTCC), while operational enforcement is delegated to primary enforcement agencies such as the Police, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and Environmental Health Officers, supported by agencies like the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), Nigeria Customs Service (NCS), and the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Although this multi-agency design promotes multi-sectoral involvement, it creates complex accountability structures and coordination challenges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eFINDINGS: STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL GAPS IN ENFORCEMENT\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis identified five interrelated gaps that constrain effective implementation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e1. Fragmented institutional authority\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnforcement responsibilities are distributed across numerous agencies with overlapping or ambiguous mandates, and no single authority holds a comprehensive remit from production to retail. This fragmentation leads to reactive, inconsistent enforcement across states and weak accountability, as FMoH relies on agencies that often lack specialised training in tobacco law implementation[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e2. Absence of a central product regulator\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnder the NTCA, NAFDAC is explicitly excluded from key tobacco product oversight functions, including product registration and market authorisation. In practice, this means new products and manufacturers can enter the market without systematic pre-market evaluation, and no single authority is empowered to receive and assess ingredient disclosures or mandate facility inspections, limiting Nigeria's ability to meet FCTC Articles 9 and 10.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e3. Weak supply-chain and illicit trade control\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNigeria has not yet implemented a national track-and-trace system required under the Illicit Trade Protocol, and licensing regimes for distributors and retailers remain inconsistent. These weaknesses contribute to a substantial illicit cigarette market; estimates suggest that around a quarter of cigarettes consumed in Nigeria in 2016 were illicit, with continued losses in tax revenue and undermining of health policy goals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e4. Inadequate protection from industry interference (Article 5.3)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation of WHO FCTC Article 5.3 remains limited, with unregulated interactions between government actors and the tobacco industry and widespread use of industry-sponsored corporate social responsibility activities. Transparency rules governing such interactions are weak, and conflict-of-interest mechanisms for policymakers are underdeveloped, increasing the risk that institutional fragmentation will be exploited to delay or dilute enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e5. Regulatory vacuum for emerging nicotine products\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmerging nicotine products such as electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), heated tobacco products, and nicotine pouches are expanding rapidly in Nigerian urban markets but are not clearly covered by existing regulations. These products often enter the market without chemical or device safety oversight and are marketed online and to youth with minimal restriction, while the current architecture lacks the specialised technical capacity to test e-liquids, devices, or emissions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eALIGNMENT WITH WHO FCTC OBLIGATIONS\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the alignment between key WHO FCTC obligations and Nigeria's current institutional capacities, highlighting areas where NAFDAC's existing assets could be leveraged.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlignment between WHO FCTC obligations and Nigeria's institutional capacities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFCTC obligation (Article)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFunctional requirement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent institutional assignment\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence of gap\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting NAFDAC assets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArticle 9 \u0026ndash; Regulation of contents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRoutine chemical testing; product standards; pre-market evaluation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMoH (policy); no designated technical regulator [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo national programme for testing tobacco contents; absence of pre-market registration [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccredited laboratories; experience with pharmaceutical analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArticle 10 \u0026ndash; Regulation of disclosures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReceipt and evaluation of ingredient submissions; secure data systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMoH (policy); no evaluation mechanism [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo central authority mandated to assess disclosure requirements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSystems for regulated product registration and documentation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArticle 11 \u0026ndash; Packaging and labelling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eApproval of health warnings; border and retail monitoring\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMoH (policy); multiple agencies for enforcement[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited systematic monitoring of imported and domestically sold products[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePort inspection mandate; experience enforcing labelling\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eArticle 15 \u0026ndash; Illicit trade \u0026amp; supply-chain