The Joint Health Sector Unions (JOHESU) has issued a scathing critique of the Federal Government’s recent circular on retirement age adjustments in Nigeria’s health sector in Lagos, Nigeria, January 7, 2026.
According to report, in a formal open letter addressed to the Office of the Head of the Civil Service of the Federation (OHCSF), JOHESU warns that the policy disproportionately favors one professional cadre, undermining the principles of equity, teamwork, and operational efficiency essential to multidisciplinary healthcare delivery.
The union’s statement, released yesterday, highlights a perceived discriminatory implementation of a policy originally intended to benefit all health workers uniformly.
“Healthcare delivery in Nigeria demands a multidisciplinary approach,” JOHESU emphasized.
“Any policy elevating one group above others erodes equity, disrupts teamwork, and compromises system-wide efficiency.”
This position underscores JOHESU’s long-standing advocacy for balanced reforms in the sector.
Historical Context of JOHESU’s Advocacy
JOHESU, representing a coalition of health unions including pharmacists, laboratory scientists, nurses, and other non-physician professionals, has championed retirement age increases for over 15 years.
This demand featured prominently in all eight Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) negotiated with the Federal Government between 2014 and 2024.
“It has always been our cardinal demand,” the union asserted, framing the push as a response to critical manpower shortages exacerbated by mandatory retirements at age 60.
Initially, the Federal Ministry of Health resisted these calls, citing fiscal constraints and alignment with global standards.
Professional bodies, particularly those representing physicians, also opposed broad extensions.
However, precedents existed in academic institutions, where non-professorial staff retired at 65 while professors continued until 70.
JOHESU leveraged these disparities during post-strike negotiations following the June 2023 industrial action.
In those talks, JOHESU proposed a structured extension: all health workers to 65 years, with consultants mirroring professors at 70.
“We highlighted inconsistencies in university settings and affiliated teaching hospitals,” the letter noted.
Despite repeated rejections, including as recently as December 2025, persistent advocacy culminated in presidential approval.
This victory, JOHESU claims, stemmed directly from its interventions, marking a hard-won concession after years of strikes and dialogues.
Allegations of Policy Hijacking and Discrimination
JOHESU’s current outrage centers on the post-approval phase.
The union accuses the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare of “hijacking” the implementation process.
Specifically, it alleges the formation of a “manipulative committee” designed to advance selective extensions that primarily benefit physicians.
Under the circular, doctors and certain consultants gain extended service, while pharmacists, radiographers, medical laboratory scientists, and nurses remain capped at 60.
This selectivity, JOHESU argues, creates a two-tier system that fractures workplace harmony.
“Physicians now outlast their multidisciplinary counterparts, leading to knowledge gaps, disrupted care continuity, and heightened burnout among remaining staff,” the letter states.
The union warns of cascading effects: prolonged physician tenures could stifle promotions for juniors.
Exacerbate brain drain among non-physicians, and inflate pension liabilities without proportional service gains.
From an efficiency standpoint, Nigeria’s health sector already grapples with a doctor-to-patient ratio of 1:2,500, far below the World Health Organization’s 1:1,000 benchmark.
JOHESU contends that uneven retirements will worsen this imbalance, as non-physician cadres, who handle 70-80% of routine diagnostics and patient management, exit prematurely.
“Equity ensures no cadre dominates; selective policies breed resentment and inefficiency,” the union posits.
Implications for Healthcare Delivery and Workforce Dynamics
The controversy exposes deeper structural fault lines in Nigeria’s health governance.
Multidisciplinary teams form the backbone of modern healthcare, from emergency responses to chronic disease management.
When policies favor one group, morale plummets, collaboration falters, and patient outcomes suffer.
Historical data from similar disputes, such as the 2017-2018 JOHESU strike, showed service disruptions costing billions in lost productivity and untreated cases.
JOHESU invokes equity principles enshrined in the National Health Act 2014, which mandates fair treatment across cadres.
The union calls for immediate reversal, demanding a reconstituted committee with balanced representation.
“Restore the original intent: uniform extension to 65 for all, 70 for consultants across boards,” it urges.
Failure to comply, JOHESU hints, could precipitate renewed industrial unrest, echoing eight prior MoU breaches.
Economically, the policy’s fiscal prudence is questionable.
Extending service for select groups increases salary outlays, estimated at ₦50-70 billion annually, without addressing recruitment shortfalls.
Nigeria’s health workforce vacancy rate hovers at 40%, per recent Ministry audits.
Broader Policy and Governance Challenges
This episode reflects systemic governance lapses in Nigeria’s public service.
Circulars from the OHCSF should embody inclusivity, yet political capture by dominant lobbies undermines this.
JOHESU accuses physician-led associations of lobbying aggressively post-approval, sidelining broader consultations.
“The Ministry yielded to sectional interests, betraying the presidential directive,” the letter charges.
Comparatively, countries like the UK and Canada implement tenure extensions via collective bargaining, ensuring parity.
Precedents abound: the 2022 Supreme Court ruling on university retirement ages affirmed equity over cadre privileges.
Stakeholders beyond JOHESU echo these concerns.
The Nigerian Medical Association (NMA), while supportive of physician extensions, advocates dialogue to avert escalation.
Patient advocacy groups, like the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, warn of access barriers if non-physician shortages intensify.
Recommendations and Path Forward
To resolve this impasse, JOHESU proposes a tripartite framework: government, unions, and professional bodies reconvene under OHCSF mediation.
Key actions include:
-
Immediate Suspension: Halt selective implementation pending review.
-
Inclusive Committee: Mandate 50% non-physician representation.
-
Data-Driven Extension: Base durations on manpower audits, not lobbying.
-
Legislative Backing: Enact a Health Workforce Act codifying uniform policies.
-
Capacity Building: Pair extensions with aggressive recruitment and training.
The Federal Government must prioritize unity.
Health Minister Prof. Ali Pate, tasked with reforms under President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, faces a litmus test.
Neglect risks not just strikes, but systemic collapse amid Nigeria’s 200,000+ annual maternal deaths and infectious disease burdens.
Conclusion: Toward Equitable Health Reforms
JOHESU’s fault-finding transcends grievance; it champions a resilient health system.
Selective policies erode trust, mirroring failures in education and aviation sectors where cadre favoritism bred dysfunction.
Nigeria cannot afford division when universal health coverage remains elusive.
As negotiations loom, the ball lies with the OHCSF. A swift, equitable resolution will affirm commitment to multidisciplinary excellence.
Anything less invites peril.
Policymakers must heed.
Health workers united deliver healthier nations.
