By Dr. Malachy Chuma Ochie,
When Governor Peter Mbah assumed office, he made it clear that governance would no longer be ceremonial; it would be structural, systemic, and measurable.
Nowhere is this resolve more evident than in the ongoing overhaul of the health sector in Enugu State. The recent press release by the Enugu State Ministry of Health signals not merely an administrative notice, but a defining moment in the State’s public health governance.
It is a declaration that the era of regulatory laxity, medical impunity, and tolerated quackery is drawing to a close.
At the heart of this intervention lies the Enugu State Health Sector Reform Law 2017, particularly Section 235, which has been reinforced by the National Health Act.
These legal instruments are not ornamental statutes; they provide a robust framework for registration, accreditation, monitoring, and enforcement.
The law is unambiguous in the sense that no health facility or practitioner may operate without due registration, licensing, and periodic renewal. More importantly, the Ministry retains the authority to sanction or shut down facilities that endanger public health.
What the current administration has done is to breathe life into these provisions. The issues identified by the Ministry are deeply troubling.
Numerous private facilities reportedly operate without registration.
Others fail to renew licenses or remit statutory fees. Some exceed their approved scope, such as 10-bed hospitals expanding far beyond licensed capacity, pharmacy shops and laboratories admitting patients, and self-styled “multi-specialty” centres functioning without requisite manpower or infrastructure.
Even more disturbing is the proliferation of unqualified individuals in rural communities posing as doctors and nurses. These are not minor infractions; they are life-and-death violations.
For years, such practices thrived under a culture of weak enforcement. The result was a fragmented health system where standards were negotiable and patient safety was often secondary to profit.
The implications are grave and far-reaching in terms of wrong diagnosis, unsafe procedures, avoidable complications, drug abuse, and preventable deaths.
Beyond physical harm, these practices erode public confidence in the healthcare system, driving citizens toward distrust or medical tourism.
The constitution of a Regulatory Task Team by the Ministry is therefore both timely and strategic. Enforcement is the backbone of reform.
Laws without implementation breed cynicism; regulations without monitoring invite impunity. By mandating inspections across all Local Government Areas, the government is decentralizing accountability and restoring credibility to the system.
The message is unmistakable to the effect that compliance is no longer optional.
Yet, this intervention must be understood within the broader governance philosophy of Peter Mbah. His administration has consistently emphasized systems over slogans.
In education, security, infrastructure, and economic development, the approach has been institutional strengthening rather than episodic gestures.
Health sector regulation fits squarely within this template. A modern economy cannot flourish on a fragile health foundation. Human capital, which is predicated on healthy, productive citizens, is the most critical asset of any state.
Critics may argue that intensified regulation could burden private providers or reduce access, especially in under-served areas. This concern deserves thoughtful engagement. Regulation must not become repression.
However, the false choice between access and standards must be rejected. Poor quality care is not access; it is danger disguised as service. The objective is not to eliminate private participation but to ensure that such participation meets minimum professional and ethical benchmarks.
The role of stakeholders is equally critical. Professional bodies must enforce discipline among members. Community leaders must resist shielding quacks out of sentiment or familiarity. Citizens must verify the credentials of facilities before patronage.
Reform is sustainable only when society internalizes its necessity. The Ministry’s call for collective vigilance recognizes this shared responsibility.
Moreover, enforcement must be accompanied by capacity-building. Genuine facilities struggling with compliance due to resource constraints should receive guidance and reasonable transition timelines.
Digitization of registration processes, transparent fee structures, and public disclosure of accredited facilities will enhance both compliance and public trust.
Reform succeeds when it combines firmness with fairness. What emerges from this moment is a clear proposition: Enugu State is redefining its health governance architecture.
By confronting substandard and illegal practices, the government is prioritizing patient safety over political convenience. It is choosing institutional integrity over transactional compromise. In a country where regulatory enforcement often falters, this stance is noteworthy.
Ultimately, the overhaul of the health sector under Peter Mbah is not merely about closing errant facilities; it is about resetting standards. It is about affirming that the life of every citizen, urban or rural, rich or poor deserves protection under enforceable law.
Matters arising from this reform will test the resolve of the administration, the cooperation of stakeholders, and the maturity of the system.
But one truth stands firm: a health sector governed by rules is the first step toward a healthier, more prosperous Enugu State. In that resolve lies both the challenge and the promise of this new chapter.