control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLicensing, inspections, track-and-trace, data exchange\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple agencies (Customs, Police, FMoH)[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo national digital track-and-trace system; weak licensing[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMobile Authentication Service; GS1-compliant serialization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmerging nicotine products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevice and liquid testing; marketing restrictions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNo designated authority[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegulatory vacuum and rapid market growth[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaboratory capacity for device and chemical analysis\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eINTERNATIONAL REGULATORY MODELS AND LESSONS FOR NIGERIA\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA review of selected international experiences underscores the importance of centralizing technical tobacco regulation in specialized agencies. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) exercises comprehensive authority over tobacco products under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, including pre-market authorization, product standards, and enforcement actions, supported by substantial laboratory and field capacity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. In Brazil, the National Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) plays an analogous role, combining product registration, testing, and market enforcement in a large middle-income setting [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHybrid models in South Africa and Kenya illustrate alternatives in which health ministries retain policy leadership but share or delegate technical functions to specialised agencies, such as revenue authorities or medicines regulators[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]. These experiences suggest that, where ministries lack technical infrastructure, effective implementation depends on formalised collaboration with agencies that possess laboratory capacity, regulatory expertise, and enforcement reach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e summarizes selected international tobacco regulatory models and highlights their institutional configurations, lead technical agencies, and relevance to Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s tobacco control context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSelected international tobacco regulatory models and relevance for Nigeria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInstitutional model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLead technical agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey regulatory instruments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelevance for Nigeria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnited States\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentralised technical regulator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFDA \u0026ndash; Center for Tobacco Products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePre-market authorisation; product standards; enforcement[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDemonstrates feasibility of centralising technical tobacco regulation within a health products agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrazil\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCentralised technical regulator\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eANVISA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProduct registration; laboratory testing; marketing restrictions[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOffers a middle-income analogue for a NAFDAC-led model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSouth Africa\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHybrid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDepartment of Health\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;SARS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealth regulations\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;tax and anti-illicit trade measures[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHighlights need for structured collaboration between health and revenue authorities\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eKenya\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHybrid\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTobacco Control Board\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;Pharmacy and Poisons Board\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHealth policy\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;technical oversight of regulated products[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSuggests a model for formal cooperation between FMoH and a technical agency\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNigeria\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFragmented\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMoH as Competent Authority; multiple enforcement agencies\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy leadership with diffuse enforcement mandates[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndicates limitations of ministry-centric configuration and value of consolidating functions in NAFDAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eNAFDAC'S IMPLEMENTATION READINESS\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e presents an implementation-readiness matrix assessing NAFDAC\u0026rsquo;s current capacity across key regulatory domains relevant to tobacco and nicotine product control. The implementation-readiness assessment indicates that NAFDAC holds several comparative advantages that could be leveraged for tobacco control, albeit with important resource and governance conditions\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation-readiness matrix for NAFDAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCapacity domain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent status\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvidence/examples\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditional