Donor Cuts Expose Gaps In Rivers, Akwa Ibom HIV Response Despite Existing Laws
By JULIET EKANEM
THIS IS THE THIRD & FINAL PART OF THIS REPORT SERIES. CLICK HERE FOR THE 1ST PART & CLICK HERE FOR THE 2ND PART…..
THE gradual withdrawal of international funding for HIV programmes is exposing gaps in the response systems established by Rivers and Akwa Ibom states.
Both states enacted laws designed to prepare their HIV programmes for a future with less donor support. The laws provided for political leadership, domestic financing, community coordination and protection against discrimination.
However, an investigation found limited publicly available evidence that some of those structures operated fully during the period reviewed.
The findings raise concerns about the states’ readiness to sustain HIV services as international assistance declines.
Akwa Ibom Council Faces Questions
Akwa Ibom’s HIV/AIDS Control Agency Law establishes the State Council on HIV/AIDS as the highest policy-making body for the state’s HIV response.
The governor chairs the council, while the deputy governor serves as vice-chairman. Other members include the Secretary to the State Government, Head of Service, relevant commissioners and the Director-General of the State Agency for the Control of AIDS.
The law requires the council to meet at least once every quarter.
However, the Akwa Ibom government did not provide records showing the number of meetings held between January 2023 and June 2026. It also did not provide minutes, resolutions or evidence of actions taken to prepare for declining donor support.
A review of government websites, publications and other public records also found no evidence of the required quarterly meetings during the period examined.
Commissioner for Health Ekem Emmanuel said Governor Umo Eno holds meetings on HIV/AIDS. He referred questions about the number and outcome of such meetings to SACA.
SACA Programme Manager Enobong Akpan acknowledged receiving a detailed enquiry but did not respond despite repeated reminders.
Grassroots Structures Under Scrutiny
The law also created Local Action Committees on HIV/AIDS across Akwa Ibom’s 31 local government areas.
The committees should coordinate prevention, treatment, awareness and community interventions. Local governments should also provide financial support.
Yet interviews with HIV advocates and local stakeholders produced little evidence of active interventions directly implemented by the councils under the statutory framework.
Elizabeth Udo, Akwa Ibom coordinator of the Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria, said attempts to engage local governments had produced poor responses, particularly in areas with high HIV prevalence.
Public scrutiny of local government spending also remains difficult because the councils have not consistently published budgets and other fiscal records.
Rivers Faces Similar Questions
Rivers State has comparable structures under its HIV/AIDS law.
The legislation provides for a Governor’s Committee on AIDS, a State Council on HIV/AIDS and Local Government Action Committees. These bodies were expected to help sustain the response as donor funding declined.
However, the Rivers State Agency for the Control of AIDS did not provide requested records on the operation of the structures.
Programme Manager Naaziga Francis initially requested an in-person interview but declined to answer questions when journalists visited the agency’s Port Harcourt office.
He said the questions could have political consequences.
The state’s political crisis has also affected its health administration. Officials at the Ministry of Health said the state had no commissioner at the time, while the permanent secretary had retired.
Anti-Stigma Protection Remains Incomplete
Funding is not the only concern.
Discrimination continues to affect people living with HIV. Experts say fear of rejection can discourage people from testing, disclosing their status or remaining in treatment.
Akwa Ibom’s House of Assembly first passed an HIV Anti-Stigma Bill in 2021. It lapsed after the previous administration failed to assent to it before the Assembly’s tenure ended.
Lawmakers passed the bill again in September 2024. Almost two years later, the legislation still awaits gubernatorial assent.
Rivers has yet to enact a similar state anti-stigma law.
Peace Okesola, Legal Adviser at Lawyers Alert, said state-level legislation can strengthen public health and human-rights protections by providing clearer implementation and redress mechanisms.
Assembly Promises More Oversight
The Akwa Ibom House of Assembly says it has continued to support the HIV response through budgetary allocations.
Moses Essien, Chairman of the Assembly’s Health Committee, said lawmakers had made financial provisions for HIV/AIDS programmes. He added that agencies must apply for the release of approved funds.
Essien said the committee had received no formal report that approved HIV funds were withheld.
He also promised that lawmakers would engage SACA over the statutory council later in the year.
Regarding the anti-stigma legislation, he said he had reminded Deputy Governor Akon Eyakenyi to draw the governor’s attention to the bill.
He also said the state had created a Local Resource Mobilisation Committee, headed by former Speaker Sam Ikon, to explore domestic funding options.
Beyond Appropriations
The central issue now goes beyond whether governments have written HIV programmes into their laws and budgets.
The critical question is whether those provisions translate into functioning institutions, released funds, community services and effective legal protection.
As donor support declines, patients and advocates face uncertainty over the continuity of services that often depend on community-based interventions.
For people living with HIV, a weak follow-up system can mean a missed treatment appointment goes unnoticed. A lack of support can also leave newly diagnosed patients vulnerable to isolation and discrimination.
The investigation therefore points to a widening gap between laws on paper and implementation on the ground.
Both states have created structures intended to protect their HIV responses from funding shocks. Yet unanswered questions about meetings, spending, local-government involvement and legal protections could test whether those structures can survive as external support continues to shrink.