requirements for tobacco control\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLaboratory and analytical capacity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvanced\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccredited laboratories; chemical analysis for pharmaceuticals[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelopment of tobacco-specific methods (including ENDS); staff training; quality assurance aligned with WHO guidance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePort-of-entry and field presence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate to advanced\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePort inspections; zonal offices; previous product seizures[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDedicated tobacco inspection teams; integration with Customs risk-profiling and data systems\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNationwide enforcement reach\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePresence in multiple states; experience with product registration enforcement [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpansion of field staff and inspection coverage to retail outlets and informal markets\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDigital traceability\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmerging\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMobile Authentication Service; GS1 serialisation for selected medicines [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdaptation of traceability systems to tobacco products; legal backing for mandatory serialization\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLegal enforcement powers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdvanced\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eStatutory authority to register, seize, and sanction across regulated product categories[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExplicit extension of mandate to tobacco and nicotine products via NTCA amendment and subsidiary regulations\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e provides a visual comparison of implementation-readiness across technical and enforcement domains, demonstrating NAFDAC\u0026rsquo;s stronger operational capacity relative to the Federal Ministry of Health.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eInstitutional design and enforcement effectiveness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings suggest that Nigeria's principal tobacco control constraint lies in institutional design rather than legislative absence, as robust statutory provisions coexist with limited capacity to perform technically demanding functions such as product regulation and supply-chain control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Designating the FMoH as Competent Authority has created a structural mismatch, since ministries are oriented toward policy stewardship rather than laboratory-based evaluation and nationwide enforcement, and these gaps are unlikely to be resolved through coordination mechanisms alone.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConcentrating technical regulatory functions in a specialised agency such as NAFDAC could address several of these gaps by aligning statutory authority with operational capacity, reducing transaction costs in enforcement, and limiting opportunities for industry to exploit institutional fragmentation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. At the same time, health policy leadership and strategic oversight would remain within FMoH, preserving its role in setting normative direction, taxation policy, and broader health system integration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications of evolving treaty obligations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCOP11 and MOP4 have shifted expectations from formal legal compliance to demonstrable operational capacity, particularly in relation to digital track-and-trace systems and oversight of emerging nicotine products[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]International experience shows that well-designed tobacco track-and-trace systems can reduce illicit trade, improve tax collection, and contribute to lower smoking prevalence [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. The Illicit Trade Protocol requires a technically competent authority to manage licensing, inspections, and supply-chain monitoring, functions that extend beyond the remit of a policy-focused ministry and draw directly on NAFDAC's existing strengths in traceability for pharmaceuticals and other regulated products [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e]. Failure to adapt institutional arrangements risks leaving Nigeria increasingly misaligned with global standards and foregoing potential health and fiscal benefits from better control of illicit trade and new nicotine products[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e]. Conversely, a carefully sequenced expansion of NAFDAC's mandate could position Nigeria as a regional leader in tobacco regulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003ePolitical feasibility and implementation risks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpanding NAFDAC's tobacco mandate is politically sensitive and faces several risks. Institutional overburdening is a concern, as NAFDAC already oversees a broad portfolio of food, drugs, and chemicals, and additional responsibilities may dilute core functions without commensurate resources. Political resistance and \"turf wars\" may arise from agencies that perceive a loss of authority, including the FMoH and enforcement bodies currently involved in tobacco control [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, capital and recurrent costs associated with laboratory upgrades, staff training, and traceability infrastructure are likely to be substantial.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMitigation strategies include establishing a ring-fenced Tobacco Control Directorate within NAFDAC with dedicated resources, formalising inter-agency coordination through a National Tobacco Enforcement Task Force, and funding implementation through the Tobacco Control Fund and new digital licensing revenues. Strong Article 5.3 safeguards, including transparency requirements for all industry interactions and conflict-of-interest vetting, are also essential to minimise the risk of industry capture [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Persistent tobacco industry interference, often facilitated by weak implementation of WHO FCTC Article 5.3 and institutional fragmentation, has been shown to delay or dilute tobacco control policies in many LMICs[\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications for other LMICs\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMany LMICs have enacted comprehensive tobacco control laws while retaining fragmented or ministry-centric enforcement arrangements [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. The Nigerian case underscores the value of systematically assessing whether a technically competent authority exists or can be developed, and of aligning legal mandates, resource allocation, and accountability mechanisms with WHO FCTC obligations. While institutional configurations will vary, the core principle of matching regulatory functions with specialized capacity is widely transferable.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eRECOMMENDED REFORM PATHWAY\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eProposed reform pathway and implementation timeline\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA phased reform pathway can help manage political and implementation risks while moving towards a more coherent regulatory architecture. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e outlines a phased reform pathway and implementation timeline for expanding NAFDAC\u0026rsquo;s technical regulatory mandate for tobacco and nicotine products in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eProposed reform pathway and implementation timeline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTimeframe\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAction required\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLead actor\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eExpected outcome\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0\u0026ndash;6 months\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDesignate NAFDAC as co-Competent Authority for tobacco and nicotine products under existing NTCA provisions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFMoH\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImmediate extension of operational authority for product regulation and enforcement\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6\u0026ndash;18 months\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDevelop and roll out regulations for track-and-trace, product registration, and testing protocols for combustible and emerging products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNAFDAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImproved supply-chain control and product oversight\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18\u0026ndash;36 months\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmend NTCA to statutorily recognise NAFDAC as primary technical regulator for tobacco and nicotine products\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational Assembly\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsolidated and durable central technical mandate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhase 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOngoing\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstablish ring-fenced NAFDAC Tobacco Control Directorate; secure sustainable funding; implement Article 5.3 safeguards\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMinistry of Finance, FMoH, NAFDAC\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLong-term institutional sustainability and protection from industry interference\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplementation Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eImplementation should follow a Phased Rollout, prioritizing the national Track-and-Trace System and emerging nicotine products by leveraging NAFDAC's existing traceability expertise. Coordination should be formalised through a National Tobacco Enforcement Task Force, chaired by NAFDAC and including Customs, NDLEA, and the Police.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor sustainability, the NAFDAC Tobacco Control Directorate must be funded through the Tobacco Control Fund and new digital licensing revenues. Finally, Strict Safeguards are essential; mandatory transparency for all industry interactions and conflict-of-interest vetting for policymakers are required to protect policy integrity from tobacco industry interference.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor Nigeria, aligning technical regulation with NAFDAC represents the most feasible strategy to close the gap between international commitments and national public health outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIf only a single reform is politically feasible in the short term, the most impactful step is likely to be the formal designation of NAFDAC as co-Competent Authority for tobacco and nicotine products, coupled with rapid development of technical regulations for product registration and track-and-trace.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eNigeria stands at a crossroads where strong tobacco control legislation is undermined by fragmented enforcement arrangements and unclear division of regulatory responsibilities. The analysis indicates that expanding NAFDAC's mandate to serve as the central technical regulator for tobacco and nicotine products represents a legally feasible and operationally coherent strategy to close existing enforcement gaps. By aligning institutional design with WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations, Nigeria can strengthen its response to illicit trade, better regulate emerging nicotine products, and enhance protection against tobacco industry interference, with potential benefits for both public health and fiscal policy.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLIMITATIONS\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study is based solely on secondary sources and does not incorporate new empirical data on enforcement performance, human resources, or budgetary allocations, nor does it capture the full complexity of political dynamics surrounding institutional reform. The implementation-readiness assessment of NAFDAC is qualitative and illustrative rather than a formal capacity audit, and recommended reforms may encounter unforeseen political or economic constraints. Nevertheless, the findings provide a structured institutional and regulatory analysis that can inform policy debate, guide administrative reform, and support Nigeria's efforts to align its tobacco control architecture with evolving WHO FCTC implementation expectations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Abbreviations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eANVISA\u003c/strong\u003e - Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (National Health Surveillance Agency, Brazil)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCOP\u003c/strong\u003e - Conference of the Parties\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCOP11\u003c/strong\u003e - Eleventh Session of the Conference of the Parties (WHO FCTC)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eENDS\u003c/strong\u003e - Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFCCPC\u003c/strong\u003e - Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFCTC\u003c/strong\u003e - Framework Convention on Tobacco Control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFDA\u003c/strong\u003e - Food and Drug Administration (United States)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFMoH\u003c/strong\u003e - Federal Ministry of Health\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGS1\u003c/strong\u003e - Global Standards One (international supply chain standards organization)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLMIC\u003c/strong\u003e - Low- and Middle-Income Country\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLMICs\u003c/strong\u003e - Low- and Middle-Income Countries\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMAS\u003c/strong\u003e - Mobile Authentication Service\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMOP\u003c/strong\u003e - Meeting of the Parties\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMOP4\u003c/strong\u003e - Fourth Session of the Meeting of the Parties (Illicit Trade Protocol)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNAFDAC\u003c/strong\u003e - National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNCS\u003c/strong\u003e - Nigeria Customs Service\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNDLEA\u003c/strong\u003e - National Drug Law Enforcement Agency\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNSCDC\u003c/strong\u003e - Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNTCA\u003c/strong\u003e - National Tobacco Control Act\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNTCC\u003c/strong\u003e - National Tobacco Control Committee\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSARS\u003c/strong\u003e - South African Revenue Service\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSON\u003c/strong\u003e - Standards Organisation of Nigeria\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTAPS\u003c/strong\u003e - Tobacco Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWHO\u003c/strong\u003e - World Health Organization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWHO FCTC\u003c/strong\u003e - World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot Applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets obtained during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Two authors are employees of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of NAFDAC. NAFDAC had no role in the study design, data analysis, interpretation of findings, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study didn’t receive any funding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConceptualization: S.K.S ; Methodology: S.K.S., A.B.U.; Investigation: R.M., S.K.S.; Formal Analysis: S.K.S., A.B.U.,R.M.,A.Y.A.,I.G.I; Writing – Original Draft: S.K.S., A.B.U.,R.M.,A.Y.A.,I.G.I.; Writing – Review \u0026amp; Editing: S.K.S., A.B.U.,R.M.,A.Y.A.,I.G.I.; Supervision: R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSakthisankaran SM, Sakthipriya D, Swamivelmanickam M. Health Risks Associated with Tobacco Consumption in Humans: An Overview. Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2025 Dec 22]; Available from: https://consensus.app/papers/health-risks-associated-with-tobacco-consumption-in-sakthisankaran-sakthipriya/09cfb23dd0185662859b2f56a2bfa0fd/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. Tobacco [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/tobacco\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWHO. Preventing noncommunicable diseases [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.who.int/multi-media/details/tobacco-kills-8-million-people-every-year\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBandara S, Phiri MM, Magati P, Drope J, Adams A, Hunt M, et al. Contextual factors impacting WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control implementation in Africa\u0026mdash;a scoping review. Health Promot Int. 2024 Dec 1;39(6):daae155.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEgbe CO, Bialous SA, Glantz S. Framework Convention on Tobacco Control Implementation in Nigeria: Lessons for Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019 July 17;21(8):1122\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNeeds assessment mission: a smoke-free Nigeria under the National Tobacco Control Act [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/newsroom/news/item/31-10-2017-needs-assessment-mission-a-smoke-free-nigeria-under-the-national-tobacco-control-act\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTobacco Control Data Initiative Nigeria. Illicit Trade | TCDI Nigeria [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://nigeria.tobaccocontroldata.org/en/home/illicit-trade/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOladepo O, Oluwasanu M, Abiona O. Analysis of tobacco control policies in Nigeria: historical development and application of multi-sectoral action. BMC Public Health. 2018 Aug 15;18(1):959.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Global tobacco control conference concludes with decisions on environment, liability [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 22]. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/newsroom/news/item/22-11-2025-global-tobacco-control-conference-concludes-with-decisions-on-environment-liability\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHughes A, Gleeson D, Legge D, Lin V. Governance and policy capacity in health development and implementation in Australia. Policy Soc. 2015 Sept 1;34(3\u0026ndash;4):229\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaikat S, Seifeldin R, Zhang Y, Nweje M, Shivji S, Schmets G, et al. Governance for public health across health and allied sectors: a scoping review. bmjph [Internet]. 2025 Nov 4 [cited 2025 Dec 28];3(2). Available from: https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/3/2/e003542\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic 2023 [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2023[cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://health.govmu.org/health/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/WHO-Report-on-the-Global-Tobacco-Epidemic-2023.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. IHR benchmark: legal instruments [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://ihrbenchmark.who.int/document/1-legal-instruments\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eErasmus E, Orgill M, Schneider H, Gilson L. Mapping the existing body of health policy implementation research in lower income settings: what is covered and what are the gaps? Health Policy Plan. 2014 Oct 1;29(suppl_3):iii35\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrookings Institution. Figure of the week: Findings from the Brookings Health Governance Capacity report [Internet]. Brookings. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/figure-of-the-week-findings-from-the-brookings-health-governance-capacity-report/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMauco KL, Scott RE, Mars M. Validation of an e-health readiness assessment framework for developing countries. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 June 23;20:575.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFederal Ministry of Health Nigeria. National Tobacco Control enforcement plan [Internet]. Abuja: FMoH; 2024 . [cited 2025 Dec 22]. Available from: https://www.health.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Final-NTC-Enforcement-Plan-18-aug-2024.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUdokanma EE, Ogamba I, Ilo C. A health policy analysis of the implementation of the National Tobacco Control Act in Nigeria. Health Policy Plan. 2021 May 1;36(4):484\u0026ndash;92.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIsip U, Calvert J. Analyzing big tobacco\u0026rsquo;s global youth marketing strategies and factors influencing smoking initiation by Nigeria youths using the theory of triadic influence. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2025 Dec 28];20. Available from: https://consensus.app/papers/analyzing-big-tobacco-%E2%80%99-s-global-youth-marketing-isip-calvert/1951b4ba80e850d59592f049d9e20425/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHiilamo H, Crosbie E, Glantz SA. The evolution of health warning labels on cigarette packs: the role of precedents, and tobacco industry strategies to block diffusion. Tobacco Control. 2014 Jan 1;23(1):e2\u0026ndash;e2.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOwopetu O, Oladeinde O, Esan JO, Iacobelli M, Agaku I, Adebiyi A. Cigarette health warning label compliance in Nigeria: A multi-city observational study. Tobacco Prevention \u0026amp; Cessation [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2025 Dec 28];9. Available from: https://consensus.app/papers/cigarette-health-warning-label-compliance-in-nigeria-a-owopetu-oladeinde/a2b5c7de18b15a94aa631535e16857c0/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKessler RC, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, Benjet C, Bromet EJ, Cardoso G, et al. Trauma and PTSD in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2017;8(sup5):1353383.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUS Food and Drug Administration. About the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP). Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2025 [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/about-center-tobacco-products-ctp\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePortes LH, Machado CV, Turci SRB, Figueiredo VC, Cavalcante TM, Silva VL da CE. Tobacco Control Policies in Brazil: a 30-year assessment. Cien Saude Colet. 2018 June;23(6):1837\u0026ndash;48.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePan American Health Organization.Tobacco Use. Tobacco use [Internet]. Washington (DC): PAHO; [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.paho.org/en/enlace/tobacco-use\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZatoński M, Bertscher A, Gallagher AWA, Matthes BK. Unpacking complexities surrounding tobacco control policy formulation and tobacco industry interference in South Africa: a qualitative study. Health Policy Plan. 2025 May 9;40(5):531\u0026ndash;47.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. Kenya national tobacco control strategic plan 2019\u0026ndash;2023 [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; [cited 2025 Dec 28]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://extranet.who.int/fctcapps/sites/default/files/2023-12/390_Kenya%20National%20TC%20Strategic%20Plan%202019_2023.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eZeller M. FDA regulation of tobacco products [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://www.fdli.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/9-945-Zeller.pdf\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eOwopetu OF, Oladeinde O, Esan JO, Iacobelli M, Agaku I, Adebiyi AO. Cigarette health warning label compliance in Nigeria: A multi-city observational study. Tob Prev Cessation. 2023 May 18;9(May):1\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNational Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control. Mobile Authentication Service (MAS) \u0026ndash; NAFDAC [Internet]. [cited 2025 Dec 28]. Available from: https://nafdac.gov.ng/our-services/pharmacovigilance-post-market-surveillance/mobile-authentication-service-mas/\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEgbe CO, Bialous SA, Glantz S. Role of stakeholders in Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s tobacco control journey after the FCTC: lessons for tobacco control advocacy in low-income and middle-income countries. Tobacco Control. 2019 July 1;28(4):386\u0026ndash;93.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTauras JA. Tobacco control in low-income and middle-income countries: findings from WHO FCTC investment cases. Tob Control. 2024 May;33(Suppl 1):s1\u0026ndash;2.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRoss H, Blecher E. Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products Need Not Hinder Tobacco Tax Policy Reforms and Increases.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDutta S, editor. \u003cem\u003eConfronting illicit tobacco trade: a global review of country experiences\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2019. Technical Report of the World Bank Group Global Tobacco Control Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDutta S, editor. \u003cem\u003eConfronting illicit tobacco trade: a global review of country experiences\u003c/em\u003e. Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2019. Technical Report of the World Bank Group Global Tobacco Control Program.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLee Y, Kim S, Kim MK, Kawachi I, Oh J. Association between Tobacco Industry Interference Index (TIII) and MPOWER measures and adult daily smoking prevalence rate in 30 countries. Global Health. 2024 Jan 3;20:6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Tobacco control, NAFDAC, WHO FCTC, Illicit trade, Regulatory capacity, Nigeria","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8472245/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8472245/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNigeria has adopted comprehensive tobacco control legislation, including the National Tobacco Control Act (NTCA) 2015 and Tobacco Control Regulations 2019, yet continues to experience high tobacco-related morbidity and a substantial illicit cigarette market. Institutional fragmentation and weak enforcement capacity, compounded by evolving obligations under the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and the Protocol to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Tobacco Products, undermine effective implementation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA desk-based qualitative policy and regulatory analysis was conducted using three complementary approaches: (1) comparative legal mapping of Nigeria's tobacco control framework against core WHO FCTC and Illicit Trade Protocol obligations; (2) thematic synthesis of WHO guidance, treaty decisions, and peer-reviewed evidence on institutional arrangements for tobacco regulation; and (3) an implementation-readiness assessment of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC) across key capacity domains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis identified five interrelated structural gaps: fragmented institutional authority; absence of a central product regulator; weak supply-chain and illicit trade control; inadequate protection from tobacco industry interference; and a regulatory vacuum for emerging nicotine products. Nigeria's current ministry-led configuration constrains compliance with WHO FCTC Articles 9, 10, 11, and 15, while NAFDAC already possesses significant laboratory, port-of-entry, and digital traceability capacity developed through pharmaceutical regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eReconfiguring Nigeria's tobacco control architecture to assign NAFDAC a central technical regulatory mandate, while retaining health policy stewardship within the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH), offers a legally feasible and context-appropriate pathway to strengthen enforcement, meet evolving treaty expectations, and reduce tobacco-related harms.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Strengthening Tobacco Control Enforcement in Nigeria: A Policy and Regulatory Analysis Supporting an Expanded Mandate for NAFDAC","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-19 07:55:13","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8472245/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2026-03-23T04:04:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-03-03T05:57:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"167609060090290023948697732668680680790","date":"2026-02-23T14:48:18+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-02-23T06:05:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"97616314079961536587473907987194870750","date":"2026-02-19T14:05:08+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"115052597876851196911588399288403492497","date":"2026-02-17T08:12:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-02-16T11:15:17+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-01-01T08:19:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-12-31T11:08:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-12-31T11:07:36+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Public Health","date":"2025-12-29T10:39:39+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"7e9c97bc-3c69-4cb7-b061-24f831030775","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 19th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-27T16:12:19+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-8472245","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-27589-6","journal":{"identity":"bmc-public-health","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Public Health"},"publishedOn":"2026-04-25 15:59:54","publishedOnDateReadable":"April 25th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-19 07:55:13","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s12889-026-27589-6","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-27589-6","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8472245","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8472245","identity":"rs-8472245","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}